Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 17:48, 29 April 2008

Click here to add a new enforcement request
For appeals: create a new section and use the template {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}}
See also: Logged AE sanctions

Important information

Shortcuts

Please use this page only to:

request administrative action against editors violating a remedy (not merely a principle) or an injunction in an Arbitration Committee decision, or a contentious topic restriction imposed by an administrator,
request contentious topic restrictions against previously alerted editors who engage in misconduct in a topic area designated as a contentious topic,
request page restrictions (e.g. revert restrictions) on pages that are being disrupted in topic areas designated as contentious topics, or
appeal arbitration enforcement actions (including contentious topic restrictions) to uninvolved administrators.

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}}.

Appeals and administrator modifications of contentious topics restrictions

The Arbitration Committee procedures relating to modifications of contentious topic restrictions state the following:

All contentious topic restrictions (and logged warnings) may be appealed. Only the restricted editor may appeal an editor restriction. Any editor may appeal a page restriction.

The appeal process has three possible stages. An editor appealing a restriction may:

ask the administrator who first made the contentious topic restrictions (the "enforcing administrator") to reconsider their original decision;
request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators' noticeboard ("AN"); and
submit a request for amendment ("ARCA"). If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email.

Appeals submitted at AE or AN must be submitted using the applicable template.

A rough consensus of administrators at AE or editors at AN may specify a period of up to one year during which no appeals (other than an appeal to ARCA) may be submitted.

Changing or revoking a contentious topic restriction

An administrator may only modify or revoke a contentious topic restriction if a formal appeal is successful or if one of the following exceptions applies:

The administrator who originally imposed the contentious topic restriction (the "enforcing administrator") affirmatively consents to the change,^[a] or is no longer an administrator;^[b] or
The contentious topic restriction was imposed (or last renewed) more than a year ago and:
- the restriction was imposed by a single administrator, or
- the restriction was an indefinite block.

A formal appeal is successful only if one of the following agrees with revoking or changing the contentious topic restriction:

a clear consensus of uninvolved administrators at AE,
a clear consensus of uninvolved editors at AN,
a majority of the Arbitration Committee, acting through a motion at ARCA.

Any administrator who revokes or changes a contentious topic restriction out of process (i.e. without the above conditions being met) may, at the discretion of the Arbitration Committee, be desysopped.

Standard of review
On community review

Uninvolved administrators at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") and uninvolved editors at the administrators' noticeboard ("AN") should revoke or modify a contentious topic restriction on appeal if:

the action was inconsistent with the contentious topics procedure or applicable policy (i.e. the action was out of process),
the action was not reasonably necessary to prevent damage or disruption when first imposed, or
the action is no longer reasonably necessary to prevent damage or disruption.

On Arbitration Committee review

Arbitrators hearing an appeal at a request for amendment ("ARCA") will generally overturn a contentious topic restriction only if:

the action was inconsistent with the contentious topics procedure or applicable policy (i.e. the action was out of process),
the action represents an unreasonable exercise of administrative enforcement discretion, or
compelling circumstances warrant the full Committee's action.

^ The administrator may indicate consent at any time before, during, or after imposition of the restriction.
^ This criterion does not apply if the original action was imposed as a result of rough consensus at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, as there would be no single enforcing administrator.

Appeals and administrator modifications of non-contentious topics sanctions

The Arbitration Committee procedures relating to modifications and appeals state:

Appeals by sanctioned editors

Appeals may be made only by the editor under sanction and only for a currently active sanction. Requests for modification of page restrictions may be made by any editor. The process has three possible stages (see "Important notes" below). The editor may:

ask the enforcing administrator to reconsider their original decision;
request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators’ noticeboard ("AN"); and
submit a request for amendment at the amendment requests page ("ARCA"). If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email through Special:EmailUser/Arbitration Committee (or, if email access is revoked, to arbcom-enwikimedia.org).

Modifications by administrators

No administrator may modify or remove a sanction placed by another administrator without:

the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or
prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" below).

Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped.

Nothing in this section prevents an administrator from replacing an existing sanction issued by another administrator with a new sanction if fresh misconduct has taken place after the existing sanction was applied.

Administrators are free to modify sanctions placed by former administrators – that is, editors who do not have the administrator permission enabled (due to a temporary or permanent relinquishment or desysop) – without regard to the requirements of this section. If an administrator modifies a sanction placed by a former administrator, the administrator who made the modification becomes the "enforcing administrator". If a former administrator regains the tools, the provisions of this section again apply to their unmodified enforcement actions.

Important notes:

For a request to succeed, either

(i) the clear and substantial consensus of (a) uninvolved administrators at AE or (b) uninvolved editors at AN or

(ii) a passing motion of arbitrators at ARCA

is required. If consensus at AE or AN is unclear, the status quo prevails.

While asking the enforcing administrator and seeking reviews at AN or AE are not mandatory prior to seeking a decision from the committee, once the committee has reviewed a request, further substantive review at any forum is barred. The sole exception is editors under an active sanction who may still request an easing or removal of the sanction on the grounds that said sanction is no longer needed, but such requests may only be made once every six months, or whatever longer period the committee may specify.
These provisions apply only to contentious topic restrictions placed by administrators and to blocks placed by administrators to enforce arbitration case decisions. They do not apply to sanctions directly authorized by the committee, and enacted either by arbitrators or by arbitration clerks, or to special functionary blocks of whatever nature.
All actions designated as arbitration enforcement actions, including those alleged to be out of process or against existing policy, must first be appealed following arbitration enforcement procedures to establish if such enforcement is inappropriate before the action may be reversed or formally discussed at another venue.

Information for administrators processing requests

Thank you for participating in this area. AE works best if there are a variety of admins bringing their expertise to each case. There is no expectation to comment on every case, and the Arbitration Committee (ArbCom) thanks all admins for whatever time they can give.

A couple of reminders:

Before commenting, please familiarise yourself with the referenced ArbCom case. Please also read all the evidence (including diffs) presented in the AE request.
When a request widens to include editors beyond the initial request, these editors must be notified and the notifications recorded in the same way as for the initial editor against whom sanctions were requested. Where some part of the outcome is clear, a partial close may be implemented and noted as "Result concerning X".
Enforcement measures in arbitration cases should be construed liberally to protect Wikipedia and keep it running efficiently. Some of the behaviour described in an enforcement request might not be restricted by ArbCom. However, it may violate other Wikipedia policies and guidelines; you may use administrative discretion to resolve it.
More than one side in a dispute may have ArbCom conduct rulings applicable to them. Please ensure these are investigated.

Closing a thread:

Once an issue is resolved, enclose it between {{hat}} and {{hab}} tags. A bot should archive it in 7 days.
Please consider referring the case to ARCA if the outcome is a recommendation to do so or the issue regards administrator conduct.
You can use the templates {{uw-aeblock}} (for blocks) or {{AE sanction}} (for other contentious topic restrictions) to give notice of sanctions on user talk pages.
Please log sanctions in the Arbitration enforcement log.

Thanks again for helping. If you have any questions, please post on the talk page.

Arbitration enforcement archives

1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15	16	17	18	19	20
21	22	23	24	25	26	27	28	29	30	31	32	33	34	35	36	37	38	39	40
41	42	43	44	45	46	47	48	49	50	51	52	53	54	55	56	57	58	59	60
61	62	63	64	65	66	67	68	69	70	71	72	73	74	75	76	77	78	79	80
81	82	83	84	85	86	87	88	89	90	91	92	93	94	95	96	97	98	99	100
101	102	103	104	105	106	107	108	109	110	111	112	113	114	115	116	117	118	119	120
121	122	123	124	125	126	127	128	129	130	131	132	133	134	135	136	137	138	139	140
141	142	143	144	145	146	147	148	149	150	151	152	153	154	155	156	157	158	159	160
161	162	163	164	165	166	167	168	169	170	171	172	173	174	175	176	177	178	179	180
181	182	183	184	185	186	187	188	189	190	191	192	193	194	195	196	197	198	199	200
201	202	203	204	205	206	207	208	209	210	211	212	213	214	215	216	217	218	219	220
221	222	223	224	225	226	227	228	229	230	231	232	233	234	235	236	237	238	239	240
241	242	243	244	245	246	247	248	249	250	251	252	253	254	255	256	257	258	259	260
261	262	263	264	265	266	267	268	269	270	271	272	273	274	275	276	277	278	279	280
281	282	283	284	285	286	287	288	289	290	291	292	293	294	295	296	297	298	299	300
301	302	303	304	305	306	307	308	309	310	311	312	313	314	315	316	317	318	319	320
321	322	323	324	325	326	327	328	329	330	331

Edit this section for new requests

ScienceApologist

ScienceApologist (talk · contribs) I feel that SA got blocked at the behest of editors like Levine2112these comments made by ScienceApologist against me (and CorticoSpinal) violate the terms of Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Martinphi-ScienceApologist#ScienceApologist_restricted his ArbCom in that it represents an uncivil personal attack. ScienceApologist and I have had our differences in the past, but we have not crossed paths for at least a month now, making this attack on my character unprovoked (and in my opinion unwarranted). Specifically, I take offense to ScienceApologist describing me as a "Chiropractic true-believer" and my actions as "soapboxing" and my beliefs as "weird", "preposterous" and not "sane". Essentially, he has called me an insane chiropractic true-believer soapboxing preposterous beliefs. Not only is this uncivil, it is also a poor characterization of myself, my beliefs and my actions.

I took a gander at other edits/comments ScienceApologist has made just today and it appears that I am not the only editor he is currently disrespecting in this way. Please consider the following diffs here he also calls editors "anti scientific" and "braindead", etc.: [1][2][3][4][5] [6] And this is just from today and from a pretty cursory search. I just don't this is acceptable behavior from a recidivist such as ScienceApologist. I understand that he has strong opinions, but he definitely knows better. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 22:27, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(sigh) When will ScienceApologist learn not to do that again? The arbCom restriction calls for blocks in case of any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, which is exactly what he did here. I know that in the past the community has been very accommodating and gave quite a bit of leeway to those keeping an eye on WP:FRINGE, but this type of recurring behavior is not helping that cause, and neither helps Wikipedia. I would support a block to enforce probation. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:56, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I support a general block for this unconstructive comment, but then what? How many times have we blocked SA, and how much longer will the community tolerate AE being clogged with SA reports? He's a frequent case here -- hardly a week goes by without a mention. I'm not saying an outright topic ban or indef. block is acceptable for the comment made above, but do these short-term duration blocks really work? Are they effective? Do we need to take it a step further? Comments encouraged; I'm not taking any action on this specifically, and will defer to another. seicer | talk | contribs 23:10, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The solution in these cases, Seicer, is escalating blocks, one week, two weeks, one month, three months, and so on, as per the ArbCom ruling. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:05, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

True, but it hasn't been implemented. I'm not for sure if taking it back to ArbCom would help, or if it just really needs to be enforced. seicer | talk | contribs 03:48, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think some of those diffs are uncivil. However: the idea that escalating blocks can make an editor behave more civilly is questionable, at best, to begin with. In this particular case, this remedy has been further undermined by the throw-everything-against-the-wall-to-see-what-sticks approach of filing WP:AE reports at the drop of a hat. It's a boy-who-cried-wolf phenomenon - these threads are often, but not always frivolous; it costs the filers nothing to put up one after another after another; and after a bunch of frivolous complaints are arbitrarily upheld or rejected the process loses a bit of respectability. This is a good case study of why "civility parole" is worse than useless. But that's just my view from the cheap seats. MastCell ^Talk 05:15, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with MastCell here. Well, actually, I disagree in that I don't find the diffs cited particularly uncivil. But I agree that "civility parole" is not solving any problems. By now, SA should have realized that his manner of making comments is unwise, given the big red target ArbCom has painted on his back, but is the substance of this comment really incorrect? At any rate, I would not support blocking SA for any of the diffs given, and I would be especially annoyed if SA got blocked at the behest of editors like Levine2112 and MartinPhi, who are textbook examples of tendentious editors. --Akhilleus (talk) 05:39, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please support you accusation against me with some diffs on my talk page or consider striking them out. Thanks. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 07:06, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And mine. It's uncivil itself to make accusations you can't support. Either get the diffs, or you should take it back. I'm not going to put up with threats and insults from admins on this page anymore, like I did last time, when Thatcher wanted to block me for 30 days because he thought it was my fault the way SA behaves. Either get the diffs or take it back. I'd rather be blocked or whatever than put up with humiliation on this page ever again. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 17:01, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh give me a break, Levine. Your first diff is merely a statement of support for QuackGuru by SA, it's hardly anything bad. I've got to ask--isn't there something better to do with your time but engage in a regular posting to here about SA? I honestly quit reading what you say about SA and what he says about you 6 months ago. I only came here because I was reviewing something else, and noticed your posting. I don't like your POV, I don't agree with your POV, and i think your POV is off someplace far away from my education, but, in general, I don't think you should engage in these battles, because it makes you look bad. It's beneath you. Engage intellectually, not with this back and forth complaints.OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 22:58, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Orangemarlin: Can you explain how that comment by ScienceApologist is about engaging intellectually? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:02, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another edit conflict. I'm not talking about SA. I just get tired of the back and forth crap from SA and Levine. It makes for tendentious reading of anything they're both involved with. SA doesn't listen to me, so I figure I'd ask Levine to quit doing these postings. They really are beneath him. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 23:04, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Come on Jossi, that comment barely hits the civility detecto-meter. I disagree with SA (Levine has a purpose, he keeps the science writer intellectually honest, so I wouldn't fall in love with him but I'd certainly share a beer), but it's hardly bad. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 23:02, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He's been insulting me all over the place, called me a Hypocrite in a headline a while back, and more stuff just today. Does that count, or is it my fault that he acts the way he does? I mean, it's always been my fault before, right? [7][8] [9] [10] In addition to the usual edit warring and disruption and POV pushing with terrible sources like blogs or the personal webspace of assistant professors [11] under the veil of PARITY. You excuse all this because he gives fringe POV pushers a hard time? Good for him, but please notice the other stuff. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 04:58, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find any insults directed at you (or any other editor) in any of the diffs you have provided, Martin. For that matter, I've been looking at every diff provided in this thread, and I can see nothing that warrants action. Some of it is not phrased to please, certainly, but repeatedly picking nits in order to try to get rid of an editor you disagree with at all cost isn't what AE is for. — Coren ^(talk) 12:39, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have two comments.

First of all, why didn't Levine2112 inform me of this filing? Why didn't Levine2112 tell me that he considered something to be uncivil so I could refactor it?

Secondly, why is it that the two administrators chastising me here are so well known to me? Could the people who hate me not find an uninvolved administrator to agree with them? Because, you see, User:Seicer and User:Jossi and I go way back: Seicer has been so rude to me as to make me worry about his mental stability (not meant to be uncivil, I actually did worry about him when he flashed on me -- you can see the evidence of this in his RfA) and Jossi has, as of late, finally been called to task for his questionable involvement protecting fringe POV-pushing that I have been explicitly calling him out on for years. Yes, I'm in heavy disputes with both of these administrators to the point where I think neither of them should be administrators. Most of the other people who appear here to whine don't seem to be interested in actually improving the encyclopedia but are big fans of attacking me. What's perhaps most delicious is that I consider the majority of the actions and comments about/against me to be simply uncivil in themselves. Civility, as a concept, has been reinterpretted and retwisted by these people to be used as a bludgeon to a point that the entire policy looks almost worthless. We need to start getting rid of more people who flout the content policies of Wikipedia. We need to call these people out when they make trouble for the good editors (like User:QuackGuru, for example) and we need to start sending the message that POV-pushing is not going to be tolerated at Wikipedia. This is a hard thing to do because POV-pushing has be tolerated for so long. But it must be done. I'm trying to do this as civilly as possible, but if I mess up, I want people to tell me on my talkpage. ScienceApologist (talk) 15:10, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Mental instability"? Surely you can come up with something better than that reply, to someone who disagrees with your antics and disruptive editing. seicer | talk | contribs 15:13, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Um, I would be careful what you call "disruptive", seicer, since we do have a definition of it. I have my evidence and my concerns about you and I'm sorry if they seem very personal. But when someone flashes on me the way you did, I really don't know what else to think. The only other time I have ever had anyone do something like that was when User:Davkal went WP:MASTADON on my ass. I am concerned about you, seicer, and concerned that you cannot be trusted. Still, I hope that you are doing okay. ScienceApologist (talk) 15:21, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, to let people understand that I'm acting in good faith here, please see my talk page where I think civility discussions can be had civilly. ScienceApologist (talk) 15:23, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let's make this easy. ScienceApologist, will you please strike/excise your uncivil comments from here now? Or do you stand by them? -- Levine2112 ^discuss 16:06, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are obviously things in that message which are not particularly uncivil as others have pointed out. Tell me what part of that message you take to be as uncivil and why, and I will refactor it. ScienceApologist (talk) 17:48, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Get real. You all know. I hate to do this, but I know you know, and I even have one diff to prove it [12] Don't be the first and third monkies, because they are not wise. You have completely abdicated your jobs as admins of wikipedia, to preserve the collegial editing environment of this place. Even with an ArbCom sanction behind you, which you should not need. It is absolutely, 100% disgusting, and you should be completely ashamed of yourselves. If you betray Wikipedia like this, why do you edit here at all? Or are you all afraid of Raul? Are you all afraid of JzG? There is a limit beyond which it is also unwise to refrain from speaking of negativity, and you have crossed it. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 16:39, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I was mad. I think there are admins here genuinely trying to actually do something. And I thank them for at least trying, even if it is months and years of extreme disruption late. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 16:42, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a link for you. And it isn't like this is the only thing. [13] ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 17:10, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like the cat is out of the bag. ScienceApologist (talk) 17:48, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RodentofDeath

RodentofDeath (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Arbitration
HurryTaken (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Luzonman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User RodentofDeath, who is banned http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:RodentofDeath and has previous violations for breaching his ban has returned using a well laid out sockpuppet plan of attack using two sockpupputs.

Banned User RodentofDeath seems to have reapperared in breach of his ban once again, this time using various sockpuppets in a well laid out sockpuppet attatck against the same articles as before his ban, as well as his usual attacks and complaints against me. RodentofDeath has already twice been caught out breaching his ban before. He has reapperared using two sockpuppets. the first is user: HurryTaken. When one takes a look at the posting he first appears on March 8 with his first post in a deletion talk on an article that Rodent was strongely involved in. After a few minor posts, he then starts launching attacks against me in his usual style in the discussion area of another article Rodent was involved in.... http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Human_trafficking_in_the_Philippines&diff=prev&oldid=208509828

His last Eleven posts have all been attacks against me. This sockpuppet has been editing the same articles RodentofDeath did in the exact same manner. Removing anything I have posted and anything referring to human traficking in Angeles, which has been the single purpose of the RodentofDeath account. — Susanbryce — continues after insertion below

I have done no such a thing. I have made no changes to any article or removed any information. What I have done, however, is post to the talk page of the Human trafficking in the Philippines article. I also feel that I have raised legitimate questions about this article in a polite and respectful way. Here is the link to the history page of the Human trafficking in the Philippines article. As anyone can see, I have made no changes to it. I have also not attacked this editor in any way, shape or form. I ask that this editor please provide proof of the alleged attacks. I do not believe raising issues on talk pages and providing proof to backup my claims constitutes an "attack."

