User talk:Jaakobou

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Aah!
A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Laws.
Ooh!
The man who smiles when things go wrong has thought of someone to blame it on.
Thursday
1
September

Welcome to Jaakobou's talk page.

Goldenwiki 2.png Please see Is it already prohibited? (Question to ARBCOM).[1]

If you're new to Wikipedia, see WP:UP#POLEMIC and WP:ARBPIA#Purpose_of_Wikipedia
If you're you're Jewish, though, WP:IGNORE content which promotes violence[2][3][4][5][6] against your people.

The world is a dangerous place,[7] not because of those who do evil,[8][9] but because of those who look on and do nothing.
~Albert Einstein

Stuff I'm reading:

BoNM - Israel.png The Israeli Barnstar of National Merit
Jaakobou, You have worked hard to attempt to improve wikipedia's Israel/Palestine related articles. You have made appropriate additions and changes, added sourced content, and dealt with the POV issues related to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. I believe you have at many times tried to promote improvement and NPOV in many wikipedia articles, and have greatly improved many articles. You have had to deal with some issues in the past, have faced at times controversial sanctioning, but when you were wrong, you have learned from your mistakes, and improved your editing, and since, you have become a very good editor. For all you have done, you have won my respect, and are in my opinion very deserving of this barnstar. YahelGuhan (talk) 05:25, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

WP:ANEW[edit]

Please stop removing nableezy's comment from WP:ANEW. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 03:47, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

He's stepped on my edit, breaking my bullet structure, and I was in the process of reinserting them. The guy can't even wait 10 seconds to allow someone to finish adding a diff to his edit. I can't stress this enough, but a pressure cooker would handle the situation better.
Anyways, thanks for the note. I'm hoping you can extend my sentiments of the matter to Nableezy. JaakobouChalk Talk 03:56, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

VPC[edit]

— raekyT 10:26, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Nableezy's talkpage[edit]

When I remove something from my talk page do not reinsert it. I think you already know that should not be done, so dont do it anymore. If you want to waste your time leaving a note you know will be removed you can, but dont reinsert it once removed. nableezy - 13:48, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

I can't be held accountable for an update overriding your comment removal.
p.s. it is poor form to mention someone by name and then remove their comment.[10]
Warm regards, JaakobouChalk Talk 15:36, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
PS, I dont care what you think is "poor form". One of two things happened. You either saw I removed the comment and reinserted making a small addition, or you immediately attempted to make the addition, in which case you would have gotten an edit conflict and then would have seen the comment had been removed. And then you saved it anyway. Either way, dont revert me on my own talk page. That is "poor form". nableezy - 16:14, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
I haven't reverted you. JaakobouChalk Talk 16:56, 31 October 2010 (UTC)


Heyo[edit]

I've sent you an email. JaakobouChalk Talk 02:08, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm not going to comment on the Gideon Levy article; I do not want to be involved in the dispute. -- tariqabjotu 02:12, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Mitzpe Ha'ai[edit]

Mitzpe Ha'ai is the outpost pictured in the satellite photos here, as identified by Peace Now, and also named Givat Ha'ai. Are you really claiming that PN would be compelled by its "fringe" agenda to make this outpost up?--Carwil (talk) 21:50, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Whether or not the outpost exists and is called by that name, it is not in the report Peace Now claimed as their source of information. We cannot use sources that repeatedly falsify information even if some of their input is correct.
p.s. Please don't address Peace Now publications as factual, they've been disproven countless times.
With respect, JaakobouChalk Talk 07:19, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Stay off my talk page[edit]

You are not allowed to revert me on my own talk page to reinsert comments I have removed. You have done this multiple times now, so now let me make the following point to you crystal clear. I dont care what you think is "disruptive", "gaming", "uncivil" or really anything else. Accusing me of saying you are "lying" with a diff in which I do not say you are lying is just icing on the cake in that it demonstrates just how dishonest and intentionally disruptive you are. Stay off my talk page, there is nothing that I wish to discuss with you at all. I only do so on article talk pages because I have to. Thankfully, my own talk page is not a place where I have to suffer <redacted> quietly. Bye. nableezy - 15:56, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

AE refactor of Nableezy's filing[edit]

