Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement: Difference between revisions
→{{User|RodentofDeath}}: better clarify this |
|||
Line 22: | Line 22: | ||
74.220.203.56 adds an RFC similar to the one added a few days ago by {{checkip|202.69.172.48}}, which was [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Arbitration_enforcement&diff=prev&oldid=190243470#RodentofDeath.C2.A0.28talk.C2.A0.C2.B7_contribs.29 blocked] for being [[WP:Requests for arbitration/RodentofDeath#RodentofDeath banned|banned]] user RodentofDeath. Incidentally, RodentofDeath [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/RodentofDeath/Workshop&diff=177578594&oldid=177577989 self-identifies as a traveler who can post from geographically varying IP addresses]. / [[User:Edgarde|edg]]<small> [[User_talk:Edgarde|☺]] [[Special:Contributions/Edgarde|☭]]</small> 21:08, 14 February 2008 (UTC) |
74.220.203.56 adds an RFC similar to the one added a few days ago by {{checkip|202.69.172.48}}, which was [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Arbitration_enforcement&diff=prev&oldid=190243470#RodentofDeath.C2.A0.28talk.C2.A0.C2.B7_contribs.29 blocked] for being [[WP:Requests for arbitration/RodentofDeath#RodentofDeath banned|banned]] user RodentofDeath. Incidentally, RodentofDeath [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/RodentofDeath/Workshop&diff=177578594&oldid=177577989 self-identifies as a traveler who can post from geographically varying IP addresses]. / [[User:Edgarde|edg]]<small> [[User_talk:Edgarde|☺]] [[Special:Contributions/Edgarde|☭]]</small> 21:08, 14 February 2008 (UTC) |
||
:Contribs show no edits to an RFC by either IP. <span style="font-family: verdana;"> — [[User:Rlevse|<span style="color:#060;">'''''R''levse'''</span>]] • [[User_talk:Rlevse|<span style="color:#990;">Talk</span>]] • </span> 02:11, 16 February 2008 (UTC) |
:Contribs show no edits to an RFC by either IP. <span style="font-family: verdana;"> — [[User:Rlevse|<span style="color:#060;">'''''R''levse'''</span>]] • [[User_talk:Rlevse|<span style="color:#990;">Talk</span>]] • </span> 02:11, 16 February 2008 (UTC) |
||
::Correct. Edits are to [[Talk:Human trafficking in Angeles City]]. 74.220.203.56 is resuming a campaign started |
::Correct. Edits are to [[Talk:Human trafficking in Angeles City]]. 74.220.203.56 is resuming a campaign started by 202.69.172.48, which is pretty obviously RodentofDeath. Identical request with substitute language. / [[User:Edgarde|edg]]<small> [[User_talk:Edgarde|☺]] [[Special:Contributions/Edgarde|☭]]</small> 08:19, 16 February 2008 (UTC) |
||
== {{user|Kékrōps}} == |
== {{user|Kékrōps}} == |
Revision as of 08:22, 16 February 2008
For appeals: create a new section and use the template {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}}
See also: Logged AE sanctions
Important information Please use this page only to:
For all other problems, including content disagreements or the enforcement of community-imposed sanctions, please use the other fora described in the dispute resolution process. To appeal Arbitration Committee decisions, please use the clarification and amendment noticeboard. Only autoconfirmed users may file enforcement requests here; requests filed by IPs or accounts less than four days old or with less than 10 edits will be removed. All users are welcome to comment on requests except where doing so would violate an active restriction (such as an extended-confirmed restriction). If you make an enforcement request or comment on a request, your own conduct may be examined as well, and you may be sanctioned for it. Enforcement requests and statements in response to them may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. (Word Count Tool) Statements must be made in separate sections. Non-compliant contributions may be removed or shortened by administrators. Disruptive contributions such as personal attacks, or groundless or vexatious complaints, may result in blocks or other sanctions. To make an enforcement request, click on the link above this box and supply all required information. Incomplete requests may be ignored. Requests reporting diffs older than one week may be declined as stale. To appeal a contentious topic restriction or other enforcement decision, please create a new section and use the template {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}}.
|
Edit this section for new requests
- Add new requests to the top of the page. Old requests will be automatically archived off the bottom three days after the last time stamp.