HurryTaken (talk) 04:11, 28 April 2008 (UTC) (Sorry, forgot to add)[reply]

It should be noted that the user has also been busy posting complaints againstr me to administrators, a usual tactic of RodentofDeath.... http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=208504240 — Susanbryce — continues after insertion below

This is correct. I did post the admin notice about possible copyright violations. One admin said they didn't think it was a violation. Another, without ruling, said they thought it was a possible violation. Why is it not legitimate to bring this up and discuss it?

HurryTaken (talk) 04:12, 28 April 2008 (UTC) (Sorry, forgot to add)[reply]

The other sockpuppet RodentofDeath is using in this plan is user : Luzonman. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Luzonman

This sockpuppet was activated just several days after the other sockpuppet. It has also soon started editing the same articles RodentofDeath did in the exact same manner. Removing anything I have posted and anything referring to human traficking in Angeles, which has been the single purpose of the RodentofDeath account. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Charities_in_the_Philippines&diff=prev&oldid=208497245

Also, both sockpuppets appear to be posting immediatly after each other. example: (diff) (hist) . . Talk:Human trafficking in the Philippines?; 12:07 . . (+322) . . HurryTaken (Talk | contribs) (?Line that makes no sense: added link to article and edit.)

(diff) (hist) . . Talk:Human trafficking in the Philippines?; 11:39 . . (+1,009) . . HurryTaken (Talk | contribs) (?Line that makes no sense)

(diff) (hist) . . Talk:Human trafficking in the Philippines?; 10:51 . . (+1,308) . . HurryTaken (Talk | contribs) (?Line that makes no sense)

(diff) (hist) . . Charities in the Philippines?; 10:23 . . (-172) . . Luzonman (Talk | contribs) (?ReachOut Foundation International: clarify charity's mission as per their website.)

(diff) (hist) . . Charities in the Philippines?; 10:17 . . (+123) . . Luzonman (Talk | contribs) (?SOS Children's Villages in the Philippines: clarify charity as in cited material.)

(diff) (hist) . . Charities in the Philippines?; 10:08 . . (-91) . . Luzonman (Talk | contribs) (?Sisters Plus: change to info stated in citation.)

(diff) (hist) . . Talk:Human trafficking in the Philippines?; 09:05 . . (+91) . . HurryTaken (Talk | contribs) (?Sex Tourism: Forgot to sign)

(diff) (hist) . . Talk:Human trafficking in the Philippines?; 09:04 . . (+1,973) . . HurryTaken (Talk | contribs)

It appears RodentofDeath has no regard for the ban or rules. He is engaging in any way possible to curcumvent that ban.Susanbryce (talk) 02:08, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is correct. I did post the admin notice about possible copyright violations. One admin said they didn't think it was a violation. Another, without ruling, said they thought it was a possible violation. Why is it not legitimate to bring this up and discuss it?

HurryTaken (talk) 04:11, 28 April 2008 (UTC) (Sorry, forgot to add)[reply]

This should have gone above so it is posted twice. I had an edit conflict so cut and paste. HurryTaken (talk) 04:13, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not Rodent of death which I am confident the admins will eventually find. Not everyone that points out problems and asks questions about an article this editor edits is a sockpuppet of Rodent of death. I do find it interesting that instead of addressing the concerns I have laid out (again in a polite and respectful manner) that this editor chooses to instead report anybody that raises such concerns as a possible sockpuppet violation. (As they did with Weighted Companion Cube when that editor posted an AfD on a article this editor mainly contributed to.) I would also note that blatant mis-information about me changing and editing articles as well. I think overall that says quite a bit. I will, however, admit to following the situation (as a lurker) between Rodent of Death and this editor for quite a long time. So I can write and do know quite a bit of the history between the two. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HurryTaken (talk • contribs)

He has added text in the middle of my text, can this matter be tidied up? Once again, typical RodentofDeath behaviour as he has done this often before.Susanbryce (talk) 04:18, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We do not know (yet) if these are sockpuppets or not. You may want to consider to pursue dispute resolution: this is not the place to bring up content disputes. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:21, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is no dispute yet to even discuss. The only thing I have done is post some questions and bring up some issues on a talk page. I have also brought up one of my concerns to the admin noticeboard about possible copyright violations. I have made no changes to any article that this editor is involved in editing. For that, I get the privilege of a checkuser and being accused of being a sockpuppet because of a history this editor has with a banned editor. HurryTaken (talk) 04:29, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just be patient until the RFCU is completed. If you are not a SP of a banned user, you do not have anything to worry about. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:33, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not worried. But what I do find interesting is that anyone that points out potential problems or has questions about articles this editor is involved in editing now automatically gets accused of being a SP of Rodent of death. HurryTaken (talk) 04:41, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Checkuser filed: Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser#RodentoDeath ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:26, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I concur HurryTaken is RodentofDeath. This doesn't really need a checkuser to identify sockpuppetry, and in any case the banned user claims to "travel heavily and restricting IP accounts [isn't be worth the time and effort]" — edgarde — continues after insertion below

Using this logic, one could argue that anyone that ever posts a question about or has an interest in, or even a different opinion in articles this editor edit edits is automatically an SP of Rodent of death. HurryTaken (talk) 05:09, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The complaint at WP:AN revives issues and language repeated from previous RodentofDeath problems. Rodent is applying lessons learned to grind his axe.

Rodent's userpage was deleted (or just reverted, I forget) as WP:COPYVIO. Some of the explanation being used in the recent Admin complaint resembles instructions given to RodentofDeath at this time
Asks that Bryce be "officially warned or reminded", language from RodentofDeath's arbitration decision.
Attacks on PREDA, a habitual target of RodentofDeath
Attacks on Susanbryce are another — edgarde — continues after insertion below

Once again, I have attacked neither PREDA nor this editor. HurryTaken (talk) 05:09, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First action taken after creating account was to vote Delete in the AFD for Rodent's bête noire article Human trafficking in Angeles City. / edg ☺ ☭ 04:56, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is indeed true and 100% accurate. As I admitted to previously, I have followed this situation between these two editors for quite some time. I was finally motivated to sign up for an account when I visited the Human trafficking in Angeles City and noticed the AfD HurryTaken (talk) 05:09, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I guess the other thing to point out is regarding the "lessons learned" criticism by Edgarde. I am definitely applying lessons learned knowing the history between the two. Rodent showed a complete and total inability to ever adapt or be respectful and polite despite repeated warnings. I am surprised (since you think I am him) that you think he has suddenly changed now. I have actually taken great pains to be as respectful, polite, and factually correct as possible. And I still point out I have not edited or changed any article this editor is involved in editing. I guess it does happen that Rodent and I may have some overlap in concerns or questions about certain articles. However, that does not necessarily mean that I am him either. And I actually have absolutely no axe to grind. I honestly believe some of the issues I have raised are 100% legitimate. Because these concerns mirror another user (a banned user) I am automatically him? HurryTaken (talk) 06:00, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Support the RFCU. Similar tactics and interests. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:13, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The RFCU was inconclusive. I would tend to assume good faith and assume these editors are not SPs of Rodent. What we need to monitor is disruption, by all parties to the dispute. I would suggest we keep these articles in our watchlists for a few weeks and encourage editos to follow dispute resolution if they get stuck. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:53, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

After reading Thatcher's comment at RfCU, I am at the moment unsure: should we err on the side of caution or not? What others think? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:24, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Further investigation and comment [14] ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:14, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am confident from HurryTaken's edit history that this editor is RodentofDeath; HurryTaken's comments on this page appear consistent with Rodent's behavior. I see no evidence in Luzonman's edit history that Luzonman is another sock, or is working in concert with RodentofDeath. Furthermore, Luzonman's edits appear consistent with editing in good faith. / edg ☺ ☭ 16:16, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with Edgarde on this. HurryTaken's edit history is that of RodentofDeath. If we fail to take action against this sockpuppet, it will only make matters worse and embolden RodentofDeath to set up more sockpuppets. It may be that Luzonman is not a sock, but a genuine editor. But HurryTaken is RodentofDeath 100%.Susanbryce (talk) 16:39, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your opinion is already noted. Please allow uninvolved editors to take a look and comment. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:55, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Edgarde and Susanbryce, HurryTaken appears to RodentofDeath sock, while I'm not sure about Luzonman. I think we should indefinitely block HurryTaken, but not block Luzonman. PhilKnight (talk) 01:12, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is a very interesting situation. Edg says that my comments on this page are consistent with Rodent. Are they? Our subject interest may be. But I would argue our actions and the way we handle bringing up difference of opinions are quite different. I also believe our writing styles and grammar are quite different. Am I faking this? Is this learned behavior? Again, our subject concerns are indeed similar. And the issues I raise may be issue he raised. But again, does that mean that I am him? Would it have been wiser for me to sign up for an account the entire time I sat on the sidelines and watched the previous situation unfold? Lar even noted the issues I have brought up have some merit in the RFCU. So I again submit that a portion of this seems to be to stifle or silence views, opinions, thoughts or contributions that don't fall in line with the editor that submitted this AE. Edg has long been a supporter of this editor. As Thatcher pointed out, I cannot prove my innocence based on the IP's I happen to come from. This is what it is and I cannot control it. Perhaps only established editors may contribute to and raise issues with these articles. My question then becomes how can I prove that I am not Rodent? In what ways can I convince those that would judge me and decide my fate here on Wikipedia that I am not him? I have my IP's which I cannot control. I have my written words and counterpoints that I would put forward to hopefully convince others that I am not him. But what else can I do? Can I make a pledge to only bring up issues and concerns I have on the talk pages and not edit articles this editor is involved in? (Which is actually what I intended to do all along.) I never planned on editing any articles this editor was involved in. I already firmly believe this editor has a strong emotional involvement and attachment to all the articles they edit here. Perhaps that is good and perhaps that is also a little bad. But it does bring up some legitimate POV concerns. Rather, my approach was to bring up issues and concerns and edit by consensus. On the [talk page] for the Human Trafficking in Philippines article I bring up what I consider to be a very legitimate point. According to a 2004 source in that article, 300,000 Japaneses sex tourists visit the Philippines each year. However, according to the Philippines own official numbers, 322,896 Japanese tourists visited the Philippines in 2003. That means that 93% of all Japanese visitors to the Philippines are sex tourists. I think that source and issue needs to be discussed because those two numbers contradict themselves severely. I believe a lot of other articles have significant issues as well. I would like the opportunity to bring up those issues for discussion. This is something Rodent never did. He name called, edit warred, attacked. This is something I have not done and would never do. Again, according to Edg lessons learned. But a lose-lose situation for me. I have an interest in a subject Rodent had. I signed up after Rodent was banned. I must be him. Again, how can I prove I am not? HurryTaken (talk) 03:34, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eleland issues persist

Arbcom case: 'Case Final Decisions' .

Eleland (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Incivility and personal direct and indirect attacks

The following is a list of problematic occurrences following an Eleland successful unblock request where Eleland justified his unblock request saying:

“

referring to anothers' edits as "idiocy" and "garbage" is inexcusable. I apologize for the insulting language. -- User:Eleland unblock request. (00:34, 15 February 2008)

”

See #Comments leading to the block included

Post unblock incivility

Note: The comments are clearly directed -- during conflict -- at editors, not content and pose a huge disruption to proper conflict resolution.

"[Jayjg] fairly ludicrous interpretation" Eleland, 20:19, 18 February 2008

Making "vague" and "indirect" comparisons of right-wing Israeli politicians with Wiki-editors he's in conflict with:
- "I've noticed an odd tendency on WP to over-emphasize the "Palestinian-ness" of Jordan, and I can't help but wonder if a person or persons is pushing for the POV of the Israeli extreme right that "Jordan is Palestine." Eleland, 00:16, 20 February 2008
- "Sidelines about incivility (or whatever) will not distract from the real issue here... Benjamin Netanyahu and Avigdor Lieberman (e.c. see POV/BLP below) do not hold "veto power" over our presentation of facts in this encyclopedia. Nor do their adherents." Eleland, 16:02, 20 February 2008
- "I'm aware that there are far worse Israeli right-wingers than Netanyahu. Some of them edit Wikipedia." Eleland, 23:28, 20 February 2008

Comments from the last month

"Breathtaking inanity. ... Your argument is intellectually dishonest, of course, and not meant to be taken seriously." Eleland, 21:51, 28 March 2008.
"paper-thin rationalization for tendentious behavior" Eleland, 16:45, 29 March 2008.
"in accordance with your own extremist POV." Eleland, 21:46, 2 April 2008
"rv exremist POV-pushing" Eleland, 22:17, 2 April 2008
Reverted Nickhh adding commentary thinking it was Jaakobou:
"Ha, ha. I figured that was Jaakobou or something" 20:26, 15 April 2008 (added 18:54, 26 April 2008 (UTC))[reply]
"This is what we call "shifting the goalposts," Jaakobou. Not to mention "latent racism."" Eleland, 15:26, 16 April 2008 (added 18:41, 26 April 2008 (UTC))
"I don't believe you're capable of sincerity" Eleland, 16:25, 23 April 2008

To remind, editor has continued uncivil commentary even during the 7 day time to which he made his civility pledge while getting unblocked.

Comments leading to the block included

"a [[User:Jayjg|time honoured tradition]]... makes you look rather desperate" Eleland, 23:52, 18 January 2008
"your personal crackpot interpretation of the RSes" Eleland, 09:15, 20 January 2008
"you continually waste time with this idiocy?" Eleland, 15:38, 14 February 2008

See #Post unblock incivility

Comments/Discussion

I request some administrative action performed on Eleland (talk · contribs) to clarify to him that his conduct is in contrast with the purpose of wikipedia. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 20:15, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
While it's mostly not of my concern, I have been indirectly notified of this discussion and will add my 2 cents. I definitely agree that Eleland has serious civility issues. In a somewhat heated discussion between User:Pedrito and myself on Talk:Avigdor Lieberman, Eleland chimed in with this comment, which is a direct personal attack. His previous edit to the same talk page was also a personal attack of sorts. Reviewing the rest of his edits in the 'last 250' for Talk:Avigdor Lieberman, it appears that he also made personal attacks against Jaakobou.

Analyzing the data, it appears that nearly 100% of Eleland's comments on that specific talk page (in the last 250) were personal attacks. Therefore, this is surely not a one-time issue, and it appears that Eleland uses personal attacks and ad hominem attacks very often. I am counting on the admins to take a fair course of action, in light of at least one previous block against Jaakobou for similar (mis)conduct. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 21:08, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you have "analysed the data," you should demonstrate this, rather than simply asserting it, so that your anaylsis can be confirmed or disputed. And calling a statement "remarkably foolish," and then providing copious documentation to falsify that statement, is neither a personal attack nor an ad hominem. <eleland/talkedits> 21:17, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly, this behavior is disruptive and not the way to engage in collaboration. The ArbCom remedies were quite clear, and short of mentors taking this editor to account, a one month ban from related articles may be a way to cool off the spirits. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:10, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Are you talking about me, or Jaakobou? Because the only diffs from the last two months which Jaakobou has presented relate to Avigdor Liberman. I would urge you to look into that issue in more depth than just a few scattered duffs. Much like his actions on Palestinian fedayeen which got him taken to ArbCom, Jaakobou was removing enormous sections of text, and when asked about it he would only provide quibbles and cavills about particular phrases or citations, rather than justifying his blanket removals. He was claiming that quotations were "taken out of context," but he refused to explain what "context" would, in his view, correct the problem. This is his standard modus operandi - act outrageously, then quote the outraged reactions out of context and fire them off at administrators. What I can't believe is how easily this tactic seems to work on you folks. <eleland/talkedits>
  - Some of the comments that Eleland responded to were unreasonable, and if Jossi is suggesting a month ban for Eleland, then in my humble opinion that would be excessive. The purpose of the sanctions is to ensure the smooth running of the project, and I don't think a month is necessary. PhilKnight (talk) 21:42, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This complaint does indeed indicate a persistent problem, both the initiating factor, and the responses to it. There is no doubt that there are issues with many of Jaakobou's edits; however, a certain set of editors, including, quite frankly, those listed below, have taken that as a license to insult and revert him with impunity, mercilessly tag-teaming him, and even publicly encouraging each other to revert him. When he opens discussion on Talk: pages, they often mock or ignore him entirely. When he comes here for relief, they insist he is vexatious, and should be sanctioned for complaining about being insulted, reverted and ignored. WP:CIVIL is still policy, and the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles#Decorum principle is quite clear. Nonetheless, these editors somehow feel they have free reign to violate these policies and principles even on the AE board itself: gratuitous insults like "User:Jaakobou's endless whingeing" are a violation of both the letter and spirit of Wikipedia's civility policy, and are also covered by the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles. Jayjg ^(talk) 13:36, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Jayjg, while there is some truth in your comments, it should be noted that half of his complaint was so frivolous that it has been removed. PhilKnight (talk) 21:42, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - PhilKnight, I decided to retract content based complaints since it's more difficult and time consuming to review, and the civility issue is easier to address to. I don't think my content concerns were "unreasonable" or in the words of Eleland "Breathtaking inanity" and "intellectually dishonest"-"exremist POV-pushing", but maybe I've somehow errored and you know the material better than me.
    With respect, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 07:31, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jayjg, can you provide some actual evidence for the "tag team reverting" accusation rather than just broadly asserting it? I'm sick enough of hearing that complaint from Jaakobou without someone else weighing in with it as well. The problem is not that people are ganging up on him, but that he is a persistent advocate of minority positions - Jaakobou is, quite simply, an extremist POV pusher who frequently mis-cites sources and engages in spurious talk page debates which totally miss the point under discussion and sap everyone's energy. He managed to drive ten editors off the Saeb Erekat article, and keep his treasured but farcical "Criticism" section in for months, because none of them had the stomach to cope with him. To be honest he should be ignored more, were it not for the damage this would ultimately allow him to wreak on the project - the problem is that Eleland and others, myself included, try to roll back some of his more extreme edits and end up in heated debates; and then those reactions end up being selectively quoted and pulled together into the sort of dodgy dossier we see presented here. And are you suggesting that it was somehow unfair of me to class this complaint as being vexatious?! --Nickhh (talk) 09:26, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, here's an example: this edit, in which you revert Jaakobou, and encourage Pedro to do the same with the comment "Pedro, your turn next if he does it again ;}". As for his "vexatious" complaint, is that the discussion in which you said to Jaakobou "Get over yourself. It's like dealing with a sexually frustrated and incontinent adolescent"? Jayjg ^(talk) 03:39, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Jay, to say that we've been ignoring Jaakobou is highly fallacious. If you actually read Talk:Avigdor Lieberman you'll find that I engaged Jaakobou's arguments in close detail; it was Jaakobou who ignored my arguments, and repeatedly opened new talk page sections in which to repeat the same trite and unconvincing claims. How do you expect me to respond, when he removes information about Liberman being criticized for suggesting the drowning of Palestinians, claiming that "Source material for this is extremely vague," when the source material, a report in Israel's most respected newspaper, is headlined "Lieberman blasted for suggesting drowning Palestinian prisoners??" Of course I got heated. He was being completely unreasonable. <eleland/talkedits> 09:06, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Jayjg. Do you realise what you are saying? apart from the smearing innuendo, wholly without any grounding in either evidence or, I might add, in the truth, that 'we' (Eleland, Nickh, Pedrito, myself). are coordinating an attack on Jaakobou? We are defending one editor and his occasional peccadillos against a serial complainer. (I have no email, and have exchanged only one or two notes on user pages with each of the others over the last year).

You write

There is no doubt that there are issues with many of Jaakobou's edits; however, a certain set of editors, including, quite frankly, those listed below, have taken that as a license to insult and revert him with impunity, mercilessly tag-teaming him, and even publicly encouraging each other to revert him. '

The substance of this is: Jaakobou's edits are often problematical. The editors listed here, who are only a few of a larger number with similar attitudes to Jaakobou, have registered their constant exasperation with his problematical way of editing.

(A personal illustration for administrators not familiar with the absurd details of so many 'incidents of conflict'. I had to argue for months with him that using the words 'mass murder' of the number ('67') of victims of the 1929 Hebron massacre was problematical, because very reputable sources cite from 59 (Sir Martin Gilbert using contemporary newspaper reports, Aug.1929) to 62,63,64-65 (Tom Segev, Benny Morris),67. My own view is that 64-65 were 'slaughtered'/subjected to mass murder. Two died of heart attacks within weeks of that pogrom, in Jerusalem, from shock and age. This objection of mine may well appear to be a petty quibble. But this is an encyclopedia. He would have nothing of this, insisted on the word mass murder or slaughter (fine if you say 64-5 slaughtered) for 67, that being the highest figure in the historical record. A reasonable man would simply note that several RSes differ, put 64-5 as the number slaughtered and 67 as the direct or indirect victims. No, Jaakobou still won't budge on this. Thus that article registers what he and I know to be inexact information, making it unreliable on this (and a dozen other things), apparently only because he likes the highest estimates for Israeli casualties. I could cite several dozen instances of the same. If however the information deals with Palestinian victims of Jewish actions (Deir Yassin Massacre, Qibya Massacre, Saeb Erekat ond the Jenin Massacre) Jaakobou is galvanized on-line with fierce determination to inject any information that would put the numbers down, and brand those who doubt those lower numbers liars. This is not the way encyclopedias are to be edited. And editors who remark this unprincipled, opportunistic gaming of articles for national-political image-polishing do suffer intense annoyance. All they ask is for Jaakobou to be a consistent editor, and not change his habit of exploiting the complex rule book pretextually and contextually, depending on whether Jewish suffering is to be highlighted, or Palestinian suffering rendered doubtful in the tragically travailled history of that region).

Your explanation of the editors' challenges to this problematical editing is that it shows they are part (cf.including) of a larger number of editors, who haven't troubled themselves to get dragged into this absurd barney, who all 'insult and revert him with impunity' in a coordinated tag-team approach (a cabal). I.e. you are saying that: Jaakobou's editing is problematical objectively, it is so for many (many more than the four here) editors. Then, what conclusion do you draw? that he is the real victim of those who challenge his systematic bad editing, which is often so intensely wall-eared to appeals to lay off factitious POV-stacking that over several months, several times wiggings have occurred. No one else seems to drag so many editors to Wiki administrations claiming he is hard done by, and demands justice for his victimization. He has even managed to wriggle out of a 3RR violation, no mention of which was ever made on his page by the administrator (who 'forgot' to register it) by contacting off-line an administrator who is a ranger in Iraq (on his side of the political barrier) and convincing him that I, not Jaakobou, was at fault, though I hadn't broken any rule, and he the victim (I never complained, never registered a formal notice of impropriety, despite the annoyance this occasioned). On Jaakobou's record, were what happened to me have happened to him, one would have expected a massive protest to administration). He has a huge talent for pleading victimhood, while editing in often shonky material with relentless energy. Nothing in Eleland's edits comes anywhere near the extreme offensiveness that just a few weeks ago got this same Jaakobou suspened from I/P articles for a week, and yet we have at least one editor asking for a month's suspension for a record admittedly stuffed with trivia, now removed. I am biased (to editing collaboratively to the facts as ascertainable in book-knowledge of arguments). I am biased against truckloads of hearsay and newspaper junk clipped to waft a patriotic air over anything to do with Israel). Being thus biased, what I say in Eleland's defence is to be taken cum grano salis, probably. But if Eleland is to be hauled over the coals for a couple of exasperated outbursts over a two month period in which he has engaged with Jaakobou on dozens of articles, then, I should think due reflection should be made, contemporaneously, to the sort of edit-environment Jaakobou creates. As far as I know, the overwhelming majority of 'pro-Israeli' editors in here have not found 'us' (the hypothetical cabal) individually or collectively to be problematical. Only Jaakobou does, and he exhorts administrators consistently to punish us, or, apparently plans to do so. It smacks of a certain spirit of evening up accounts for what he believes to be the injustice of the penalty he wore for mocking Tiamut's distress. If you want to be helpful User:Jayjg, instead of making wild accusations about a cabal of professional insultors mercilessly scapegoating Jaakobou (the old victim-strategy he employs), why not simply get on the blower now and then, or on one of those newfangled instant messangers thingamijigs, and talk over with him what you find 'problematical' in his methods? Why not give him the benefit of your long and intensive experience of Wiki? You share similar POVs I gather (that is not the problem), and he's bound to listen. Above all, tell him not to countersign 'cordially/or/with respect' in reply when his actual behaviour signposts a certain nonchalant contempt for the commonsensical arguments his own edits are often met with, something not conducive to the equanimity of those who must engage with him. No doubt much of what I have said here can be picked over and cited as the violation of some rule, and used as evidence. But since this is a problem a good many editors share, not only those branded by now with The Sign of the Four, and since Jaakobou is constantly at the centre of it, I have spoken plainly and vigorously. I make no call for sanctions. I simply ask that those who can see what is problematical in his editing (admitted by even those who sympathize with his POV) advise him in private a little more vigorously, and remind him that other people do exist, and not infrequently, have views that, simply because they differ from his, are, by that fact, not necessarily scandalous, antisemitic, anti-Israel, offensive, humiliating, demeaning, and a 'blood libel' on the nation he happens to be a denizen of (sorry, Mr. Churchill). Nishidani (talk) 14:15, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Err, no, you "gather" incorrectly, and irrelevantly, since this isn't about me. If you want to see examples of problematical behavior, here's one: Jaakobou tries to get mediation going regarding the Gilad Shalit article. Pedro then insists on adding User:Nickh to the mediation, though Nick has only made one comment on Talk:Gilad Shalit, and that five months earlier. In addition Pedro insists on adding to the mediation an IP editor, who, at the time, had made a total of 13 edits.[15] [16] When Jaakobou objects, he is accused by Nickh of not taking the mediation "in the right spirit". And yes, it turned out that the IP editor was actually an editor who had been involved on the Shalit article, also five months earlier; but of course, at the time Pedro didn't know that. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:08, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, [[User:Jayjg], you've got your facts wrong there. The whole mediation was started by User:Jaakobou because of edits from the IP-address. Therefore, starting the mediation without the IP-address would have been, well, useless. I still don't really know why I was included in the mediation (which is, mind you, not even taking place), but I was as involved as User:Nickhh, so I included him too. The list of participants was somehow also oddly stacked against me and looked ever-so slightly like a kagaroo-court in the making... Cheers, pedrito - talk - 29.04.2008 08:22

WellJayjg) You've got me. I'm amazed, and realize my age's dysfunctional side, to see how closely you young chaps track all this minutiae, and recall everything, things I wouldn't notice, let alone remember. I have to go on memory, and reflections retained from long experience, tone over an extensive set of interactions. It is this which, albeit subjectively, provides me with my judgements etc.Nishidani (talk) 08:11, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Without commenting on the actual content in dispute, there is no question that users in this situation, including eleland, are acting in a way that is in blatant contravention to both Wikipedia's civility and personal attacks policies in general and the Arbitration ruling specifically. There is a legitimate dispute over content surrounding Israel-Palestine articles, an area that is a highly touchy subject and is prone to very strong points of view, and it is entirely possible that Jaakobou finds himself on the wrong end of the content dispute this time. However, these other editors appear to be addressing this conflict with abuse. The comments that Jaakobou points out in his original complaint are without a doubt completely out of line. Additionally, they appear to see further abuse as the proper response to this complaint, rather than a reasoned response to it. Take the following comments from this very complaint:

"This posting is a mélange of exaggerations, half-truths, and simple nonsense." - eleland

"The complainant in this case appears to be a political extremist who cannot be expected or trusted to usefully contribute to a reputable reference work. He is on good, personal terms with violent (and convicted, I think) criminal settlers so extreme that even Israel is abandoning them. The unlimited time he has to wiki-lawyer so harmfully drives away good editors." - IP

"We all must look like tiddlers gasping at the bait Jaakobou has thrown to reel in, gugdeon after gudgeon, the notorious off-line school of a fishy pro-Palestinian cabal CAMERA talks of!!!!" - Nishidani

These comments are clearly inappropriate and, once again, breach the guidelines placed by ArbCom. If these editors have a legitimate complaint against Jaakobou, they may file it, and the community will assess it on its own merits, but they may not abuse him, in or out of an AE complaint. - Revolving Bugbear 10:32, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid you've come in, seem to have taken a pretty cursory look around and leapt to a few conclusions. This is not about other editors occasionally reacting to content disputes (although that is an issue), this is about an aggressive individual who makes Blood Libel accusations against other editors, tells them they shouldn't edit or comment on certain pages, accuses them of being "inflammatory" when they offer advice to other editors on AfD procedures, makes wild accusations of tag-teaming, mocks the deaths of over 100 Palestinians with spoof notices on his userpage etc etc. The fact that people on the receiving end of this do not coming running to a forum like WP:AE each time with a cobbled together smear dossier and spouting selectively chosen diffs, whereas Jaakobou does - despite having been given a final warning for doing so (and many of the quotes here are recycled from that last foray) - does not afford him the moral high ground here. However it does mean that people are going to point out the hypocrisy of his actions in response to his posts here. Yes people who edit on I-P need to take a step back sometimes, but this is certainly not a case of an editor being on the end of one-sided "abuse". And as for the comments here you have singled out - a) how does describing an accusatory posting as being a "melange of exaggerations .." even come close to being abuse, or even inappropriate? b) the IP editor was knocked back for their comments, as you should have noticed; and c) I don't see any abuse in what Nishidani said either, they merely make the point that Jaakobou goads other editors. --Nickhh (talk) 11:18, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid you seem not to have actually taken the time to properly read or understand my post. Did I say that this issue is one-sided abuse? No. Did I say Jaakobou is a victim in this matter? No. This is exactly the problem -- rather than actually addressing the issues here, you've gone back on your rant about Jaakobou. Is it feasible to you that the actions of people other than Jaakobou might be inappropriate, no matter what Jaakobou's actions were? Because it doesn't seem like you, and many of the other editors involved in this complaint, are willing to entertain that possibility. I suggest you take a long hard think about the saying "Two wrongs don't make a right". This complaint is not about Jaakobou, it's about other people, and those other people have been clearly making abusive statements. If you want to file a complaint about Jaakobou, do so, do not hijack this complaint. - Revolving Bugbear 20:55, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And you clearly didn't read or understand my post. Actually I did acknowledge that sometimes editors need "to take a step back"; and in a subsequent post below I referred specifically to the old "two wrongs .." phrase. And in fact, you have accused editors here of abusing Jaakobou, and claimed only that if it went the other way as well, people should file a complaint against him rather than try to "hijack" this one - that is, you are saying as you currently see it, without a clear counter-complaint, that the abuse is one-sided. And of course I did try to point out that a lot of the comments are not even abusive, but you ignored that point too. And why accuse me and others of hijacking this complaint? Didn't Jayjg do this when he started spreading out the "blame" to other editors, myself included? Ultimately I'm afraid if you want to understand what lies behind this complaint, you have to understand something about the complainant. --Nickhh (talk) 06:06, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, no, I never said I thought Jaakobou was innocent in this matter. You have twisted my words and claimed I am saying things I'm not. I said editors were making inappropriate comments that approach the level of abuse. Abuse is abuse is abuse, and "provocation" doesn't justify it. An editor should at all times be ready to speak for or apologize for any edit of his -- something that the editors here have refused to do. Instead, they make exuses, carrying on about how terrible it is to work with Jaakobou. You know what? Then stop working with him. An editor who finds himself unable to keep his cool, as eleland clearly has, should step back and leave the situation until he can approach it with civility.

I'm seeing a lot of talk about all of Jaakobou's transgressions, but very few people owning up to their own actions. You are the Master of your Own Destiny, and an editor who cannot handle that is cruising for a block or a topic ban. - Revolving Bugbear 19:11, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, no you did not say "Jaakobou is innocent", but just for the record, here are your words from your original post here - "and it is entirely possible that Jaakobou finds himself on the wrong end of the content dispute this time. However, these other editors appear to be addressing this conflict with abuse". I and others have pointed out to you that a lot of what Jaakobou and then you have characterised as "abuse" is nothing of the sort; that this is not about reactions to content disputes, but reactions to a tendentious and disruptive editor; and also that people who find themselves reacting this way, should take a step back and bear in mind that two wrongs do not make a right. As a result of the postings here, I have in fact, despite your claim above, acknowledged and struck out one of my own less acceptable comments from a few days ago. So I think it's a little over the top to come here and now start telling people they are "cruising for a block or a topic ban". I also find it odd that your suggested remedy for the problem of a disruptive and tendentious editor is to let them get on with it (OK, to "stop working with them", to avoid any more accusations that I am twisting your words). Anyway, I think everyone has expended more than enough energy posting on yet another discussion page rather than doing any constructive editing, which perhaps is the biggest problem with all of this. --Nickhh (talk) 19:36, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did not say that you should leave a disruptive editor to his own devices. I said you should leave a situation in which you find yourself unable to remain civil and refrain from personal attacks. NPA and CIVIL are not optional, and there is no "this guy is making trouble" exception from them. The rule is very clear -- if you can't refrain from attacking or posting abusive comments, don't post. And, in fact, the dispute resolution says just this -- to leave the situation alone if you can't stay cool. There's no mystery here. If you find that curious, I suggest you take some time to study the surrounding policies. - Revolving Bugbear 20:11, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And yes, you did redact a comment, which was a good move and a step in the right direction. Would that other people here would start following your example. - Revolving Bugbear 20:15, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually no, you said "stop working with him" if you are finding it "terrible", which has an air of finality to my reading (I took your subsequent sentence to be a slightly separate point). As you'll note from Tiamut's comment some way below now, this is something she has more or less done - not because she fears she may blurt out some offensive personal insult, but because she finds the whole process of interacting with Jaakobou pretty unpleasant. Why this is the case would be pretty clear were you to look at some of the history there; and also note the fact that of all the editors who posted here to give some background, myself included, she was the only one whose posting got a verbal cannon blast in return.

Finally I am well aware that guidelines and policies talk about taking a step back when debates get heated - I used this phrase myself right at the beginning of course. Oh and I also hope when you say that redacting my comment was a "step in the right direction", that you do not intend it to sound as if I were an errant child with yet more to atone for besides. That would of course come off as a little patronising. Thanks --Nickhh (talk) 20:43, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Revolving Bugbear The stickler approach, and, formally, one must suppose, nihil obstat. Can I just say that I have had WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF and a dozen other pages thrown at me perhaps a hundred times, but by people who refuse to reply to queries, who when asked, perhaps remonstratively, why they revert a highly reliable source, don't answer coherently, but challenge some nuance of wording that can be taken as an infringement of WP:CIVIL. Sometimes I have had the greatest difficulty in deciphering orthographic chaos and slipshod syntax, and, in joshing my interlocutor to try and study English, be reproved for a violation of WP:CIVIL. I once replied that urbanity of address is commended, bad editing style, which strikes me as uncivil and in bad faith when done against repeated and extensively documented arguments to the contrary, is ignored. It is uncivil not to listen closely to what is being argued. I will admit that in User:Jaakobou's case, there have been several occasions (much fewer than in User:Zeq's case) where, perhaps for want of native English Sprachgefühl, he simply doesn't seem (or rather in the past didn't. His English has greatly improved thanks, ironically, to many extensive debates) to understand what his interlocutor is driving at, but rather intuited an arrière pensée a 'covert attitude' behind an opposed edit which he identifies with an anti-Israeli prejudice. The advice you give Nickhh is impeccable formally. The problem is, we are substantially dealing with a several minor expressions of frustration over two months in Eleland's case. He like the rest of us may make from dozens to fifty odd edits a day. Do the sums, and you cannot obtain a pattern of consistent rudeness and unedifying behaviour, but lapses. We are losing a sense, I suggest, of proportion here. I can't help keep mumbling to myself as I read, and contribute to this last of so many many ANI cases, parturient montes, nascetur ridiculus mus (Horace Ars Poetica 139), mountains heave in birth, and a laughable mouse pops out. I wander out into my gardens, and while hoeing and thinking of another edit, emend the line macaronically to 'pascetur ridiculous fuss', a ridiculous fuss is on my browser, if I may be allowed a Joycean pun. Can I suggest a solution? If Jaakobou is desperately in need of a scalp this much, over trivia, let these young people, stakhanovites at the rockface one and all, like Jaakobou, off whatever woeful suspension these minor peccadillos warrant in the august courts of Wiki justice, and let me offer to shut up, by wearing a week-long suspension for boring the pants of everyone, as well as violating the same rules once or twice (see User:PhilKnight's page (perhaps the archived before the present page) where Jaakobou has drawn up a dossier on my defects in civility, as horrendous as anything he has attributed to others here. Will this satisfy all parties? Surely the long-suffering administrators will be relieved. Jacko, sincerely and cordially, I offer to wear a week suspension on behalf of all those whose behaviour you think offensive Nishidani (talk) 20:58, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(undent) @ Nickhh - Your reaction to a compliment I paid you -- I consider the ability to reasses and admit the fault in one's own words as a significant measure of self awareness -- pushes the bounds of credulity. "Errant child"? "Atone"? Come on. I never said that, and I never said anything close to that. Let's stop the silliness.

Also, I am familiar with Jaakobou and his general MO. I have mediated a case he was involved in, and made reasonable progress in doing so, on an article which was getting quite contentious. From that vantage I can indeed say that there is a way to constructively work with Jaakobou even if you disagree with him and there is a constructive way to communicate with him. The failure of the people involved in this complaint to find out how to deal with him does not excuse their behavior. It doesn't excuse anything he may have done wrong, either. I understand the situation much better than you think I do. But when push comes to shove, if civility cannot prevail, it is the responsibility of every Wikipedian to just walk away until he or she can respond in a cool and constructive way. That's just the way it is.