Jewish Neighborhoods versus Israeli Settlements of Jerusalem
For excessive reverts on related articles (Pisgat Ze'ev, Gilo, Ramot, Har Homa, Neve Yaakov), Colourinthemeaning (talk · contribs), ILike2BeAnonymous (talk · contribs), Robertert (talk · contribs), Gilabrand (talk · contribs), and possibly other users upon examination (needless to say, anyone else reverting on this set of articles, is at risk of being added), are, for the next month, placed on a one-(talk page obligatory)-rr on any Jerusalem-related entry. We are not going to have this multiple-entry revert war go on, indefinitely. I gotta step out now, but I will give this formula further thought later. Comment below, but please keep them brief. Long winded debate will be aggressively redacted. Many thanks. El_C 23:29, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
- RodentofDeath (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
74.220.203.56 adds an RFC similar to the one added a few days ago by blocked for being banned user RodentofDeath. Incidentally, RodentofDeath self-identifies as a traveler who can post from geographically varying IP addresses. / edg ☺ ☭ 21:08, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
, which was- Contribs show no edits to an RFC by either IP. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:11, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
- Correct. Edits are to Talk:Human trafficking in Angeles City. 74.220.203.56 is resuming a campaign started by 202.69.172.48, which is pretty obviously RodentofDeath. Identical request with substitute language. / edg ☺ ☭ 08:19, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Kékrōps (talk · contribs) was recently placed under an 1r/d revert parole under WP:ARBMAC by Moreschi, and promptly blocked for a breach of it a few days after. Now, two days after his coming back from that block, I see him revert-warring on talk pages [1], [2]. He was also continuing various slow revert wars across several articles yesterday, while sticking with 1r/d, yet ignoring the requirement of accompanying talk page discussion here [3], [4], [5]. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:57, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
- Excuse me, but I was not aware that restoring a comment of mine, removed by another user on a third party's talk page, constituted a violation of any revert parole. To me, having my comments deleted is a simple case of obvious vandalism. Regarding my other reversions, they were either clearly explained in my edit summaries as a straightforward enforcement of WP:MOSMAC, thus not requiring further explanation on the talk pages, or a restoration of an administrator's version that had been vandalised. As for my recent block, I believe it was unjustified. It was not a content dispute; I was simply reverting the obviously misleading claim that consensus had been achieved on the use of "Macedonia" in country templates, when in fact the matter was still being debated by several editors on the relevant talk page. ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 07:15, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
- Being "an administrator's version" is nothing that confers a version any special degree of authority, and makes reverting to it any less a part of revert warring. I suppose you are referring to this one [6] - that didn't even have an edit summary, and the edit you reverted was most certainly not vandalism. You've been here long enough to know all these things. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:39, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
- I guess we must have different interpretations of "vandalism", then. If removing a long-standing note that specifically restricts the scope of a template, in order to facilitate a POV edit, is not vandalism, what is it? I remind you that this was a note established by consensus. ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 07:49, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
- The disputed user talk page comments ([7], [8]) strike me as being both provocative and unnecessary. Fut. Perf. had asked for a translation, not a political commentary, and the comments aren't a good idea as far as Wikipedia:Civility is concerned. I note that WP:CIV authorises the removal of uncivil comments so it seems rather unwise to twice revert such a removal, particularly in the light of the clearly expressed reason for removing it prior to the second revert. Concerning this reversion [9], Kekrops has a point although it was arguably a clumsily done reversion (it certainly should have had an edit summary). The version that he reverted to is essentially one that's been in place since October 2006 ([10]) and there's a long-standing convention that "countries" templates don't list unrecognised territories (compare Template:Countries of Europe with Template:Countries and territories of the Middle East, which has a wider scope). We may need to change the scope of Template:Countries of Europe and its subordinate templates to encompass territories, but that's a discussion that needs to take place elsewhere before European territories start getting listed in templates. Personally, I would have reverted that edit as well. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:16, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