@ Nishidani - Artful wanderings notwithstanding, it is the responsibility of every Wikipedian to act within the bounds of acceptable behavior as governed by policy. No amount of poetry is going to change that. Sorry. If you feel that Jaakobou has acted in an inappropriate way, then address those concerns specifically and in the proper venue. And please, do so in English, for those of us who only speak two languages. - Revolving Bugbear 21:23, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I thoroughly underwrite your remarks on 'acceptable behaviour'. The state of policy-monitoring should not be allowed to deteriorate into a policing state (see my note to Nickhh, on his page). I have advised Jaakobou exactly as I have advised others, 'on my side'. Don't turn this place into a bitching market of petty vendettas. Ignore provocations, edit, shout perhaps, apologize, and move on. This is, sir, a hugely inflated casus (sorry I can't help myself) There is far too much hectoring over things that, in a man's world, would not merit an instant's notice. I have had innumerable occasions to complain of what the rules say is incorrect treatment, and yet I don't, and do not accept the advice of administrators and of Jaakobou to do so, however well intended, because of an upbringing that spoke of 'sticks and stones may break my bones, but names will never hurt me', but also because a quick calculation tells me that if everyone adhered to this tactic, and jumped at every slip of the tongue, this magnificent construct of cooperative intelligence would crumble, and all administrators would resign from fatigue. Many have a much better record than I or some others do, simply because their interlocutors on the other side do not seize on every opportunity to score points with administrators. Nishidani (talk) 21:46, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I greatly appreciate these comments. They are sound and in good spirit. I suspect the great majority of conflicts on Wikipedia could easily be solved without administrator intervention if everyone chilled out a little like you've outlined here. - Revolving Bugbear 21:57, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, apologies for the languages, which indeed must sound like pompous flaggings of pseudo-erudition. I did post a piece from Goethe because a quick glance gave me an impression you hailed from that country, and I thought the quote, which floated into mind, a way of honouring such a connection. Cheers Nishidani (talk) 08:06, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Revolving Bugbear. Some times I am driven to desperation. It is a fugitive moment. I reflect that administrative work is a hard cross to bear. An Olympian gaze over the universe of Wikipedia is called in to waive the momentary overview, and fix a busy glance on an obscure cranny, chock full of recondite history, and make a judgement. The evidence is usually a set of diffs, scraping 0.0004% of the material that might constitute the 'history' or background to a disagreement. Unlike the Almighty's omniscient cast of total vision, the administrator must make a rapid call on sparse traces, the more eminent spoors of contention, and judge by a generic rulebook, usually about 'language': WP:CIVIL is the easiest peg on which to hang a conviction. But speed reading over the unfamiliar terrain can often lead to oversights that have grievous consequence. The remark about 'gudgeons' you cite as an egregious instance of uncivil talk is, not only in my intention as its author, ironic and self-mocking, its tenor was playful. Though he is the plaintiff, I saw Jaakobou in a minority and therefore mocked several of us who, by 'rising to the bait' had created a huge fuss that fed his fears as it made them look serious, when the point of commenting was simply to ask him to be less 'litigious'. I wished to take a little heat off the rather heavy cross-accusations that, perhaps of necessity, were being made. Perhaps I should not be editing Wiki, since my main passion in life is language, and I enjoy nuance. Nuance, irony, and a sense of allusive play seem to constantly cop raps over the knuckles. When I once withheld information from Zeq's inquiries, because I told him the material I had might play into the hands of antisemites, and therefore I would not post it here, he accused me of antisemitism, and I, flabbergasted, sat back and thought: 'How is one to edit if delicacy of sensibility is taken as an act of racist canting?' I have been open here because we are not on a page of complicated editing over a difficult issue, but up before administrators with long experience. The problems both sides have had with each other are recurrent. They generate nothing, in comparative perspective, like the riotous and vulgar intemperance for which many useless or troublesome posters are hauled before Administration in Wiki. We are dealing with a handful of peccadillos, ripped from context, over two months, not some wilful campaign of vituperative slanging day in day out. Perspective is everything. So, seeing yet one more endless suit, I, like many have, in defence, put our cards on the table, not to prosecute Jaakobou but to defend Eleland, in the knowledge that administrators and mentors here, at least, are familiar with the contexts, understand that with the best of intentions it is a stressful environment for all, (Jaakobou included) and can, I personally hope, tell all with a quiet word that we, who have to work extremely hard, often unnecessarily hard, on pages no one (it is often remarked) cares to touch because of their difficulty, reflect on our respective POVs, and try to find what is it that annoys our respective adversaries. Endless arbitration over niggling things like the present suit is the sort of thing that risks driving off those few editors, on any side, from ensuring that Wiki has decent articles on this area. You don't get people editing there unless they have exceptional patience, stamina and tenacity (or, like myself, are pensioned twits with a masochistic streak: I have had to spend 7al weeks proving, with some 160 sources, what every native English speaker with an advanced tertary education knows instinctively, that 'uprising' is a neutral word to describe, as scholarly literature in fact describes, the Al Aqsa Intifada, simply because one person, impeccably urbane, without evidence, does not wish that word to be used for fear it might create a parallel with the Jewish Warsaw Uprising. Nowhere in the world of civilised discourse are editors required to maintain perfect poise when their proofs of the obvious are not sufficient unless everyone agrees to them. It makes me smile wryly that I am forced to do this, but I would not blame others were they to blow their top at times). Editors are human, and to exact of them a level of punctilious, flawless hypercivility not even the denizens of the Olympian pantheon show, is to expect too much. Let Goethe have the final word:-

Wie ich so ehrlich war,

Hab ich gefehlt,

Und habe Jahre lang

Mich durchgequält;

Ich galt und galt auch nicht,

Was sollt es heißen?

Nun wollt ich Schelm sein,

Tät mich befleißen;

Das wollt mir gar nicht ein,

Mußt mich zerreißen.

Da dacht ich: ehrlich sein

Ist doch das Beste,

War es nur kümmerlich,

So steht es feste.
Nishidani (talk) 12:18, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eleland's view

This posting is a mélange of exaggerations, half-truths, and simple nonsense. Jaakobou has previously been given a final warning for trying to use WP:AE as a weapon for block-shopping [17] and yet here he repackages many of the same claims from his "dodgy dossier" and "sexes it up" with a truly despicable accusation of blood-libel (related to an eight-months-stale dispute!)

Those admins who would like to know Jaakobou's history of such spurious accusations should examine Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jaakobou#Evidence of disputed behavior. <eleland/talkedits> 20:42, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nishidani's view

I have reposted this here because it was unaccountable removed and relocated in a separate space on the grounds that it dealt with content. In fact it did not deal with content. It addressed User:PhilKnight, who had just posted. By removing both pieces and fixing them in an unalterable archive page below, Jaakobou appears to me to be 'fixing' the page to suit his suit. I am not a technician of rules, but it appears to me that he is determined, having raised a complaint, to manage comments in the order he likes, as if he owned the page. Therefore I append my comment here, where, not being archived, it can be adjusted, expanded or corrected. I should add that while rules ask for civility, repeated futile, tendentious and wall-eared editing, often in disregard of the talk page conversation, to establish a text which then is regarded as authoritative, and may only be modified by persuading its one editor, Jaakobou, to do so on the talk page, is exasperating, and exasperation provokes. I have no intention of building cases against other people, as Jaakobou appears now to do as part of a personal campaign. But I do think it a very grave breach of whatever rule governs interactions in Wiki that he persistently compiles dossiers, over time, on separate administrator pages, without so much as a hint to his targeted victim, in order to disseminate a deeply negative impression about people he has conflicts with in several administrators' minds. His excuse, when this is noted, is invariably, 'Oh sorry. I forgot. Cordially' etc.Nishidani (talk) 08:23, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This document compiled by Jaakobou is one of several dossiers, apparently, that he is compiling against editors he often finds himself in conflict with. They are usually tailored so as to be unrecognizable to those whose comments are quoted. To control each diff and evaluate them requires several hours, not to speak of lengthy checking of the actual discursive run on talk pages. But what I vigorously disagree with is that, once with myself and now with Eleland Jaakobou lays his evidence out incrementally, day by day, before selected administrators (jpgordon in Eleland's case, yourself, Phil, in my case, without the slightest hint to his intended victim, that he is laying a serious complaint. I only found out that he was doing this by sheer coincidence, several days after he began seeding your own page with a section on complaints against me. By the time the dossier assumes depth, without one's ability to contest each piece, the impression is created of a systematic Israel-bashing lout. I think this unethical. In my own case, I preferred not to waste time even treating this tactic seriously. Eleland appears to think it worth detailed arbitration. I have corresponded with Eleland on this here and on my talk page. I don't think Wiki should be systematically transformed into a whingeing room, there's far too much work to be done. But I do vigorously protest this ominous new tendency by Jaakobou to mount selective dossiers, behind people's backs, and use them with a series of distinct administrators to create the impression, discretely, that a whole gang of marauding louts invest the articles where he himself edits, and that somehow he is a victim. Regards Nishidani (talk) 20:58, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ps.Perhaps I should say what I should have said some time back, (when my own dossier was compiled), to save further extenuatingly laborious administrative cases. Were I to adopt a consistent policy of cherry-picking every provocative remark you have made in my regard,Jaakobou, I could quite simply mount exactly the kind of case you have mounted against Eleland. You accuse me of, in a mere two paragraphs on PhilKnight's page of:-

(1) 'making bigoted explanations'. No evidence supplied, any more than it was provided by the Israeli ambassador in the UN recently when branding a decent man, Jimmy Carter, a 'bigot'.

(2) ostensibly about 'how racist and criminal the people of Hebron are'. I never said that of the people of Hebron. I said that of their 'spiritual leaders' and when questioned, provided links in Wiki and elsewhere that document the point. Several of them have, as you yourself know, long criminal records, including murder raps.

(3)you completely rip out of all context the phrase 'the problem for Jewish/Israeli editors here', to make it look odd. Check the context. It isn't.

(4) I you invent the idea that I 'suggest' all Israelis are criminals. I never said any such thing, indeed, such an absurd thought had never even crossed my mind until you attributed it to me.

(5) 'Finkelstein is definitely an anti-Zionist and also a borderline anti-semite.' This is extremely naive. A very large number of Jewish intellectuals and a substantial number of Israelis could be defined as 'anti-Zionist' if that means opposition to taking more Palestinian land. It is a neutral descriptive label: you use it as though to embrace that position were an index of prejudice. It isn't. Secondly, you brand a RS a 'borderline antisemite' and, in context, in that I cite this source, tar me with the same brush. 'Borderline' is a word in psychiatric jargon to define a certain pathology which you directly attribute to a scholar, and by innuendo, to people like myself who cite him. 'Antisemite', well: I'm only bemused by that, though I could feign shock, and adduce it as evidence of improper language.

(6)When I briefly countered your innuendos, you replied speaking of my bogus disclaimer claims (don't worry, I won't niggle you on the pleonasm).

(7) You take as somehow a breach of ethics that I 'previously debated the qualities of anti-Zionist sources'. ('JewsagAgainstZionism.com' and 'Neturei Karta International: Jews United against Zionism'.' So? All this means to an inquiring mind dragged in to examine the matter is that, when you elided a ref. to Neturei Karta (anti-Zionist Talmudic scholars)as fringe and not RS you at the same time introduced a text from a hate site. I noted that you can't use a principle against one edit, and then ignore it when pushing another. This last point is something everyone remarks on. You change your wiki criteria according to what you want in or out. No consistency. And this causes much exasperation in those who edit with you.

Take these points collectively, and you get the following picture of me. I am a bigot who brands an Israeli community as racist and criminal, who indeed thinks all Israeli/Jewish editors suspect, thinks all Israelis criminal, uses borderline (slightly mad) antisemitic sources, and in defending myself against your verbal innuendoes engages in bogus disclaimers, and, vilely, debates the merits of anti-Zionist sources. Were I to recognize myself in all this, I'd beat you to the race to have myself hauled before the appropriate Wiki administrative court, while checking in with an analyst to have myself treated. That's a tough rap (also in the musical sense) to wear. Now, as you yourself know, I have never seized on this to worry an administrator. Water off a duck's back. No other Israeli editor with whom I have collaborated, most often productively, has ever levelled charges like this against me (except one who was banned, and another whose record for POV editing is notorious). Indeed I get on rather well, despite some very trying cavilling debates one has to endure, with almost everyone here. In our lengthy and vigorous exchanges I have written to them as I have spoken to you, yet you are the only one to feel imperilled and insulted. This is a hard place to edit, and despite the rules, people at times, who have done some very good work, vent their frustrations, as you have here. I certainly have in the past, much less so now, because the new measures have indeed worked to improve conditions. I suggest therefore that we pass over the intemperance, you have dished out as good as you have gotten. Let's get on with editing. I do suggest, finally that less editing, certainly less of this incessant roping in the bureaucracy to win points and claim victimization, and more off-line reading of book sources, rather than scouring the net 24/7 for info that jives with one's POV to plunk into these pages, is worth considering. Remember booklearning lasts: much of this trivia we scoop up via links can fail: theorists say it may well crash over the years into a tohu-bohu of broken links. Book references won't suffer that way. Books of quality, finally, are the work of long years of research and reflection: journalistic articles are quicky pieces, full of ephemera, and lacking a long perspective. Try that, and not only the quality of one's life improves but, notably, also the quality of one's edits, and thus we all gain, esp. wikipedia. Regards (ps.this may be soapboxing. Feel free to denounce, I won't complain)Nishidani (talk) 16:29, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nickhh's view

I totally back Nishidani's observations above. Jaakobou is an incredibly frustrating editor to deal with, often stirring up huge talk page debates over relatively simple issues of language and sourcing, especially on articles that he wants to claim ownership of. His mission here as well seems to be to ramp up as much material as he can that pushes a very right wing Israeli POV, or that criticises public figures who he appears to dislike (eg Gideon Levy and Saeb Erekat) on the assumption that this is simply in response to the allegedly egregious "Palestinian propaganda" that otherwise dominates Wikipedia. This leads to fairly robust debate on talk pages, but very rarely any genuinely insulting or ad hominem attacks. Culling together a few random quotes from such encounters, going back months, does not provide a balanced reality of Eleland's & Jaakobou's interaction. And most of those quotes, as has been pointed out, are anyway aimed at fallacious arguments not at Jaakobou or any individual editor. And beyond that Jaakobou is quite capable of taking on his interlocutors and making pretty broad and unfounded accusations, as evidenced by the diffs presented here. In turn he has taken to forum shopping with multiple complaints against the same editors, often for the most trivial (bordering on fraudulent) of reasons - and he seems to be oddly proud of that behaviour, as evidenced by the "Memorabilia" section on his own userpage. If I had more time I'd add more diffs. --Nickhh (talk) 14:18, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps anyone casually passing by should also remind themselves of this charming little screed before leaping to the assumption that Jaakobou is somehow a victim here. No, two wrongs (supposed, in Eleland's case) as they say do not make anything right, but that example gives some evidence of what other editors here have to put up with. Even I will grant that Jaakobou's behaviour has superficially at least improved recently, and that he has also branched out into editing in less contentious areas - but equally I am cynical enough to believe that this is part of an attempt on his part to prove himself to be an appropriate candidate for adminship (my jaw still hurts from when it hit my desk on being made aware of that ambition a while ago). And the new tactic of "Dear xxx ... Yours cordially" is in many ways no improvement on what goes on, given the way it singles out other editors, and also given the comments that actually appear in between the new pro-forma opening and sign-off. --Nickhh (talk) 20:30, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pedrito's view

I too would like to second the statements by User:Eleland, User:Nishidani and User:Nickhh. User:Jaakobou is here only to push his own, somewhat radical POV on all articles regarding the broader Israeli-Palestinian conflict. His constant edit-warring and wiki-lawyering are a serious impediment to the advancement and improvement of all aritcles in this area.

WP:AGF was tried many times and failed. As a recent example, consider his recent edits on Avigdor Lieberman and compare them to his behaviour at Gideon Levy and Saeb Erekat. In the former he edit-wars to remove criticism of a politician he likes whereas in the later he edit-wars to have such criticism included, displaying, in both cases, completely opposite interpretations of policy and/or judgement. This is not the work of somebody following policy and contributing constructively, but of somebody pushing his or her POV.

I have complained about User:Jaakobou here before (here, here), as have many other editors, usually to no avail. Interactions with his mentor have had the same frustrating result. Recently he's been accusing User:Nickhh, User:Eleland and myself of tag-teaming against him, an accusation which he refuses to prove or drop and persistently uses as an excuse to flout WP:3RR or WP:BRD and massively disrupt articles which are not to his liking.

Summarizing: this is not an isolated incident, but yet another incident by a chronic, un-repenting repeat offender.

Cheers, pedrito - talk - 24.04.2008 14:43

193.109.81.249's view

Comment on extremism

The complainant in this case appears to be a political extremist who cannot be expected or trusted to usefully contribute to a reputable reference work. He is on good, personal terms with violent (and convicted, I think) criminal settlers so extreme that even Israel is abandoning them. The unlimited time he has to wiki-lawyer so harmfully drives away good editors. The mediator who claims to be improving his conduct is world-famous for paranoia and abuse of procedures in Wikipedia. And seems to act only to protect him. I fail to see how WP can expect to be taken seriously while this kind of thing goes on. I'd like to add that nobody brought me to this page, I happened to be looking at the contributions of a different editor I suspect of being a serial abuser. 193.109.81.249 (talk) 11:06, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And how are the rest of us to know if you are not an agent provocateur. What you say of Jaakobou is an unwarranted (on the only evidence that counts, Wiki evidence) and what you remark infamously of User:Durova in this tirade, ostensibly in favour of the defendant, makes those of us who strongly protest User:Jaakobou's endless whingeing look like your cronies. I don't think I am alone in dissociating myself from these remarks. Nishidani (talk) 11:58, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

193.109.81.249's comments are in line many others I've seen on Wikipedia, and there is no reason to believe complicated conspiracy theories regarding them. Jayjg ^(talk) 13:34, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, I made no statement of belief. I have always been highly sceptical of conspiracy theories and theorists. So I endorse exactly your point,Jayjg If you check you will see that the gravamen of my remark was to reprove the anonymous editor for his disgraceful remarks, not to suggest he was part of a conspiracy. Nishidani (talk) 14:22, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

204.52.215.95's view

In his response to 193.109.81.249, Jayjg speaks more accurately than he knows. Indeed "193.109.81.249's comments are in line many others ... on Wikipedia," although I would suggest that they more accurately represent a common reaction to Jaakobou's tendentious editing style. In the last several months I have witnesses at least a half dozen instances in which Jaakobou has initiated long and painfully drawn-out wiki-lawyerly arguments designed to stifle BOLDness and to promote his own non-neutral POV, but like 193.109.81.249 I have also been disinclined to whistle-blow for fear of reprisal.

Jaakobou has a long history of frivolous POINT edits that appear to be employed as punishment for those who cross him[18][19] . He seems to have a great amount of time on his hands despite suggestions that he is occupied as a student, and as a result he is capable of binding articles up in states of perpetual limbo by dogmatic refusal to compromise and OWN-like behavior. To the average editor this can be very frustrating and behavior such as this tends to drive editors (especially new editors) away from wikipedia.

When confronted with the fact that his position is in fact in the extreme minority, Jaakobou has made threats to return at a later date, subsequently placing these broad consensus articles on his "unresolved" list to remind himself that he personally took issue with them[20]. The fact that such an editor may return to the article at a later date is enough to turn away many good editors and I believe this is the intent of making such an otherwise unnecessary remark. Although he makes frequent accusations of others stalking him, I do not believe that he is above the same tactics which considering his disruptive editing is of great concern to those who fear reprisal.

Such fear is not without warrant. As both Nishidani and Nickhh have pointed out, Jaakobou collects one-sided dossiers on those he perceives as his enemies and later uses his collection of quotes stripped of context in order to impugn the names of otherwise valuable editors. To make the collection of such quotes easier for himself he engages in baiting behavior and general tendentiousness to provoke editors against their better judgment. His most recent victim of such character assassination is eleland. This AE action was actually filed in response to eleland's RfC action which can be found here. It is a true pity that there has not been greater response to this RfC, but I believe there are two reasons that other editors who would gladly certify the veracity of the claims have not done so. The reason editors like 193.109.81.249 and I hold back is for fear of reprisal. The more unfortunate reason for those few who have had the courage to oppose Jaakobou (all members of Jaakobou's offensive "memorabilia" gallery) is that they have been involved in so many disputes with him and have been implicated by Jaakobou so many times as belonging to some imagined cabal against him that they hold back for fear of demonstrating bias. I would argue that bias against a manipulative and corrupt editor is wiki-appropriate bias however I am in no position to criticize these editors' very real concerns.

Like 193.109.81.249, I have similarly found my way here without anyone telling me about it. I have, in fact, not participated in any of the Israel-vs.-Palestine articles which seem to be Jaakobou's main hangout. Yet, after a brief meeting with him, I have observed Jaakobou's actions as a concerned and editor for some time now because I believe that he represents the worst kind of wikieditor - an intelligent manipulator. I don't believe anyone here would disagree that Jaakobou is clever, but his use of one-sided character-smearing dossiers are exceptionally dangerous for wikipedia. Most administrators are extremely busy and as a result they do not have time to delve deeply into problems which have brewed for months or years. In such cases, for better or worse, administrators are likely to be heavily swayed by an apparently fully detailed log documenting a long history of disruptive, biased, and racist edits even if this log comes from the other editor concerned. By storing these dossiers on the talk pages of other administrators and failing to inform his intended victim, Jaakobou simultaneously gains an ally in that administrator who hears only a one-sided story and covers his tracks for anyone not stalking him. Nishidani and eleland have both recently discovered the cost of not stalking Jaakobou. When it's time to launch an AE case, Jaakobou has a storehouse of goodies to draw from as well as the support of a neutral administrator.

Above all this, however, the fact that Jaakobou seeks to become an administrator himself is the thing which worries me the most. I feel terrible for Durova who seems to be a very wiki-conscious and all-around good mentor. She has been forced into the position of endlessly defending Jaakobou's actions against his "enemies" and she must by now be getting quite a headache from his controversy-ridden edit-wars. I think Durova sees some good in Jaakobou as she is his mentor after all, however I think this view is misguided. The potential which Jaakobou has to be a good administrator (as evinced from his intelligence, doggedness in defending/promoting his ideals, and perseverance in the face of adversity) is unfortunately dwarfed by the potential he has to be a bad administrator (as evinced by his strong political views, uncompromising attitude, and penchant for malice).

I strongly dispute the charges against eleland and would recommend, instead, a strong warning if not a temporary ban against Jaakobou to remind him that wikipedia is neither an appropriate venue for personal philosophies, nor a BATTLEground where GAME-playing and rhetorical wiki-lawyering are the weapons. My dream scenario involves a permanent topic ban resulting from violation of the final AE warning, however I recognize that this is unlikely. Finally, I would recommend that Durova review her decision to mentor Jaakobou and I plead for the anonymous editor in general that such an editor not be released as a full administrator without thorough proof that he can look beyond his own POV. 204.52.215.95 (talk) 19:20, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I should clarify. I don't hold back in fear of being caught for 'bias'. I wear on my pages, the badges of my infamy quite proudly, injustices mostly, but froth off that notable acquatic creatures back. I tried to advise Eleland of what I thought was an inopportune time for defending himself. I'll say publicly what I thought privately when he asked me if I was interested in commenting on his appeal. If Eleland is punished, I'll leave wikipedia in protest (no big loss). He is a fine, trenchant and knowledgeable editor as far as I can judge. I think his own complaint self-defensive, and in so far as it takes Jaakobou's absurd dossier seriously, a sign of a lack of confidence in arbitrators (mind you, perhaps he has good reasons to lack confidence there. If he like myself belongs to Jaakobou's scallawag brigade of trophy heads to be mounted on his Memorabilia Wall, and has his name constantly thrown up before administrators as a scoundrel, I understand his countermove. It's just that being lazy, I couldn't give, to use an old bushman's idiom, a proverbial rodent's rectum for wasting several hours, every time I am accused, in working up those dangfounded diffs to defend myself. I'd much prefer to edit, and protest only when some stray administrator takes Jaakobou's inquisition seriously. I'm quite open about my sympathies, use at times strong expressions, and have openly said that, while I'm very happy to embrace the new regime of editing rules, I will participate in the style that is natural for me. That of civilized dialogue which, even in the most urbane of classical rhetors, does not deny itself a natural outburst on occasion, of calling a spade an effen shovel. If administrators, seeing this clipped out, don't check, and fault me for it, I'll pay the penalty for my sincerity. Administrators should understand that in one of the most difficult areas to edit in Wikipedia, etiquette is fundamental, but an exasperated outburst or two should be neither here nor there, or a touch of soapboxing either. One needs that leeway, if one is to stay in here and work half one's time fighting a totally misguided warrior idea of patriotic editing, and not fake a voice that is all courtesy up front, and daggers underneath, in the editing manner of people one knows to be pronouncedly and dogmatically intent on inserting national biases into this encyclopedia. Jaakobou is intensely exasperating, and I have fought him to a standstill on his own ground every now and then. A huge waste of time, his mainly, because he is wasting years on putting in material that can be struck down anytime in ther future, near or far.

p.s. I hope more people come in. This is all quite entertaining. We all must look like tiddlers gasping at the bait Jaakobou has thrown to reel in, gugdeon after gudgeon, the notorious off-line school of a fishy pro-Palestinian cabal CAMERA talks of!!!!Nishidani (talk) 22:18, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

content related material - retracted - and discussions

Decided to remove content related complaints. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 20:58, 23 April 2008 (UTC) retracted. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 21:02, 23 April 2008 (UTC) added comment by Nishidani intended to PhilKnight. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 21:06, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Durova

Suggest refactoring the "yet again" out of this request title. Not sure what else to say here, so I'll be taking a tall glass of water plus a good meal and a good night's rest before posting on this matter again. Durova^Charge! 05:21, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good point, much better now. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 11:12, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've spent the last couple of days hoping things would work out amicably, or at least that Eleland, Jaakobou, and a few others would agree to set aside their differences and collaborate. Looks like a more detailed statement is necessary so I'll say this in as few words as possible.

I'm not here to defend Jaakobou: I'm his mentor, not his advocate. I mentor him in policy and dispute resolution issues and have encouraged him to broaden his editing horizons. I've been able to help him hands-on in some of those broader areas, but I make no claim to expertise on the content side of the Israeli-Palestinian disputes. Jaakobou edits in a difficult area and he attempts to see that a controversial yet notable point of view is represented in the range of discussion. He brings sourced material to the discussion. As long as that participation satisfies the parameters of site guidelines and policies, that enriches articles. As far as I am able to see he usually does follow policy, and when he steps on the wrong side of it he accepts appropriate feedback and makes adjustments. I am not able to gauge the full depth of that on the content side, though.

To the best of my knowledge Jaakobou had nothing to do with the recent CAMERA fiasco; I take that issue quite seriously. Jaakobou seeks appropriate dispute resolution and works in good faith. When a recent mediation closed without success I consulted with the mediator, who assured me that Jaakobou's participation had not been the problem. Jaakobou sought me out as a sounding board seven months ago and never tried to leverage the relationship onsite (he hasn't asked me to post here, for example). When arbitration opened it was my idea to formalize the mentorship and announce it to the community, since he had already demonstrated his sincerity.

Jaakobou is the only editor I know of who went through an ethnic dispute arbitration case and contributed featured content after the case closed, who hadn't already been a featured content contributor beforehand. He was one of the people who raised Israel to FA, he did two image restorations that became featured pictures on subjects entirely unrelated to politics, and he started an article about an educational television show that made Wikipedia's main page in Template:Did you know. Yesterday he asked me to copyedit a second new article that he's preparing for DYK submission.

He isn't perfect. He comes to me whenever he's aware that something could become a problem. He doesn't always see those problems in advance and sometimes he gets frustrated. He's acutely aware of the grievances of people on his own side of the fence, less so of others. That could be said for the editors on both sides here. I understand he's sought a second mentor for the in-depth aspects of the content dispute. Durova^Charge! 08:48, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Small correction/clarification - I helped move Israel forward after it was already featured. Some two weeks of discussions where I was a major participant resulted in a completely new (and stable) 3rd paragraph. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 09:46, 28 April 2008 (UTC) minor add 09:47, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough Jaakobou. Now that we are talking about positive things you've done, could you please listen to what others think about your behavior and try to correct it? As an example, Durova has never kept memorabilia for people she disagrees with and this is something you may learn from your mentor. Other people would also learn how to not use innapropriate language under any circumstance. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 10:36, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FayssalF,

I don't think Durova ever faced such intensity of continuous personal attacks and incivility from established editors (War criminal accusations, tag team reverts and insults, soapboxing). Regardless, I've removed it from my userpage and will avoid putting such things on display in the future.[21]

With respect, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 13:59, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the gesture. In fact Durova is experienced enough to address and handle more than that. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 14:14, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Um...Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Durova, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Durova. More happens offsite too. I don't talk about it much, but among other things I actually get death threats. Durova^Charge! 01:22, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To address the collaboration note,

I have no problem with setting aside differences and collaborating with either of the four (Eleland, Nishidani, Pedro, Nickhh) and I've been able to collaborate reasonably enough with others despite some differences (ChrisO, Ryan Postlethwaite, JzG). However, my requests that they avoid personal remarks, edit warring and advocacy have been met with further personal remarks, edit warring and soapboxing.

Nickhh sample:

"people have to spend way too much time as it is clearing up all the sh#t you leave lying around" Nickhh, 16:15, 11 April 2008
"Let's try to raise our discourse, not lower it. I'd appreciate a refactor." Jaakobou 17:11, 11 April 2008
"Dear Idiot" - Nickhh, 18:40, 24 April 2008

I remain hopeful that things will change but my attempts to resolve the situation through calm discussion and mediation, and without administrative action have been met with "open fire" resistance.

With respect, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 14:01, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Again thanks but it seems that you forgot 'memorabilia2'. I hope all involved parties received well the message. No personal attacks, no bickering, no, no, no, no and certainly play within good faith. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 14:14, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FayssalF,

What's wrong with memorabilia2 (now memorabilia 1) ?? Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 14:26, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've just got confused. My apologies. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 14:52, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"my attempts to resolve the situation through calm discussion and mediation, and without administrative action have been met with "open fire" resistance" Uhm... Just as an example, on Avigdor Lieberman, can you give us an example of you using calm discussion and mediation and not just edit-warring? And no, signing obnoxious comments with "cordially" or "with respect" doesn't make things better. Cheers, pedrito - talk - 28.04.2008 14:09

Just a quick response to Jaakobou now dredging up a couple of my admittedly more inopportune comments (interesting as well how far this page has gone from the original complaint). The "clearing up .." comment is a) totally valid; and b) related to a totally bizarre refusal on Jaakobou's part to correct some simple and uncontroversial mistakes that he had edited into an article, despite a polite request (ie in response to disruptive editing). The "Dear Idiot" was a rather clumsy attempt to make a point about the new and rather patronising habit of starting all talk page comments on pages where I have been involved with a "Dear Nickhh", and was also in direct response to a comment he had made previously that simply missed every point I had put and was factually wrong. I'll happily strike that word. And Jaakobou, if you make one more accusation of "soapboxing" or "tag team editing" I'll file a case against you here, and present about 40 links to examples of personal abuse, false accusations, racist rants, WP:NPA & WP:CIV breaches --Nickhh (talk) 14:27, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh God, don't threaten to file a case Nickhh against User:Jaakobou. Any one of us could have written single-handedly a couple of FA wiki articles everytime we have been asked to waste days on these endless complaints our mutual friend raises. I thought the point of the exercise was to stop dossier-building, profiling, get us all to try to rein in even our occasional peccadillos (comparatively rare) of exasperated remonstration. Jaakobou is a past master of the art of petty incrimination (yes, that is my opinion and I haven't the time to rephrase it in terms that are politically or politely correct) and it is his perfect right to do so, according to Wiki rules. But if one is to get anywhere, one should (can I use a plural like 'we' without exciting suspicions of a cabal?) not be dragged down the same pettifogging road. Otherwise it will make Jardyce vs Jarndyce in Bleak House look like a brief barbeque in comparison Nishidani (talk) 15:10, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've gotten an idea today and I think I'll message the people who've been posting to this thread. Durova^Charge! 06:02, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you're interested and you see this and you didn't get a ping from me, please drop me a line. I'm trying to replicate something that built bridges for a different ethnic/national dispute. Durova^Charge! 06:37, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Tiamut

It is unfortunate that we are here at arbitration enforcement once again to discuss issues concerning, or raised by, Jaakobou. I have reviewed the comments in Jaakobou's evidence above. Even when taken out of context as they are, they do not, to my mind, constitute personal attacks, though they are somewhat ascerbic, likely due to the exasperation Jaakobou's editing style evokes in many editors in the I-P domain. While Jaakobou has made a number of solid contributions to featured photos outside of this domain, his contributions within the I-P topic range are often hindered by his strong POV and single-minded focus on inserting minority interpretations of controversial events in an undue fashion.

While Eleland has been previously blocked for civility issues, it is essential to recall that Jaakobou has received a final warning for using AE and a shopping block for ungrounded complaints [22]. In my opinion, there is nothing in Jaakobou's evidence (or in the two diffs provided by User:Ynhockey) that indicates that Eleland has again breached Wikipedia civility guidelines. Indeed, a comparing his comments pre-block and post-block, there is evidence that he has toned down his commentary, and I believe that he can and will do better in the future.

I do not envy the admins who have to deal with this problem and am quite sorry to see that it has not been resolved between the users involved. I must admit however, that I find Jaaakobou to be extremely difficult to deal with. Indeed, since our last run-in with one another, I have largely avoided editing at pages where he is involved. I might issue the same advice to others. However, the problem is that his edits are often problematic and do require the intervention of other editors to ensure that they are line with Wikipedia policies. Many of the people above have taken on that task, and while their comments often express exasperation, anyone who has worked with Jaakobou on an I-P article would understand from whence such comments come.

In conclusion, I don't think Jaakobou's ability to collaborate on I-P articles is going to improve any time soon. I think he should be prohibited from posting complaints targeting Eleland, Nickhh or Nishidani, since he seems to have an unhealthy interest in their talk page pecadillos that has little to do with bulding an encyclopedia. I reiterate my earlier suggestion that Jaakobou be placed on a short-term topic ban, so that he work in other areas of the encyclopedia where he can get a better idea of what NPOV and collaboration involved. Hopefully, he will return to I-P articles with a fresh perspective and less of a battleground approach. Tiamut^talk 11:12, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reponse by Jaakobou

User:Tiamut is a very involved and strongly opinionated editor who has (a) objected to basic Arabic translations and (b) reliable secondary sources, (c) suggested multiple disclaimers in the third paragraph (lede) of Israel and (d) called multiple other editors "gatekeepers" when they objected her perspective.

"A google search of "one who is ready to sacrifice his life" and fedayeen... marvellous little bit of WP:OR" Tiamut, January 2008
- See SAKHR Arabic Dictionary: Fedayeen - one who risks his life voluntarily , one who sacrifices himself
rv: "editorializing from Freedman" - Tiamut, 31 March 2008
"Within the Green Line... Israel can be described as... However..."
"gatekeepers of this article"

On Palestinian fedayeen she repeatedly ignored my legitimate concerns, and only after 3rd opinions ([23], [24], [25]) showed signs of willingness to compromise.

"Pyrospirit, Your reasoned explanation ...If Jaakobou agrees, I will place..." Tiamut, 15:45, 24 January 2008

I've taken a lot of verbal beatings from Tiamut, who supports the Palestinian "struggle against occupation" narrative, and believe her testimony regarding my ability to collaborate with others to be highly subjective. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 13:45, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing to do with content and POV... Can't you understand that everything we are discussing here deals with behavior and not POV stances because it seems clearly that you've never shared a single POV? Did Tiamut attacked you personally so we can warn her or block her if she persists? Does Tiamut have a 'memorabilia' section on you? Would you mind address my question above instead of talking about how other POVs are ~~evil>~~ subjectively not neutral and yours is helping wiki neutrality as you put it? -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 14:02, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"User:Tiamut is a very involved and strongly opinionated editor [...]." Oh, and you're what? Seriously, Jack, we've raised legitimate concerns here and elsewhere in countless discussions and you have not bothered to address a single one of them, preferring to reply with the kind of poinless ad hominem attacks such as the one above. pedrito - talk - 28.04.2008 13:53

Pedrito,

I don't think my comment that Tiamut's perspective of me is subjective to be "pointless". I request you notice what uninvolved admins have said above regarding incivility and also that you go over WP:BATTLE.

FayssalF,

I've removed that section and only noted that Tiamut's behavioral testimony was subjective. I don't know why you say that "it seems clearly that you've never shared a single POV". I don't believe this is accurate.

Anyways, to clarify, I don't think there's a reason to place any administrative sanctions on Tiamut for coming in defense of Eleland.

p.s. I request you retract the note that I was "talking about how other POVs are evil" since I did no such thing; I was only establishing that Tiamut's perspective on me is highly subjective.

With respect, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 14:18, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You see, Jack, this is exactly what I mean. There probably isn't a single piece of Wikipedia policy you have not asked me to "go over". Please tell me what parts of WP:BATTLE you think I infringed and how. Anything short of that is, I repeat myself here, pointless.

Oh, and while you're add it, in what way has my comment been uncivil? Again, please stick to specifics and not blanket accusations. Cheers, pedrito - talk - 28.04.2008 14:22

Hang on Jaakobou, what exactly are you trying to prove here with these diffs? All of them show, when you look into them, that Tiamut has behaved totally reasonably in each instance, even where there have been disagreements on content. I also find it disturbing that you will immediately dive in to challenge her post and accuse her of whatever you are exactly trying to accuse her of; but didn't react the same way to similar posts that I, Pedrito, Nishidani or indeed anyone else have had up here for a couple of days. Maybe passers by might want to take a punt on why that might be the case. --Nickhh (talk) 14:09, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nickhh,

I did not want to distract from Eleland's incivility issue.

I hope that clarifies your question, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 14:21, 28 April 2008 (UTC) fix 14:21, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well no it doesn't explain at all why you launched into an attack on Tiamut (assuming you mean "answers" rather than "clarifies"), but never mind. --Nickhh (talk) 14:38, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing that out, Nickhh. I would like to ask that Jaakobou either provide evidence of the "verbal beatings" I have subjected him to, or strike that accusation from his response to my comment, since the diffs he appended fail to support that statement (Indeed, they seem to contradict it). I won't deny being "involved" or "opinionated" when it comes to I-P articles, but I try to follow NPOV in my editing, and last I checked, being involved and having opinions were not Wiki crimes. Tiamut^talk 14:57, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reworded response by Jaakobou

User:Tiamut is a very involved and strongly opinionated editor who's capable of ignoring basic legitimate concerns of other editors and even call multiple other editors "gatekeepers of this article" when they object her perspectives. I believe her testimony regarding my ability to collaborate with others to be highly subjective. However, I don't believe she should be sanctioned for minor incivility or for coming in the aid of Eleland and I do believe there's always room for improvement in ways of communication and attempted dispute resolution, esp. with the people involved in this thread.
A necessary starting point would be a a real change in culture. However, my attempts to achieve this by addressing Eleland without administrative intervention have all failed. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 09:33, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

back to the main point

I don't normally get involved here on this topic; FWIW, my actual personal opinion on the underlying political issues is very different from Jaakobou's. Nonetheless, I was asked by Jaakobou to have a look, and I think his original complaint deserves to be dealt with. Looking at the above discussion, i see J discusses the comments and edits, and his opponents discuss politics. Looking at the discussion page for AL, I notice J discusses primarily the edits, and his opponents discuss his motivations. The implication is obvious--regardless of what may have gone before, J's complaints have merit. eleland's edits and comments are marked by a personal animus that is altogether inappropriate; he may think as he pleases, but he cannot insult other editors. If bad editing has provoked him, he still needs to discuss the edits, not the editors. Under the terms of the arbcom decision, I would unhesitatingly give a block of about 7 days to prevent continuing impolite discussion. given the quick unblock previously, I'd like confirmation by another admin.