- Is using racist epithets against other ethnic groups, albeit in another language, acceptable according to Wikipedia:Civility? Why haven't these editors been sanctioned for calling Bulgarians "Tatars" and Greeks "sub-saharans"? Another editor has even tried to defend them by denying that they implied inferiority and instead accused me of racism for suggesting that they did, as well as telling me to "shut up" in Spanish in the edit summary. I'm finding it very hard to assume good faith here. ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 08:18, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
- Translation is on Fut. Perf's talk page. And Kékrōps seems to have a history of racism, see user talk:Kékrōps#Racist! and User talk:Kékrōps#Marcos Baghdatis. Both times his response to accusations was "Piss off". BalkanFever 11:13, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
- The behaviour towards Kekrops, especially by admin Fut.Perf. is a blatant case of double standards, if you see Fut.Perf.'s behaviour towards BalkanFever. In one case he's quick to ban (or rather refer the ban to Moreschi), in the other case he's the first to stand in support and just offer friendly advice Now I might be biased and consider that BalkanFever is much more provocative than Kekrops, but let's for a moment consider that they are both equally provocative and then monitor the admins behaviour towards them. I invite any third party to do exactly that.-- Avg 18:40, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for pointing me to that talk page discussion. From my reading of it, Raso mk and MacedonianBoy had called Bulgarians and Greeks "Tatars" and "sub-saharans" respectively; you were advising MacedonianBoy to avoid using such language because it was racist and would give other users the chance to complain. In response, Kekrops posted the comments that you twice removed and he twice reverted ([11]). Is that correct? If so, my take on it is as follows: Kekrops was factually correct to criticize MacedonianBoy's language as basically racist, but he was unwise to cause unnecessary aggravation by posting inflammatory comments, and doubly unwise to abuse reversion to restore his comments after your objections. You were right to caution MacedonianBoy against using language that could give offence, but it wasn't the best idea in the circumstances for you to remove Kekrops' comments (leave that to MacedonianBoy, it's his talk page). I think the two of you need to be more careful about the way you deal with each other - don't remove each others' comments, don't abuse reversion and think before you post. If it's not necessary to post something, don't post it. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:17, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
- Yes. But the reason I removed it was because of the unnecessary aggravation. I still consider that as Kekrops' original purpose. After calming MacedonianBoy down, and successfully persuading him to not make offensive comments any more, I honestly felt that Kekrops' comments would send the whole situation back to square one. BalkanFever 08:09, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
- If it's so obvious, why did I translate his comments in the first place? You were not asked to clarify anything - 1) because you do not understand the Macedonian language, and 2) because Future Perfect can draw conclusions from the translation himself. BalkanFever 02:34, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
- I do not wish to advocate Kekrops position or something, but I think he has hit a few spots here. I noticed he not only got a revert parole, but he might be endangered by a lengthy block. So what I think is - this would be quite unfair - yeah I know that Kekrops is here from a long time and should have got familiar with the rules by now, and that we should always assume good faith (if that's possible for someone that has a Userbox "This user does not believe in Greek history" - whatever that has to mean - its his right to have such a box after all), but then is there any particular reason as to why the other user didn't get any block? And BalkanFever's two edit-wars on Vergina Sun and United Macedonia passed on unnoticed - he was not even warned for it and yet the topics are well within the Balkan's peremeter. I'd understand Kekrops and the other Greek editors feeling a little frustrated. --Laveol T 21:28, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
- It's funny that you don't mention the other guy who was involved - User:The Cat and the Owl (If you are interested in userboxes, check that out ;-)). I really don't see what blocking MacedonianBoy could have achieved - the comments were made on his talk page, which he would have been allowed to edit anyway while blocked. Not to mention he was unaware of WP:ARBMAC at the time. BalkanFever 02:34, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
User has violated the Decorum principals, specifically 'personal attack', 'incivility', and 'assumption of bad faith' with the following edit summary and diff:
- "Mr POV pusher himself"
- "the biggest POV pusher around" - пﮟოьεԻ 57, 16:00, 13 February 2008.