More generally, I agree that this won't solve this situation, & I propose another remedy to encourage civilized discussion: any mention by name or implication of other editors instead of edits on the talk page of any related article be subject to block after a first warning or alternatively by banning from all related articles. DGG (talk) 02:03, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DGG, in the section where my comment is placed just above, can you point me to where Jaakobou discusses edits, rather than editors? His opening salvo in response to my comment is: User:Tiamut is a very involved and strongly opinionated editor who has (a) objected to basic Arabic translations and (b) reliable secondary sources, (c) suggested multiple disclaimers in the third paragraph (lede) of Israel and (d) called multiple other editors "gatekeepers" when they objected her perspective. That is followed by a series of diffs which present a selection of my encounters with Jaakobou on the talk page, not one of which provides evidence of bad faith editing, or of the "verbal beatings" which he claims to have taken from me in concluding his response to my comment above. Note that he did not retract that claim, despite my request that he do so if he has no evidence that supports it. As usual, Jaakobou can make baseless accusations that actually are personal attacks, while simultaneously claiming victimhood, and no one intervenes to do anything about it.

I agree that self-reflection on the part of all editors is required, and I do my best to live by that mantra. It seems to me, however, that Jaakobou always seem to get off with a slap on the wrist for things for which others have faced more serious consequences. Are the benefits of contacting multiple admins individually to intervene on his behalf, every time he is facing scrutiny, that effective? Should we all be canvassing for admin advocates too when faced with his litany of complaints? I do not mean to imply that your intervention here is made in bad faith. But you may not be aware that every time Jaakobou has been before this or any other dispute resolution forum, one admin or another, contacted by Jaakobou privately or outside of the forum discussion, has popped in to give their two cents in his support. (User:Number 57 wrote about his pattern of contacting admins offline to "sweet-talk" them in the Arbcomm evidence for the I-P case last year[26]. It's a tactic that is getting quite old really.)

You admit above that a week block against Eleland for civility will not solve anything. So why propose it? Sanctions are meant to preventative, not punitive. Are four diffs, selectively presented out of context and collected over the course of two months, and which point to comments that do not constitute personal attacks - but which can subjectively be seen as uncivil (or perhaps borderline soapboxing) - worthy of a week ban?

Jaakobou received a final warning here against using AE as a "weapon for block-shopping" [27]. That was a sanction designed to prevent the free-for-all and kicking up of bad faith and smoke and mirrors that we have seen unfold here. He did not heed that warning. Yet another slap on the wrist because he knows how to schmooze? How utterly disappointing. Tiamut^talk 05:56, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Civility related comment - I'm getting bit miffed at the "claiming victimhood" suggestions/commentaries. One, two, three "the old victim-strategy he employs" (Nishidani), ok. But now Tiamut also? PLEASE! consider WP:CIV and avoid using Israeli-Palestinian conflict terminology to describe user's personal traits.
Dear Tiamut,
The "gatekeepers" remark was insulting and also the way you ignored my legitimate concerns on Palestinian Fedayeen. However, my main concern is the civility issue, which is not a huge issue with you although suggestions that I'm a good schmoozer(?) and a Hollywood vicim typecast are not exactly a model of civility and could definitely be considered as a verbal abuse.
Thank you, (edit conflict/rephrase) Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 08:43, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry you were offended by my phrasing. But it's highly relevant that you while you claim to be offended by Eleland's incivility, you have no problem engaging in such behaviour yourself.

I'm sorry you were offended by the "gatekeepers" remark, but it was not directed towards you, and I never ignored your concerns at Palestinian fedayeen. Anyone who reviews the talk page archive there will see to what lengths I went to accomodate those concerns.

What I find offensive is how you continue to ignore my request that you retract you false accusation regarding the "verbal beatings" you claim I've dished out to you, and that you continue to seek sanctions against your fellow editors, rather than attempting to actually work out the issues that prevent a healthy and collaborative editing atmosphere to emerge. While Nishidani may be verbose, his contributions here are hardly "disruptive". Maybe you could spend less time trying to get other people into trouble, and more time actually editing content. If you find working with me and others difficult, perhaps you might try avoiding us. I've avoided you quite successfully for the last little while and without sacrificing my contributions to the project. Why not try that yourself? Tiamut^talk 08:36, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think your description is highly subjective and inaccurate. However, this is germane to the civility issue and I don't think this is the proper venue to explore this further.

On point, I'd be more than willing to retract all text relating to you if you were to accommodate me with the same courtesy.

With respect, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 08:49, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me for saying so Jaakobou, but your response reveals a rather unfortunate unwillingness to make good faith gestures that would indicate to your fellow editors that you are sincere about building a healthy editing relationship. I apologized to you twice above for the statements I made that you took issue with. Instead of acknowledging that, and reciprocating by, for example, doing what I have asked of you mutliple times here already, you instead insist that I strike out all my comments here first? Do you really think that signing off With respect is congruous with such a petty approach? Tiamut^talk 08:59, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tiamut,

It is highly uncivil to demand good faith gestures while offering non in response ("I'm sorry... But..." is not much of a gesture). Regardless, I've presented a rephrased response; and I wouldn't mind (with your consent) to archive the entire thread of the first response. If you want, I'm also willing to archive the entire comment by Tiamut thread.

With respect, (what's wrong with this ending?) Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 09:46, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you simply withdrew the suit, as a gesture of good faith, you would gain far more points with everyone than you might ever obtain for yourself in pursuing it. That is the obvious thing to do, would honour yourself, and make the rest of 'us' take a second look at our own behaviour. Gestures like that are what mark leaders off from the rest. Think about it.Nishidani (talk) 09:51, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nishidani,

It is highly uncivil to demand as though I'm an aggressor who's supposed to apologize as a gesture to allow other adult wikipedians avoid embarrassment so they can start examining their own behavior, something which should have started a long time ago. I've made a suggestion to Tiamut and she can either take up on it or not. Please spare me the uncivil "honor" mind games and also please stop clogging this thread; 7500 words is more than enough. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 10:08, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Look, I've spent several decades of a life using the English language professionally, and you are misreading it here and elsewhere so consistently, that I have to comment. A gentle suggestion is not a demand. To raise a suggestion is not 'uncivil'. I suggested Eleland refrain from his countersuit, I asked Nickhh not to. I now ask you to consider the same. I have never laid a formal complaint in these arbitration venues, despite some very heavy insinuations from you and several others that I am a bigot, antisemite, or pusher of an antisemitic point of view, charges laid against me because I cite a lot of scholarly books by Jewish thinkers under whose creative influence I'm proud to say I was raised. I have only been strongly tempted to complain formally when you insulted a woman, call me oldfashioned, if you like: and declared that an ostensible 'Islam-inspired cultural structure of the Arab world is the main cause of the Arab-Palestinian 91 year racist terror campaign against the Jewish-Palestinians.' (That statement, in my book, technically meant you lack the equanimity and indeed the knowledge to edit here - it is lightyears away from what serious scholarship by Israeli and Jewish scholars of distinction says about that troubled area's history. It is very close to admitting you edit within a framework of fundamentalist belief that mirrors, against Arabs, that antisemitism which is the central blight of Western civilisation. I say that cautiously, because you reveal a conviction that ontologicallythe culture of all Arab people predisposes them to terrorize an innocent people, and this is precisely the kind of mindset (switch 'Jew' for 'Arab', and 'culture' for 'race') behind that antisemitism in Western civilisation which wrought such violence to the Jewish people. Tiamut is a Palestinian of Arabic cultural background, the implication was obvious, and your repeating even here a frivolously-grounded attack on her does not give much evidence of your having taken to heart Durova's advice).

I did not imply you were the aggressor in that remark. I did not use the phrase, but in English, what I was prompting you to consider is called 'noblesse oblige', noble ancestry (culturally) entails an honour code which is sensitive to responsibilities. To ask one to take the route that honour dictates is to trust that this precious sentiment is alive in him, and therefore honour him by the expectation. An obligation we all have here is to pull back before things precipitate. We have seen that all too often in the past. Earlier, to satisfy what appeared to me a need for a 'win', I suggested myself as a substitute victim; here I suggested you win by a different strategy. I know you want to win something, and the rational solution, as suggested, has been staring me at least in the face for a long time. Therefore I suggested calling off your suit of complaint. I note now Pedrito is now registering a complaint, as the original cancer of complaint metastasizes. Many of us could register complaints. The only way out of this endless exasperation of administrators' time and patience is to make a noble gesture. That is Jaakobou, not some cynical machiavellian put-down cunnily contrived to make you look 'infantile'. To the contrary, it would make us look rather silly, and you manly. That you can't see this worries me, but I blame myself. Perhaps you tire of my 'clogging' prose. I hope you will reconsider still. Nishidani (talk) 11:34, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nishidani,
I've already retracted, apologized, received administrative action and avoided repetition of past offenses but here is your chance "to make a noble gesture":

"He has a huge talent for pleading victimhood, while editing in often shonky material with relentless energy."
"Jaakobou (the old victim-strategy he employs)" Nishidani 14:15, 26 April 2008

There's a few others, but I don't think it's germane to the "Ha, ha. I figured that was Jaakobou or something" Eleland's civility issue. With respect, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 12:43, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You compiled a dossier against me for an eventual administrative action to have me suspended for 7 days. You laid it on User:PhilKnight's page. It contains more or less the same shonky florilegium of bits and pieces ushered in here to convict Eleland of injurious behaviour. Nota bene. I took no counter-administrative appeal, registered that I was not told you were doing this behind my back, but stumbled on it by accident. Made a short (thank God! sighs all round) set of remarks in defence and declared I would ignore your complaint, and left it to the administrator to judge. Knowing that you have a similar complaint against me (and several others) of the kind you have registered in here against Eleland, I defended him as I would not defend myself, and I offered you a 'deal' which would leave you a winner. Let Jaakobou wear my scalp, I suggested. I am as guilty (or innocent) as Eleland. I.e. in this ornate chessmatch where we are all pieces on the board, I offered a sacrifice to let you win a great positional advantage. It may not be 'noble', but just a sly move to promote myself. It may just be, nonetheless, a 'paternal' (what presumption!!) gesture by someone who appears to have some decades of experience of the world more than the others, and not of wikiality, to hint at the need for some ethical self-restraint, moral toughness, strong nerves, and intelligent insouciance to pettifogging if we are to get on and improve these articles, which are still in a shocking mess. Sometimes ethics, (I know you hate me using that word as well), as distinct from customary morality, defines its nobility by forsaking the covert bartering in most moral exchanges. I.e. one does something for an intrinsic good, renouncing the profitable do ut des groundrules of otherwise fine human gestures. Think about it. You have everything to gain, and lose nothing thereby.Nishidani (talk) 13:39, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:DGG. I'll be as brief as possible. I haven't discussed only J's politics. I pointed out that if I were to share his outlook, that one prepare in stealth minute dossiers on every shade of language he takes as offensive to him personally, shares them with selected administrators, all in order to get an adversary hauled over the coals, then, by the same token, he, despite his extreme care to be formally polite, but textually unrelenting in a one-sided POV, would fall under the same sanctions. I showed above that I could well have complained, and this is just one instane of many, about his depiction of me as a bigot who brands an Israeli community as racist and criminal, who indeed thinks all Israeli/Jewish editors suspect, thinks all Israelis criminal, uses borderline (slightly mad) antisemitic sources, and in defending myself against your verbal innuendoes engages in bogus disclaimers, and, vilely, debates the merits of anti-Zionist sources. He never denied this, since he is, apparently, too focused on Eleland's remarks to notice his own. I, like many others in here, have not endeavoured to 'nail' him, and this restraint is now made to appear, paradoxically, like a tag-team victimization of the plaintiff. If others went after him as he does with them, this place would be a shambles. I'm thickskinned and don't complain: he, apparently, isn't, and does. There is a vast literature, from Nietzsche to Max Scheler on ressentiment, and I think everyone should browse it. I won't do more than allude to it. Nothing Jaakobou attributes to Eleland could not be, by selective review, laid against him for similar sanctions. Eleland alone was tempted to lay a case, which the rest of 'us' refrained from assisting, out of exasperation with this personalistic pettifogging. Ban us all as nuisances for a week, or give, by all means a strong last warning to one and all to reflect deeply, and honour the encyclopedia's aims, rather than waste time on trivial personal bickerings, and petty point-scoring. To do otherwise would be to punish Eleland because Jaakobou complained, and exculpate Jaakobou at the same time, awarding him a symbolic victory, because no one else here has registered a complaint, though they have abundant evidence (as per above, just a small sampling). From the evidence here one would never gather that working on I/P articles since the new rules have been in place, has been much improved, the shouting matches much reduced (the scanty evidence here underlines this) and this case, if taken seriously, threatens to open another huge concatenation of vendetta politicking before admins that no one surely wants. Regards Nishidani (talk) 13:37, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was not proposing to punish Eleland, I'm proposing to stop him using such comments. But you have a good idea here. I would be open to withdrawing the suggestion of a block at this time, if there were any sign that people were willing to live and let live. But the above comments, and the opening of a second AE case just above, do not sound like this is the case. I revise however my additional suggestion in favor of something more specific. Let's everyone refrain from comments about editor's politics and the possible political motivations of their edits from this day forward. If we can get that far it will be a start DGG (talk) 11:47, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I for one warmly appreciate and commend this suggestion. This has dragged on far too long, and should be a warning to all parties. I apologize to administrators for my own loose-mouthed tolutiloquence, but with the reminder that I have argued hard to keep the administrative board free of tediously petty challenges that grown men should sort out among themselves on the page. Best regards Nishidani (talk) 13:45, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Block-shopping

Jaakobou (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User:Jaakobou had been warned by User:Future Perfect at Sunrise here:

"Final warning given to Jaakobou for trying to use WP:AE as a weapon for block-shopping. This flood of reports is getting out of hand."

Which he violated by opening the thread bleow, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement#Eleland issues persist and by contacting other admins on- and off-site (i.e. here, here and whatever resulted in this). Not content with attacking User:Eleland, he uses the same thread to lash-out at User:Tiamut and User:Nickhh.

Summary: User:Jaakobou has been warned about block-shopping and has done it again anyway. I suggest the admin who gave the final warning follow-through with whatever sanctions he/she had in mind.

Cheers, pedrito - talk - 29.04.2008 06:26

Given everything in the discussion below, I think that opening a second request here at this point will only make the situation more difficult. You're doing even more clearly just what you complain of. This is not going to help solve the problem. DGG (talk) 12:52, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I have to agree that this is an inappropriate venue for pursuing what is an entirely appropriate request. Can an admin close this thread, or maybe move it into a subsection of the thread below? <eleland/talkedits> 13:47, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I just wanted to point out that User:Jaakobou had been firmly warned against doing what he has done, exactly, below. As opposed to him, I have not been warned not to block-shop and have not gone admin-shopping either, so please don't imply I'm doing the same. I also don't really see how asking for consequences (final warning, remember?) makes the situation "more difficult". I will, however, move the thread to the discussion farther below. Cheers, pedrito - talk - 29.04.2008 14:34

Reconsider Pedrito. I'm asking Jaakobou to take a step that is evidently extremely difficult for him, one which effectively asks him to withdraw from precisely the action which, on good technical grounds, you adduce to get him under one more administrative review. From his angle, I probably appear to be helping Eleland. Eleland (and perhaps yourself) might well read my work as helping Jaakobou, since by withdrawing, he would not face the charge you lay against him. From my own perspective, I've probably annoyed everyone. 'La razón se pierde razonando’, as Antonio Porchia once wrote. I think administrators must be empathising with Graham Green's description of Wilson: ‘He was a good listener. His brain was like a sieve through which the rubbish fell all day’. G Green, The Heart of the Matter, p.62, and would appreciate a reduction in this kind of casework, if all of us underwrite User:DGG's remarks. Regards, and Jaakobou, over to you. Nishidani (talk) 14:39, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nishidani, I really, really want to believe that User:Jaakobou will change his ways on his own. However, we have been lenient, diplomatic and even pedagogical with him time and again, and every time he takes a step back -- as you are asking him to do now -- he compensates it with leaps and bounds in the wrong direction as soon as he thinks nobody is looking. I tend to see this in more pragmatic terms and prefer to quote Benjamin Franklin (if it was really him who said so):

The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.

There is a simple solution to the problem at hand: impose sanctions on User:Jaakobou. The only lesson he has taken from any of these excursions to WP:AN/I or WP:AE is that he can basically get away with anything unscathed. You know, maybe if at least once an admin made good on a threat or a warning, or even on common policy, User:Jaakobou would learn where the line in the sand lies and move on to being a more productive editor?

Cheers, pedrito - talk - 29.04.2008 14:48

Comment by AzaToth

I can see a problem here that the parties are commenting on the editors, and thus infecting incivility. As I can see it, there is a lack of assumption of good faith from all parties, and that needs to be addressed. I recommend forced mediation for all parties and place them om incivility parole (i.e. any admin can block them without warning for uncivil statements). _→AzaToth 15:27, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

good idea, but the arb com already did it. [28] DGG (talk) 15:50, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The I/P pages require extensive, indeed often huge, argument, often superbly civil, on the most minute points, which most parties often think absurdly stressful. I could cite many pages however where editors of long experience, editing administrators included, challenge each other with words as strong as 'ludicrous' and no one is offended, and suits at ANI do not arise. The endless recourse to WP:CIVIL WP:AGF doesn't quite function: even more sanctions will so neuter editorial freedom to reason that many will drop out altogether, as so many good editors seem already to have done. I know administrators qua administrators cannot rule on content. They might as editors use their authority to nudge incipient disagreements of little merit towards commonsense. Rather than however face endless complaints in here, why not have every difficult page monitored daily by an administrator, one per page? It would ease administrative review here, be light on individual administrators, and commend all editors to be more careful, with a guardian angel looking over the page, and above all, prompt them not to engage in factitious pushing of an impossible position (on this I admit prejudice. 160 odd sources over several weeks to show the word 'uprising' is normal English for an event like an 'intifada' at Al Aqsa Intifada, arising in response to strong convictions to the contrary from one or two editors whose respect of WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL is pitch-perfect, still lies without a resolution in sight. Things like this, a nightmare conducted in perfect urbanity, could have been avoided if one administrator, participating as editor, asked for proof why the O.E.D. and all academic sources got it wrong). No doubt the other side has similar complaints for other issues. The content resolution process is far too long and involved. Regards Nishidani (talk) 17:20, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

offtopic length of comments - retracted

Retracted a generic question unrelated to the civility issue raised. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 08:32, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

(offtopic) Is it just me, or does anyone else find Nishidani's 7000 words on this thread disruptive also? It's a bit of a prolonging issue (sample). Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 08:29, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Bluemarine

Is this user a ban evading sock? Jehochman ^Talk 13:53, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All signs to point to yes. Please block and revert his edits and Talk Page vandalism on the Matt Sanchez article. --Tanstaffl (talk) 14:01, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You've only made a handful of edits on that account. Which is your main account? I think I'll wait for others to weigh in before doing anything. Jehochman ^Talk 14:16, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I asked for a checkuser last night. Came back unrelated. Must say I'm still uneasy. Be aware that in this particular dispute spoofing/joe jobbing has also been a significant possibility. Durova^Charge! 14:36, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to roll back all of his edits, as some of them need to be discussed, and there is a lot of whitewashing/promotion there. Horologium (talk) 14:48, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe add Tanstaffl (talk · contribs · count) to that Checkuser request? Jehochman ^Talk 14:59, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And Eleemosynary and related socks. I requested Oversight last night on that. See my comment to the CU request. Durova^Charge! 15:06, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not averse to that idea, but do I simply edit the RFCU? And how do I justify checking Tanstaffl without running afoul of "no fishing"? Horologium (talk) 15:07, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User shows up at arbitration enforcement within their first five edits. User appears to be involved in spoofing or Joe jobbing. I think there are strong reasons for suspicion. It is not fishing when there are reason. Jehochman ^Talk 15:12, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Added Tanstaffl and Eleemosynary. This looks like it's going to be so much fun </sarcasm>. Horologium (talk) 15:27, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW (really short summary here because I've gotta run), during last month's AE thread User:Benjiboi and User:Eleemosynary got trolled on their talk pages by an AOL IP address. Then very shortly afterward they got friendly follow-ups by a sock that acted like User:Pwok. Looked like Matt had trolled them, only Matt was in France and couldn't have accessed AOL, and when I contacted him he didn't know anything about it (I still have the chat log; he acted genuinely surprised). So that looks like a joe job. Add to substantiate Matt's claim to having been in France at that time:

He was interviewed on a French television program. The link was fresh the day the suspicions got raised.
When he returned he uploaded pics of Normandy to Commons with metadata from the right time frame.
(this one bites) I caught a French IP address trolling the same people not long afterward, and when I confronted Matt he promptly admitted that was indeed him.

So the AOL IP trolling from a month ago was probably Pwok and the French IP trolling from a month ago was definitely Matt. Is that murky enough for you? I had a hard talk with Matt afterward. He pledged to cease the trolling on-wiki. And although I'll be unavailable most of today I'm very interested in the results of the investigation and checkuser. Durova^Charge! 15:53, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't dispute Durova's discussion, but do point out that AOL has (or at least, used to have) numbers that could be dialed into internationally. - Philippe 17:04, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Yep, they still do. See this for example: [29]. There's one for Paris. That's all I checked for in France. - Philippe 17:06, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. I'm still skeptical. Sanchez has never been especially sophisticated about evading checkuser, while Pwok runs a dedicated anti-Sanchez website and has a long history of spoofing Sanchez around the Internet. It doesn't make sense that Sanchez would dial into AOL from France, successfully defend himself with evidence that he's in France, and afterward give away the show by trolling on a French IP address. If that were deliberate, wouldn't he have continued the AOL scheme or invented something else as clever, rather than giving himself away with a clumsy IP and admitting to it as soon as he was confronted? I wish the waters weren't so muddy, but I just won't rule anything out at this point. Durova^Charge! 17:33, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt that it's Pwok or Sanchez. Simplest answer is that it's a friend of Sanchez who has taken an interest in helping him out. He or she certainly doesn't write like Matt. I don't know what policies would be in play for that. Cary Bass ^demandez 18:32, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Finally a sensible response to Durova 'Master sleuth'! As the 'friendly followup' anon IP that 'acted like Pwok' in posting to Benjiboi's talkpage, it's just as insulting now as then to be blamed for anti-gay pro-Sanchez garbage posted by that troll from AOL. Always a conspiracy? People have friends, Durova, at least off-Wiki. And to be clear, as I said then, I am also NOT Pwok. I posted from Ohio, not Washington. I don't write like Pwok. My comments are my own, as an interested observer. Always gotta be that insidious Pwok and his legions of 'gay jihadists' ! My bet as to the real AOL culprit - Matt. He does this Jekyl and Hyde bit regularly off-Wiki. Or maybe its a friend or client of his. (Or is that 'meatpuppet' in Wiki-paranoia) As someone who has been watching this educational Wiki-fiasco since its inception, I think your wild accusation that Pwok "has a long history of spoofing Sanchez around the Internet" is simply outrageous. Call his site "anti-Sanchez" if you must, but c'mon, the rest is just way off base. If 'mentoring' Matt involves believing his word about things and relying on his promises of good behavior....well, you're in for a bumpy ride. Anyway, your 'skills' got you in trouble before Durova, remember? ('!!'...)

Its merely your mind that's muddy. Hang it up already Sherlock... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.102.174.251 (talk) 17:06, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proxy editing for a banned user is a bannable offense, IIRC. And while the new editor is more civil, he demonstrates Sanchez's rather bombastic style; note especially the "recommendation" that Lawrence Cohen stop editing the article (at the bottom of Talk:Matt Sanchez#Reported service as an escort, and the changes he made are almost exactly the same as what Sanchez has been requesting. Cary, you have access to OTRS; perhaps you can verify some of the tickets with these changes, although I realize you will not be able to discuss their contents here. Horologium (talk) 19:08, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Brian Landeche, the namesake of this user, is the founder of NYC's gay bar Splash.[30] I rather doubt this bar owner is the same person as this user. Banje boi 18:56, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's pretty obvious that there's some unfair editing here. Matt sent me the OTRS, I spent a bit of time going through the issues and I made the changes. The sources seem kosher. Was I wrong? Brianlandeche (talk) 23:07, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will assume good faith with you, but you should be very angry with Sanchez, who knows better than to have another user proxy-edit for him. Editing on behalf of banned users is prohibited, and usually results in a block for the editor involved. Considering your extremely brief edit history, you might qualify for some type of leniency; it will be up to a qualified administrator to make a decision. My recommendation would be to topic-ban you on all subjects relating to Matt Sanchez, including publications for which he has worked and anything relating to the Scott Thomas Beauchamp controversy. I am going to revert all of your edits to Talk:Matt Sanchez (as set forth in the banning policy link above). Please do not reinsert them.Horologium (talk) 01:26, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A topic ban sounds reasonable to me. I'd only want to see a complete ban if the user defied the topic ban or was otherwise disruptive. Aleta ^Sing 01:40, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For clarity could you also explain your user name? I found that coupled with your editing on behalf of Sanchez peculiar but will also await an explanation. Banje boi 02:09, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like a violation of the username policy. Durova^Charge! 06:08, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What is the violation of "username" policy? Why should I explain my name to anyone? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brianlandeche (talk • contribs) 07:46, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Username policy#Real names. Is Brian Landeche your real name? Aleta ^Sing 10:48, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not my real name, nor is Aleta yours. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brianlandeche (talk • contribs) 15:59, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Would someone else please look at this. I have again rolled back Brianlandeche's edits to Matt Sanchez. He denies editing by proxy, but has admitted above that Sanchez asked him to look at the article. Horologium and I could use some additional eyes here. Aleta ^Sing 16:20, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just rolled back (for the third time) all of his edits to the talk page. He needs to be blocked; this is nothing more than disruptive editing. Horologium (talk) 16:21, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree a block seems reasonable, but as I'm involved, I'm not going to do it. The username may itself be hard blockable based upon the evidence by Benjiboi and Brianlandeche's statement that it is not his real name. Aleta ^Sing 16:39, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have indef blocked for proxy-editing for a banned/blocked user, with notification that they must send name verification per WP:U to be reinstated. I strongly suggest a checkuser as well, to determine whether this is clearly Bluemarine or not. - Philippe 16:48, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A checkuser was conducted, with negative results (although two socks of an indef-blocked user were flushed out). Horologium (talk) 16:50, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The checkuser was Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Bluemarine; it's the most recent case. Horologium (talk) 16:52, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, I re-read and was coming back to strike that statement when ya'll beat me to it. - Philippe 16:54, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This editor has switched his username to Rushdittobot (talk · contribs), as per this diff. GRBerry 19:10, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

Jim62sch

The following discussion is an archived report. Please do not modify it. Subsequent reports should be made in a new section.

Closing thread, both users left notes, plus see final comment in thread. Carcharoth (talk) 22:34, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would like your thoughts on whether this comment is in violation of enforcement 1 of Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Jim62sch (found here). henrik•talk 20:35, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Given that I didn't write the ad hom or go after Jimbo for the Rachel Marsden affair I fail to see how I violated anything. Jim62sch^dissera! 20:40, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I get it -- it's OK to harrass me. Nice. Jim62sch^dissera! 20:42, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not really harassment, more like obnoxious. It would be wise to delete the remark and move on. Jehochman ^Talk 20:59, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you're probably right ... it was probably just obnoxious, I probably just over-reacted (Note: I am not being sarcastic, I just think JE is right)

I noticed that edit as well. This is a tricky one. I've been trying to broker a compromise on this at the ANI thread here. I suggest that both Jim and Videmus Omnia are warned for their conduct here, and that the details of what happened here are recorded at the case pages for future reference, and that further grievances be directed to the Arbitration Committee. I would be happy to do this if no-one objects. Carcharoth (talk) 21:07, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Look, no offense, but as the victim of the attack I object. We don't normally cite or jail victims. Jim62sch^dissera! 21:12, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry. My warnings are very bland. I think both you and VO are getting off lightly here. This could have been a lot worse, with more edit warring, and blocks left right and centre. In an attempt to end this now, I am going to go ahead with my proposal. Carcharoth (talk) 21:15, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Carcharoth. Both parties are pushing the limits and would be well-advised to stear clear of each other. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:47, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification: the threat henrik cites was not made to Videmus Omnia but rather to me. It seemed preposterous more than ominous given the circumstances; see our full exchange at User talk:A. B.#VO. Just the same, threats such as this hardly add to the tone of this place and, as history has shown, have been used to advantage by Jim in the past. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:49, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Parting shot at VO. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:55, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Uh no, it's known as a statement of fact. Has rationality been banned? Jim62sch^dissera! 22:14, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was about to close this thread, as I have made things clear to both editors here and here, but I see this thread still has legs. On the other hand, Newyorkbrad intervened directly here. I'm not sure if this means the thread should be left open, to allow assessment of Jim's responses, or whether it would be better to close it all now. I would favour the latter, but will let someone else do it if they agree. I will add notes to the case pages later, once the threads are definitely closed. Carcharoth (talk) 21:59, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I concur in closing. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:04, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So, I assume that my sarcastic comments are a no-no Give me a fucking break -- we should cherish editors capable of sarcasm (using and understanding) Jim62sch^dissera! 22:30, 27 April 2008 (UTC))? Jim62sch^dissera! 22:10, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Civility, please. And we all know that sarcasm is hard to distinguish over the internet, I know I tryand avoid it if I can. Wizardman 22:20, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Understanding sarcasm is something my 4-yr-old does. Weird. Of course, she doesn't really read yet. Jim62sch^dissera! 22:28, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jim, it is your choice whether to take this further, but I will ask you again to please stop escalating and prolonging the dispute. The arbitration case remedy was quite clear, and several different editors have told you to step back. I am closing this thread now. As Newyorkbrad said: "Issues concerning this user's departure message can be resolved without resort to these tactics. Any concern you may have with this instruction should be referred directly to the Arbitration Committee." Carcharoth (talk) 22:34, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Unreasonably broad interpretation

The following discussion is an archived report. Please do not modify it. Subsequent reports should be made in a new section.

Unblock request denied by uninvolved admin. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:28, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

TTN was blocked for one week today, despite the fact that he has not violated a single term of the restrictions from his arbcom enforcement. "Broadly interpreting" [31] and [32] as substantially amounting to a merge or deletion is a broad interpretation beyond all reason.

Arbcom did not say that TTN couldn't trim bad articles. It did not say that he couldn't discuss deletions on talk pages. It just did not say anything against the things that TTN has actually done. This block should be reversed immediately.Kww (talk) 17:24, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kww, I'm not sure about immediately reversing the block - we could wait for the arbitrators to respond to the request for clarification.--PhilKnight (talk) 17:35, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It can always be reinstated later if they say "Oops ... we really intended to restrict him from editing and discussing, too." Kww (talk) 17:43, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) @Kww: This was the second posting about TTN here at WP:AE in the last week or so. User was warned to exercise caution but seems that he/she did not find that necessary. I would oppose an unblock at this stage. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:44, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jossi, yes I agree, we shouldn't unblock at this stage. Also, looking at User_talk:TTN#Block, the unblock request has been declined by an uninvolved admin. PhilKnight (talk) 19:06, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's really a shame that the "winners" of the Arbcom case can get TTN blocked when he is complying with the restrictions, solely by raising such a fuss that it is easier to block TTN than to put up with listening to his detractors.Kww (talk) 19:57, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom cases are not about editors being "winners" or "losers", or to perpetuate disputes. The only winner/loser is the project. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:06, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that ... that's what those " marks meant. Perhaps you should explain to the people that complain about him that they didn't win, and that unjustified complaints won't result in TTN being blocked. Unless, of course, unjustified complaints will result in him being blocked.Kww (talk) 20:28, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kww is missing the whole point of arbcom and this page. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:26, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:TTN

The following discussion is an archived report. Please do not modify it. Subsequent reports should be made in a new section.

Indeed. And this keeps coming up here. One week block for TTN...Rlevse

Yes, again a topic about TTN. I believe that this diff and this diff are violations of his probation at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Episodes_and_characters_2#TTN_restricted. I'm more concerned about the first diff. He either needs to be blocked or the arbcom remedy needs to be tweaked, as it says "television character... to be interpreted broadly" which I am lumping video games under due to their similarities and the fact that this problem was evident during the arbitration hearings. Since I took part in the debate I'm not taking any action myself. Wizardman 03:13, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. I would support a block to enforce the imposed restriction. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:15, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. And this keeps coming up here. One week block for TTN. Also see [33]. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:49, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Immediate removal of editing privileges

The following discussion is an archived report. Please do not modify it. Subsequent reports should be made in a new section.

No action required; complainant advised to see relevant policy pages. Raymond Arritt (talk) 01:57, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm requesting immediate removal of editing privileges of user Aude with regards to the 9/11 attacks article as well as removing any of his/hers revisions. This user made enormous, even preposterous changes in the main space without sharing a single thought on talk page! Such actions are in direct violation of each and every decision Arbcom made and thus constitute outrageous and utterly unacceptable form of vandalism (harsh, but most appropriate allegation this is!). We are witnessing utter disregard to our policies, utter disregard to the community and utter disregard to the consensus by a single editor. Let me ask you, what sort of place we have here if the free minded editors who act in good faith have to bow and take these sorts of insults, a slap on the face of our whole community this is! I'm expecting immediate response to this issue; there are no words strong enough to condemn actions of this particular user and the complicit silence which follows his/hers unacceptable behavior. Tachyonbursts (talk) 00:25, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This request is absurd. Nothing Aude has done constitutes disruptive behavior. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 01:19, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your reply is absurd; we all know the sensitivity of the issue. We all have to follow our guidelines. Hours were wasted on reaching consensus for that section and then this Aude persona comes along and without single explanation implements changes of vast proportion utterly disregarding our policies and patient discussions we had? As ludicrous as unacceptable such action is. Good folks suffered indefinite bans for lesser mischiefs. There is not a single editor on Wikipedia that can take ownership of that (or any other) article; we do not carry double standards here. Those changes constitute vandalism (they are way beyond disruptive behavior!), those changes our one of the worst implementation of POV I've seen in a while and as such they cannot pass unsanctioned. This is not the hegemony; we have means to deal with rogue editors who are running amok and we should use those without any discrimination whatsoever. What user Aude did there is in no way different from what we're sanctioning on regular basis. How would you act if the person would jump into main space and state that WTC 7 was brought down by the means of controlled demolition? No, this swindle goes both ways, and any editor who acts on his own while neglecting decisions of Arbcom should and will be held accountable. Tachyonbursts (talk) 01:44, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's no violation of the arbcom decision here. I would advise Tachyonbursts to carefully review Wikipedia's definition of vandalism and its policy on personal attacks. Raymond Arritt (talk) 01:55, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Controlled demolition hypothesis for the collapse of the World Trade Center

Thomas Basboll

The following discussion is an archived report. Please do not modify it. Subsequent reports should be made in a new section.

Thomas Basboll banned from 9/11 articles, appealing to ArbCom. east.718 at 21:44, April 26, 2008

We have a big problem at this article with a tendentious group of editors who have conducted a straw poll and decided that those who believe in fringe theories may write about them as if they are mainstream views.[34] This horrendous POV pushing needs to be stopped, and policies such as WP:UNDUE need to be enforced. There is an arbitration decision, I believe, covering all 9/11-related articles. Jehochman ^Talk 02:19, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The edit summmary refers to the talk page which includes a poll. Under the poll (and in the summary) I explicitly said I was making a bold change and would not object if anyone thought it was too early. I had invited Jehochman to participate in the poll on his talk page and the discussion had run for a week, clearly leaning to one side. I now see why Jehochman (and perhaps others) did not participate in the poll and discussion. He believes that there is a policy (and an ArbCom decision) that makes discussion unnecessary. This is once again a good opportunity to determine whether what I am doing here is POV-pushing (as has been alleged many times before), and whether the discretionary sanctions should therefore be applied.--Thomas Basboll (talk) 04:21, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've never been involved in the 9/11 articles because they're such a battleground, but the diff that Jehochman provided is accurately summarized in his phrase "horrendous POV pushing." I'm not sure what the arbcom sanctions cover (as mentioned I've avoided the articles), but it would be a travesty if they did not apply here. Raymond Arritt (talk) 04:29, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing subtle here. Truthers have been trying to whitewash the article for quite some time, and a variety of editors have been attempting to restore neutral point of view. Id est: [35] [36] [37] [38] [39] [40] At some point people need to understand that Wikipedia is not a soapbox for advancing fringe theories. The community has been put on notice. Enough is enough. Jehochman ^Talk 08:14, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've invoked the arbcom decision to ban Thomas from September 11 attacks-related articles. I've noted such on his talk page. Raul654 (talk) 04:37, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will of course respect this ban. I will be appealling directly to the committee, however. I believe that my edits over the last several years have been consistently contributing to the improvement of the articles (on both sides of the "pushing" that I am allegedly doing). Jehochman and I disagree about a very subtle content issue and I have been discussing it openly and civily throughout. If it is impossible to convince the community that I am here for the right reasons, then I have misunderstood the ArbCom case that brought me back to editing.--Thomas Basboll (talk) 05:28, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have appealled the ban Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Request_for_appeal:_Topic_ban_ofThomas_Basboll.--Thomas Basboll (talk) 07:44, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Appeal was moved to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Clarifications and motions Raul654 (talk) 20:42, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think a truly uninvolved editor needs to look at the administrative abuse of Raul654, as shown on the evidence on Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Clarifications and motions. Raul is heavily involved with 9/11 articles and has strong POV about this subject. He also did not warn Thomas before blocking him. Inclusionist (talk) 04:46, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A look at Thomas's contributions shows that he was closely involved in the arbcom case in terms of both evidence and the proposed decision. It is simply not credible to propose that he was unaware of the decision and its enforcement provisions, and thus needed a warning. Raymond Arritt (talk) 04:53, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Another one - Pokipsy76

The following discussion is an archived report. Please do not modify it. Subsequent reports should be made in a new section.