Requesting a retraction and apology or administrative action. JaakobouChalk Talk 16:07, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- I'm certainly not going to apologise. I might have WP:AGF a year ago, but your contributions make it quite clear that you are a POV pusher; as evidenced here. пﮟოьεԻ 57 16:11, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- The Arbcom ended a month ago with no action taken against either of us. I believe that bad faith assumptions and personal attacks are detrimental to the Israeli-Palestiian articles and to the project in general. JaakobouChalk Talk 16:24, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- There was no action taken against me because I wasn't an involved party, and I have no idea why there was no action taken against you given the weight of evidence provided my myself and several other editors. пﮟოьεԻ 57 16:20, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- Your link is misleading as you were certainly mentioned in the presented evidence but this is entirely germane to the reason I posted this complaint. JaakobouChalk Talk 16:27, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- I have no idea on how your comment relates to this complaint about a personal attack, but I'd be interested in resolving the old disputes and avoiding future similar attacks in the future. I think the best solution would be a retraction (and maybe even an apology) so that we can move forward, but I don't see that you're interested in leaving the past in the past. JaakobouChalk Talk 16:36, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- Nickhh is not the person making the "Mr POV pusher himself" comment.
- I'm requesting a retraction. JaakobouChalk Talk 16:50, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- Links should always be to the final decision in a case, not the proposed decision. The final decision is at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles#Final decision. I, who read the enforcement definition of "Uninvolved administrators" very stringently, defer evaluation of the situation to other administrators here. Frankly, though, I think the complainant deserves close scrutiny and am certain they are not an uninvolved bystander. GRBerry 17:31, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- I also will not consider myself an "uninvolved administrator" by a stringent definition, since I am currently working with Jaakobou on a different Palestine-related article. However, it would seem to me that the operative part of remedy 1 of that case is "despite being warned, repeatedly or seriously fails". 1) Is there evidence that the user has been warned that his behavior is inappropriate? 2) Is there evidence that his behavior entails serious failings after said warning? If so, let's see it, please. - Revolving Bugbear 21:50, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- I can live with a retraction (and hopefully an apology), but Number 57 just repeats the same "he's POV!!!" vindication of the insulting comment. JaakobouChalk Talk 23:01, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
There are only quotes and case decision links here. Both sides please provide pertinent DIFFS. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:14, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
- I would say that Jaakobou's repeated reinsertion of a huge criticism section to the article on left-wing journalist Gideon Levy ([12][13][14][15][16] - at one stage the criticism section amounted to more than two thirds of the article's length) was a clear violation of WP:NPOV#Undue weight, and thus a good basis for pointing out that he is a POV pusher. пﮟოьεԻ 57 11:31, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
- My complaint here
- Has nothing to do with a months old argument from October that Number 57 has etched to his memory (similar opposite examples exist but are germane). Number 57's old notes only show that he is an involved admin, who refuses to let go of very old disputes, and therefore should not pertain to be neutral.
- On point, Personal attacks and assumptions of bad faith are a violation of the Arbcom final decision and as long as he does not post an ANI or AE notice about recent activity; Number 57 should avoid making comments while reminiscing about conflicts we had months ago.
- My request is a retraction (and hopefully an apology) or administrative action.
- -- JaakobouChalk Talk 12:28, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
- Number57-that's from 5 months ago. Anything more recent?
- Jaakobou-you have not provided diffs of your allegations of 57's incivility and personal attacks. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:16, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
- I may be able to help. How about this whole section, written by Jaakobou more or less in its entirety, and last amended only a couple of days ago? Or this factual error which happily meets a POV that suits. Or this, in total breach of a recent RfC? Can I also refer to several trivial and vexatious posts complaining about the actions of other editors on this very page, including this one and the one below? --Nickhh (talk) 22:46, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
- — Rlevse,
- There is a single recent diff of the POV charges issue I've raised here, and other similar comments go back about a month (Arbcom days) or more.
- The diffs presented by Number 57 and Nickhh, are misleading. They pick single edits out of their content based arguments. The "worst" example, Mar Saba, I've already admitted was a good faith error and my error was nicely resolved by ChrisO who corrected it, and actually made a small error of his own which I in turn corrected and all was well:
- "thanks for the clarification!" - ChrisO, 01:05, 2 February 2008.
- Mar Saba relevant discussion (if you're interested): [17].
- — Rlevse,
- My problem is that Number 57, who is an admin, sees nothing wrong with holding grudges and making these statements (self-justified "the biggest POV pusher around..I want you banned" charges); and he's promoting bad behavior from non admins who are emboldened by his comments. see this recent comment:
- "Get over yourself. It's like dealing with a sexually frustrated and incontinent adolescent." Nickhh, 23:18, 14 February 2008.
- My problem is that Number 57, who is an admin, sees nothing wrong with holding grudges and making these statements (self-justified "the biggest POV pusher around..I want you banned" charges); and he's promoting bad behavior from non admins who are emboldened by his comments. see this recent comment:
- I don't see a good reason that a highly involved admin will point fingers like Number 57 did. I believe it is not only a violation of the Arbcom Final decisions but that it promotes similar conduct from non-admins. I've initially requested a retraction since there was only a single recent such comment; but I don't see any sign that Number 57 might scale back. JaakobouChalk Talk 04:25, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
- If my entire purpose is as Number 57 proffeses, then I would not be writing 95% of Haim Farhi, retouching Image:Peasant Family of Ramallah 1900-1910.jpg (used as the main image for all the Palestinian articles) and Image:FatehMilitia.jpg, working to fix problems on Yemenite Jews etc. etc.
- I've already shown on the Arbcom that Number 57 has violated WP:3RR and WP:TE himself, and this entire discussion is not about content, but rather violations of the Arbcom decisions, which Number 57 refuses to recognize.
- To be specific, this comment is a violation of the Decorum Principals. JaakobouChalk Talk 11:26, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
- So you have made 10 edits to Haim Farhi; kinda pales into comparison with 182 edits on Battle of Jenin, 92 on Media coverage of the Arab-Israeli conflict and 71 on Muhammad al-Durrah. In fact every single one of your 15 most-edited articles are controversial Israel-Palestinian ones [23]. In reply to your other points (a) I was asked to provide evidence to back up my claim, and (b) in the "evidence" you link to, you only claimed that I violated WP:3RR, so now trying to claim to have shown that I violated WP:TE seems to be a little bizaare (though is in line with your standard attempts to devalue criticism against your behaviour by attacking the criticiser).
- Anyway, this will be my last reply to this farce, as quite frankly I have better things to do on Wikipedia (i.e. constructively editing articles) than this. пﮟოьεԻ 57 11:33, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
- Since a retraction request of the uncivil personal attack was rejected by Number 57, I request some form of administrative action that will hopefully prevent future similar "better things to do on Wikipedia" contributions. JaakobouChalk Talk 12:03, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Related case: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles.
- Note: Nickhh included here - Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Palestine-Israel_articles#Statement_by_Jaakobou. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaakobou (talk • contribs) 08:36, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Between January 29 and February 11 (two weeks) Nickhh (talk · contribs) has made edits to a total of 7 different articles, on 5 of them he made reverts on my work, and 4 of those 5 were articles the editor has never touched before.
|
Following established editors to articles you've never worked on and reverting them is a violation of the Decorum principals, specifically, WP:STALK and WP:POINT (Saeb Erekat).
With respect, JaakobouChalk Talk 08:27, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- Is this a test to see if I "stalk" you here too? Anyway I suppose I have, by your terminology. You seem to be missing a few crucial points though -
- 1) I was never a party in the arbitration, nor was I even notified it was taking place. Arguably I should have been, but that's a different point. The fact that you mentioned my name in one of your posts during the arbitration means nothing;
- 2) On top of that, you have failed to notify me that you have posted this complaint about me, which seems a bit underhand;
- 3) Only one of the above diffs is a complete revert of a recent edit of yours [oops, sorry, two of them in fact]. You had made that edit unilaterally, without discussing it, when there was a major talk page debate underway about the paragraph in question.
- 4) The other changes were of information that was manifestly incorrect, eg that Napoleon invaded "Israel", or that Mar Saba was "in Israel". You have since acknowledged those errors, so it seems a little rich to now Wikilawyer against me as if I'm the one who did something wrong here.
- 5) Per the above, considering that you seemed to be ranging around various articles trying to change standard terminology relating to Israel & Palestine, I was perfectly entitled to have a look at what articles you were trying to do that in. And then remove any related errors when I found them. As it happens, I had in fact edited on or at least been aware of most of the articles already.