Two month ban and 55-hour block issued and logged. east.718 at 21:46, April 26, 2008

Here's another long time source of POV pushing on this article. [41] This editor should be subject to the same sanction. Jehochman ^Talk 12:25, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually reverting your unilateraly editing without consensus is certainly NOT "POV pushing". Your unilaterally editing wothout consensus could instead be viewed as a form of "POV pushing".--Pokipsy76 (talk) 16:28, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Except that my editing is supported by verfiable sources and seeks to follow neutral point of view. You would do well to listen to feedback, rather than digging in and continuing to battle. Jehochman ^Talk 16:32, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not up to you to decide whether your edit is supported, is NPOV or is nice: it's up to the wikipedia community by means of consensus.--Pokipsy76 (talk) 17:41, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and those of us in the Wikipedia community who aren't here to push a fringe agenda are thoroughly tired of your POV-pushing. You know very well that there will never be consensus for anything on that article, because you're part of an activist bloc which elevates stonewalling to an art form. <eleland/talkedits> 18:39, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The same could obviously be said of other people who tries to push your POV.
You are deliberately assuming bad faith and personally attacking me without any ground.--Pokipsy76 (talk) 18:55, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I might note that you also re-inserted a pretty egregious BLP violation just yesterday because it advances your fringe POV on the issue. --Haemo (talk) 20:34, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are being very dishonest: of course I reverted an unilateral edit without any estabilished consensus and discussion from an estabilished version of the article, like you also have done many many times, didn't you? --Pokipsy76 (talk) 06:50, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support an immediate topic ban based on that diff. That's an article probation violation and a BLP violation all in one. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 20:39, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ouch. Two-month topic ban imposed, communicated to the user and logged.[42] Raymond Arritt (talk) 20:56, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Without any previous warning? Please read what the arbcom wrote about this "discretionary sanctions" before implementing them in the wrong way.--Pokipsy76 (talk) 06:52, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good call. JoshuaZ (talk) 02:15, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 03:41, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Completely arbitrary. You are just deciding to ban people who seems to have a POV different from yours. This is obviously not the spitit of the wikipedia project.--Pokipsy76 (talk) 06:50, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, they're banning people who are disrupting the project. Be glad that you were given just two months. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 06:52, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually this is just your personal opinion, we all know your extreme positions and I really don't think that a neutral admin should act according to such unbalanced views.--Pokipsy76 (talk) 19:03, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You've just violated your ban.[43] Ice Cold Beer (talk) 07:27, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've blocked them for that edit; although it's not to an article, such a line of argument would be verging dangerously close to rules-lawyering. The comment on the talk page served no purpose but to inflame discussion from the peanut gallery, and such behavior needs to be discouraged. east.718 at 07:40, April 22, 2008

I explained in my talk page why I made this mistake.--Pokipsy76 (talk) 19:04, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Wowest

The following discussion is an archived report. Please do not modify it. Subsequent reports should be made in a new section.

Banned from 9/11 articles for six weeks. east.718 at 21:46, April 26, 2008

I'd ask for consideration of action on this editor as well. His quote sums up his purpose here pretty well: The mainstream account is propaganda created by the Bush regime, repeated verbatim by a captive domestic media, then parroted again by foreign media. [44] Look at this revert [45] "an uncounted, but presumably large number of members of the engineering community"?? Presumably?? Why do we have to put up with this? RxS (talk) 19:38, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Final warning given. The next disruptive or tendentious edit will result in a topic ban on 9/11 related articles, broadly construed. Raymond Arritt (talk) 19:45, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I saw an edit placing lots of OR in Conspiracy theory, and another tendentiously stonewalling regarding sources on Talk:9/11 Truth Movement, both after Raymond Arritt's final warning. As such, I've banned Wowest from all 9/11-related pages for about five weeks. east.718 at 11:01, April 22, 2008

The edit you are referring to in Conspiracy theory is the expressin of the consensus on the talk page which is clearly against the deletion of that section.
Really Conspiracy theory can be considered a 9/11 related topic (and therefore under the arbcom rules)? Actually it is about conspiracy theories in general.--Pokipsy76 (talk) 19:07, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Pokipsy76, this tendentiousness really has to stop. There are plenty of Wikipedians around who can help resolve disputes. As you have been topic banned already, you may find yourself blocked if you continue to involve yourself in conspiracy theory disputes. Jehochman ^Talk 19:15, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Xiutwel

The following discussion is an archived report. Please do not modify it. Subsequent reports should be made in a new section.

Xiutwel banned indefinitively from 9/11 articles, by Chetblong (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Xiutwel (talk · contribs · count) is another user engaging in tendentious pro-Truther soapboxing and stonewalling. [46] [47] Additionally, they left me a bogus warning, apparently in retaliation for my involvement above. [48] This account proudly declares on their user page that they are here for the purpose of ideological struggle.[49] I suggest either a final warning, topic ban, or indefinite block for disruption, as appropriate in the discretion of the administrator who reviews this request. The time for nonsense on these articles has come and gone. Xiutwel participated in the arbitration case, so they are certainly on notice about what is acceptable, and what isn't.[50] Jehochman ^Talk 02:12, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I also got a "warning" from Xiutwel. [51] This has been going on for 2+ years with him. At this point, I don't seem him changing his way on 9/11 pages. --Aude (talk) 02:46, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He also "warned"` Raul, which wasn't a particularly well-advised action. Raymond Arritt (talk) 03:01, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Xiutwel has been one of the most singularly disruptive influences on 9/11-related articles. The stonewalling and absolutely tendentious arguments he has repeated for literally years come in ebbs and flows — at first, I thought he simply didn't understand Wikipedia's policies and was having language issues understanding them. Unfortunately, that's simply not the case — he simply wants to interpret them in a way which will advance his personal point of view on the issue. Endless thousands of pages of text have been written addressing his novel interpretations, which will (at best) simply induce him to change his argument — never what he is advocating, which just so happens to agree with is POV on the matter. He doesn't see this as a problem, and doesn't view any of his behavior as the issue, since he's convinced himself that he's neutral and everyone else is biased — although the sheer breadth of his fringe advocacy, from 9/11 conspiracy theories, the OKC bombings, and fringe science to the moon landing hoax, is very telling. --Haemo (talk) 03:55, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Xiutwel's disruption is well-documented. As Haemo writes above, Xiutwel is extremely disruptive. Not only is Xiutwel disruptive, but he often begins discussions which lead to disruption by other users. A topic ban (or indef block) enacted against Xiutwel would be the best effect of the ArbCom decision. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 04:22, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Based on reviewing the comments above, I tend to think that Ice Cold Beer is probably right. I'm too new at this to stick out my neck as far as seems indicated to me as justified, though. John Carter (talk) 16:41, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Right, then will somebody please apply the appropriate sanctions to Xiutwel? Jehochman ^Talk 17:42, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is painfully obvious that Jehochman is using arbitration enforcement to stiffle different opinions and views he personally disagress with. Jehochman is attempting to silence the contributions all of the editors he is in an edit war with, and involved admins such as Raul654 are silencing these editors, with no warning as the arbitration decisions demands.

Everything that Jehochman claims these users are guilty of he and other "deletionist" editors are guilty of also. I find it very ironic that Haemo writes: [Xiutwel] "convinced himself that he's neutral and everyone else is biased" when Jehochman, Haemo, Ice Cold beer, Aude and other editors here, who have extremely strong biases against alternative views about 9/11, feel that only their views are NPOV. It is clear that Jehochman and the rest of these "deletionists" are also in an "ideological struggle". Jehochman is as guilty of edit warring as these other users. He did not abide by the straw poll which he lost. The blatant hypocricy here of the "deletionists" here boggles the mind.

Xiutwel's, Thomas's, Popsy's and the other conspiracy theorists ideas about 9/11 are silly and have no basis in fact. But a large minority of people agree with these users, and if Wikipedia is truly to have a "neutral point of view" these "conspiracy theorists" sourced views belong on Wikipedia also. Inclusionist (talk) 04:38, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Travb (talk · contribs), this is not an Inclusionists vs. Deletionists battle. Editors have been banned for being tendentious and disruptive, not because of their views. Jehochman ^Talk 05:23, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In your classification, not giving undue weight to fringe theories constitutes an "extremely strong bias". I don't feel my views are NPOV, and you would be hard pressed to even know what they were from my editing. I try and ensure that these contentious areas are not used to advance fringe theories that are not supported in reliable sources — for that, I am accused of being a "deletionist". You talk a lot about inclusionism and neutral point of view but, like all people who propound Wikipedia giving these theories credence, you totally ignore the other part of the policy — and one which is incredibly important in these subject areas. You appear determined to throw everything and the kitchen sink at anyone who disagree with you, and believe you are engaged in some kind of struggle against a monolithic whole who seek to suppress dissent. You're not — you're up against broadly involved admins and editors with a long history of investing in an encyclopedia and who wish to see the project advance as an encyclopedia — and not as a place to promote fringe theories. --Haemo (talk) 08:35, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Xiutwel (talk · contribs) has been indefinitely banned from all pages related to 9/11 by Chetblong (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). east.718 at 12:11, April 24, 2008

{{

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:152.131.10.133

The following discussion is an archived report. Please do not modify it. Subsequent reports should be made in a new section.

Following in User:67.164.76.73's footsteps (see resolved, below), except he's already done 2 each today on Controlled demolition hypothesis for the collapse of the World Trade Center‎, Jesse Ventura, and Template:911tm‎.

Has claimed in the past to be User:Bov, who has been warned many times, but not necessarily since the Arbcom.

— Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:30, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and if you look at the IP's deleted userpage there's an note about Bov using that IP there as well. The contribs make it pretty clear it's the same user. RxS (talk) 04:25, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bov's user page implies that there are multiple IP addresses from which he regularly edits. Anyone know the others, so that I can take a holistic view of his recent edits? GRBerry 14:02, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:67.164.76.73 is pretty clearly him as well. RxS (talk) 17:31, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like User:76.103.153.118 in addition. RxS (talk) 17:40, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And now this from Bov (as 133)[52] This is what they do, nonsensical bans on people to block the information they don't want out there and to keep the labels attached to people they need to try to discredit. (there's more)...seems like a commitment to keep at it, and personally I'm sick of it. RxS (talk) 21:09, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

===

This account has been blocked indefinitely because its owner is suspected of abusively using multiple accounts.

(Account information: block log · CentralAuth · suspected sockpuppets · confirmed sockpuppets · sockpuppet investigations casepage)

===

The following discussion is an archived report. Please do not modify it. Subsequent reports should be made in a new section.

Blocked indefinitely for general disruption and legal threats.

Can we get an uninvolved admin here for a warning/block (whatever you feel is appropriate at this point). Less than 20 edits and he's called an editor in good standing a vandal (twice) [53], reverted an edit after calling for sanctions on that same editor [54] and this I'd kindly suggest you explain your conduct which I consider to constitute deliberate omission of unacceptable behavior by user Aude. [55]. All in as I say, less than 20 edits. Thanks. RxS (talk) 02:54, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm handling this one in light of the instructions that users "should be counseled on specific steps that he or she can take to improve his or her editing in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines" and that we need to make some allowance for "genuinely inexperienced editors." I've given him (her) some advice on policy,[56][57] and if he (she) chooses not to heed that advice, we can proceed with other steps as necessary. But it would be best for all concerned if it doesn't come to that. Raymond Arritt (talk) 03:15, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good enough, I just want to nip this in the bud if possible, if he can be guided that's certainly better than a block. I've seen this cycle repeated so many times I may not have the proper patience. RxS (talk) 03:21, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now I'm going to be held responsible for your zealous participation in 9/11 cover-up [58]. Perhaps by being forced to live in a FEMA trailer, he wasn't clear on that point. Oh well...Then the Greek appears on the second floor, In his bare feet with a rope around his neck, While a loser in the gambling room lights up a candle, Says, "Open up another deck." RxS (talk) 05:38, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Somebody please ban

This account has been blocked indefinitely because its owner is suspected of abusively using multiple accounts.

(Account information: block log · CentralAuth · suspected sockpuppets · confirmed sockpuppets · sockpuppet investigations casepage)

. That diff cited by Rx StrangeLove is appalling, and it came just 75 minutes after Raymond's warning. Jehochman ^Talk 14:21, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just FYI he's left similar odd warnings on my talk page [59]. I warned him against making legal threats before, so it's not like this is a new thing. --Haemo (talk) 17:11, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And just in case anyone is casually looking at this and doesn't follow the link, here's part of the message left Haemo: All evidence stored in wiki history should, and will be used in court of law.. Why isn't he banned/blocked? I f&*^%g sick of this. RxS (talk) 18:41, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked indefinitely for general disruption and legal threats. They're probably not a new account either, finding AN on their first edit and being familiar with all the actors of the dispute immediately. east.718 at 21:43, April 26, 2008

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Disruptive use of sources and POV/BLP violation

The following discussion is an archived report. Please do not modify it. Subsequent reports should be made in a new section.

NOTE: The following input might be more difficult to follow than incivility since it's content related. However, it depicts a POV source related problem.

Previous activity

Previously Eleland has,
(a) Rejected Washington Times and the BBC to promote -- alongside PalestineRemembered (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) -- the WP:FRINGE theory/blood-libel that Battle of Jenin was (supposedly) a large scale massacre.[60], [61], [62]
(b) Replaced "partisan-hackery links" (CAMERA, AIJAC) with (neutral?) ElectronicIntifada.net.[63]
(c) Rejected 'Arutz Sheva', a leading right wing Israeli news outlet for it's (alleged) - "reputation for producing outright fraudulent "news", calling it a "disreputable racist fringe source".[64]
(d) He even rejected the word 'documentary' to describe a video only using live-recorded clips of real life situations based on the notion that "it's full of lies".[65]
(e) He's also made a similar BLP violation, reinstating a quote made on March 5 into a lead paragraph on Operation Defensive Shield, an Israeli response to a month of suicide bombings culminating with a March 27th attack;[66] this after the paragraph/quote context was explained more than once ([67], [68]).

April 2008 activity

"rv extremist POV" diff removed NPOV text from the article and ended up using a "branded such proposals as racist and illegal" quote on notations that don't appear in it's source.
- The removed NPOV text:
  "Liberman added that he was ready to evacuate his West Bank settlement home in Nokdim to achieve this proposal." source: http://www.dawn.com/2004/05/28/int8.htm (reuters)
Removing context (attacks on March 2-3) and adding anti-Israel, Islamist Al-Jazeera smear article as a source '5 April 2008', after Momento and Ryan Postlethwaite expressed BLP concerns also.
Again (21:46, 15 April 2008), this time on a compromise version which included only "following 9 Palestinian attacks on Israelis" as pretext, apparently, not compromise enough.
"offered to provide the buses" Eleland, 21:41, 15 April 2008
Text is sourced to "According to another report" in violation of WP:REDFLAG.

Content related discussion

The 'removing context' stuff centres around whether the context was properly sourced. That is whether there were adequate sources linking the events to the politician's remarks. I think removing this context, when it wasn't sourced is a justifiable edit. I agree there are legitimate BLP concerns about the entire controversy section, however I'm not convinced that removing inadequately sourced content is being disruptive. I'm not saying the edit was correct, but I'm saying that in my humble opinion, it wasn't disruptive. PhilKnight (talk) 20:45, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the removal of nyjtimes.com and adding an al-Jazeera link kinda dismisses your WP:AGF, but that's my personal opinion. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 20:55, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This document compiled by Jaakobou is one of several dossiers, apparently, that he is compiling against editors he often finds himself in conflict with. They are usually tailored so as to be unrecognizable to those whose comments are quoted. To control each diff and evaluate them requires several hours, not to speak of lengthy checking of the actual discursive run on talk pages. But what I vigorously disagree with is that, once with myself and now with Eleland Jaakobou lays his evidence out incrementally, day by day, before selected administrators (jpgordon in Eleland's case, yourself, Phil, in my case, without the slightest hint to his intended victim, that he is laying a serious complaint. I only found out that he was doing this by sheer coincidence, several days after he began seeding your own page with a section on complaints against me. By the time the dossier assumes depth, without one's ability to contest each piece, the impression is created of a systematic Israel-bashing lout. I think this unethical. In my own case, I preferred not to waste time even treating this tactic seriously. Eleland appears to think it worth detailed arbitration. I have corresponded with Eleland on this here and on my talk page. I don't think Wiki should be systematically transformed into a whingeing room, there's far too much work to be done. But I do vigorously protest this ominous new tendency by Jaakobou to mount selective dossiers, behind people's backs, and use them with a series of distinct administrators to create the impression, discretely, that a whole gang of marauding louts invest the articles where he himself edits, and that somehow he is a victim. Regards Nishidani (talk) 20:58, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see in the meantime that PhilKnight has removed his comment. But this remark was addressed to him.Nishidani (talk) 21:00, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

[1] The administrator may indicate consent at any time before, during, or after imposition of the restriction.

[2] This criterion does not apply if the original action was imposed as a result of rough consensus at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, as there would be no single enforcing administrator.

[a]

[b]

@@ Line 46: / Line 46: @@
 : Let's make this easy. ScienceApologist, will you please strike/excise your uncivil comments from [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=208828223&oldid=208826045 here] now? Or do you stand by them? -- <b><font color="996600" face="times new roman,times,serif">[[User:Levine2112|Levine2112]]</font></b> <sup><font color="#774400" size="1" style="padding:1px;border:1px #996600 dotted;background-color:#FFFF99">[[User talk:Levine2112|discuss]]</font></sup> 16:06, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
+::There are obviously things in that message which are not particularly uncivil as others have pointed out. Tell me what part of that message you take to be as uncivil and why, and I will refactor it. [[User:ScienceApologist|ScienceApologist]] ([[User talk:ScienceApologist|talk]]) 17:48, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 Get real.  You all know.  I hate to do this, but I '''know''' you know, and I even have one diff to prove it [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Arbitration_enforcement&curid=12936136&diff=208927736&oldid=208927663] Don't be [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/See_no_evil%2C_hear_no_evil%2C_speak_no_evil the first and third monkies], because they are not wise. You have completely abdicated your jobs as admins of wikipedia, to preserve the collegial editing environment of this place.  Even with an ArbCom sanction behind you, which you should not need.  It is absolutely, 100% disgusting, and you should be completely ashamed of yourselves.  If you betray Wikipedia like this, why do you edit here at all?  Or are you all afraid of Raul?  Are you all afraid of JzG?  There is a limit beyond which it is also unwise to refrain from speaking of negativity, and you have crossed it. ——'''[[User:Martinphi|<span style="color:#6c4408;border:1px dashed #6c4408;padding:1px;background:#ffffff;">Martin<sup>phi</sup>]]'''</span>    [[User talk:Martinphi|☎]] Ψ [[Special:Contributions/Martinphi|Φ]]<span style="color:#ffffff;">——</span> 16:39, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
@@ Line 52: / Line 53: @@
 Here's a link for you. And it isn't like this is the only thing. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Debunker#Martinphi_hypocrisy] ——'''[[User:Martinphi|<span style="color:#6c4408;border:1px dashed #6c4408;padding:1px;background:#ffffff;">Martin<sup>phi</sup>]]'''</span>    [[User talk:Martinphi|☎]] Ψ [[Special:Contributions/Martinphi|Φ]]<span style="color:#ffffff;">——</span> 17:10, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
+::Looks like the cat is out of the bag. [[User:ScienceApologist|ScienceApologist]] ([[User talk:ScienceApologist|talk]]) 17:48, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 ==RodentofDeath==