- You've provided no evidence a) that I have deliberately stalked you or followed you to a large number of articles, b) that I have reverted any of your edits for the sake of it or c) that any of the edits I have made were incorrect. So what is the point here? The fact that you've posted this complaint says way more about you than it does about me. --Nickhh (talk) 14:32, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- Interestingly, I've also just noticed that you've posted an edited version of my contributions history here, removing every entry showing I discussed several of the issues on talk pages, and actually refrained from making some edits. You have not made clear that this is what you have done. --Nickhh (talk) 14:57, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- His edits look fine to me. He is only correcting POV edits (i.e. those claiming that East Jerusalem is in Israel [24] or that the West Bank is part of Israel [25]), being more factually corrent (e.g. that the area was referred to as Palestine at the time [26]) and removing OR commentary [27]. What is more worrying is how the facts that he has corrected got in in the first place. пﮟოьεԻ 57 15:03, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- Number 57's comment might be misleading as he makes an incorrect content based assesment and inserts a link to Tomb of Samuel, which is not one of the 4-5 mentioned articles.
- The reason I posted, is that Nickhh, an editor connected with the Arbcom, was following me to 4 new articles and making points on Saeb Erekat. diff JaakobouChalk Talk 15:48, 13 February 2008 (UTC) added wikilink 15:51, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
I would go into more detail explaining each edit you've raised one by one, but a) I don't see why I should have to since they are all fairly obviously legitimate edits, and b) in any event you're undermining your own case every time you open your mouth here to slag me or other editors off. So I'll just leave you to get on with that. Enjoy --Nickhh (talk) 15:48, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- I believe this comment to be in violation of the Decorum principals, specifically it is a user directed personal attack. Regardless, I my complaint was for being followed around and point making. JaakobouChalk Talk 16:01, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Nickhh, Why are you still persisting to follow me, now to a 5th article you never touched before, despite the AE submission? (See: Nickhh User Contributions-List of Israeli assassinations)
- Using the talk page instead of the article page might feel right.
- However, when accompanied by tendentiousness it seems like continuation of following after [an editor] to other multiple articles with activity meant for causing annoyance or distress.:
- "Israel engages in this sort of activity is because it's a vicious, terrorist state" - Nickhh, 18:06, 13 February 2008.
-- JaakobouChalk Talk 20:10, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Oh, and for your benefit and the benefit of anyone else who's interested, here is a direct (and complete) quote from the WP:STALK policy that you've rather simplistically accused me of breaching (emphasis added).
Wikistalking refers to the act of following an editor to another article to continue disruption.
The term "wiki-stalking" has been coined to describe following a contributor around the wiki, editing the same articles as the target, with the intent of causing annoyance or distress to another contributor.
Reading another user's contribution log is not in itself harassment; those logs are public for good reason. In particular, proper use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) fixing errors or violations of Wikipedia policy, or correcting related problems on multiple articles (in fact, such practices are recommended both for Recent changes patrol and WikiProject Spam). The important part is the disruption — disruption is considered harmful. If "following another user around" is accompanied by tendentiousness, personal attacks, or other disruptive behavior, it may become a very serious matter.
The only thing you have even the slightest grounds for even being mildly concerned about is the edit summary on Saeb Erekat (the content of the edit itself is easily justified), which I self reverted within one minute. Thanks. --Nickhh (talk) 22:00, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- For starters, I don't believe your attack on my country was a great contribution and I was offended by it. And secondly, you clearly followed me to yet another article you never edited before, despite the AE notice being opened. JaakobouChalk Talk 22:35, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- p.s. using "Unless you are very stupid" in your comments is something you should at least try to avoid. JaakobouChalk Talk 22:36, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- I'm offended by this direct insult. JaakobouChalk Talk 11:17, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
offtopic
Yes, and we know that my name was only mentioned in the case because you felt moved to attempt to discredit my evidence regarding your long-term POV pushing. If someone finds a POV pusher, they are fully entitled to go and correct them wherever they have edited. With regards to the Tomb of Samuel, why did you bother including it in the evidence above if you don't want to mention it? пﮟოьεԻ 57 15:33, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- I changed my earlier comment, and disagree with "the reason" your name got involved. From my perspective, it got involved since you wanted me banned from Middle East articles.
- "I would suggest a Middle East politics topic ban. пﮟოьεԻ 57 19:18, 6 January 2008 (UTC)".
- Please don't comment in the future on complaints I post on other editors, since you're not a neutral editor.
- -- JaakobouChalk Talk 15:43, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- Your position on Israeli matters is unrelated to the note that you are non neutral when I'm involved. I figured you'd understand the conflict of interests and stay away from making user directed insults. JaakobouChalk Talk 16:33, 13 February 2008 (UTC)