You're walking on very thin ice over there, and likely to see administrative action against yourself for refactoring Nableezy's filing. I highly suggest self-reverting. ← George talk 22:54, 27 November 2010 (UTC)


Do NOT edit my comments or change my complaint. If you wish to open a complaint against me or against me and Shuki feel free to do so. nableezy - 22:56, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Interaction ban[edit]

Under the authority of WP:ARBPIA#Discretionary sanctions, and based on the discussion in this AE thread, you are hereby admonished for personal attacks and ad hominem comments and are prohibited from commenting on or interacting with Nableezy (talk · contribs) anywhere on Wikipedia. Please see WP:IBAN for the complete scope of the interaction ban. If you believe that Nableezy has violated their ban from interacting with you, you may not react to that alleged violation except by the procedure specified in the AE thread linked above. T. Canens (talk) 22:05, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

AfDs[edit]

Hi. As you just participated in discussions on a closely related topic (also a current AfD re a Jewish list), which may raise some of the same issues, I'm simply mentioning that the following are currently ongoing: AfDs re lists of Jewish Nobel laureates, entertainers, inventors, actors, cartoonists, and heavy metal musicians. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:58, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Accusations of Jewish control of the media[edit]

Hi, Just to let you know that I support most of what you're arguing over there. I'm currently in a state of semi-retirement from WP and so am only making passing comments. I had tried to get JayJG involved but haven't followed up the reply he gave me. Basically, I think the anti-Semitic origins of much discussion of the relationship between Jews and the media needs to be highlighted and I regard the conspiratorial elements as crucial to this.--Peter cohen (talk) 20:26, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Bli-Sodot stamp.jpg[edit]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Bli-Sodot stamp.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. --Kelly hi! 08:24, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you![edit]

Hi Jaakobou, Thank you for your post on AE. Best wishes.--Mbz1 (talk) 04:36, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Your AE request[edit]

Hi, this is to let you know that another administrator has asked you to explain why you should not be sanctioned for filing a frivolous request. If you choose not to offer the requested explanation, you may be made subject to sanctions.  Sandstein  20:50, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement warning: Arab-Israeli conflict[edit]

Hello. For the reasons explained by another administrator and I at WP:AE#Tiamut (permalink), you are warned not to make clearly meritless requests for enforcement, especially requests that make obvious misrepresentations of fact. Thanks,  Sandstein  06:07, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

AE[edit]

WP:AE#Jaakobou. nableezy - 13:31, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Closed without action, but please be more careful. Good luck and happy editing. - 2/0 (cont.) 16:59, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Motion regarding Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/West Bank - Judea and Samaria[edit]

By motion of the Arbitration Committee voted on at requests for amendment,

The editing restrictions placed on Nishidani (talk · contribs) in the West Bank - Judea and Samaria case are lifted effective at the passage of this motion. Nishidani is reminded that articles in the area of conflict, which is identical to the area of conflict as defined by the Palestine-Israel articles case, remain the subject of discretionary sanctions; should he edit within this topic area, those discretionary sanctions continue to apply.

For the Arbitration Committee, Hersfold (t/a/c) 17:35, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

AE[edit]

WP:AE#Jaakobou. nableezy - 06:41, 6 August 2011 (UTC)


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protocols_of_the_Elders_of_Zion[edit]

There is an item omited that I would like inserted

This is the source of the omission http://raleighstshul.blogspot.com/ Scroll down to Grey Shirts Trial

"The trial, which opened in July 1934, was heard in the Eastern Cape Divi­sion of the Supreme Court in Grahamstown before the Judge President, Sir Thomas Graham. The local and over­seas press gave great prominence to the court proceedings. F.G. Reynolds K.C. (later a judge) assisted by Will Stuart (later a so-called ‘Native Repre­sentative’ in Parliament) appeared for the Rev. A. Levy of the Port Elizabeth Western Road Synagogue."

The suggestion is that you create a new sub heading between Switzerland and The Berne Trial, 1934–1935

Entitled "South Africa"

and give a brief summary of the Grey Shirts Trial

and give the source reference in the Reference Section at the end of the article

````famabra```` — Preceding unsigned comment added by Famabra (talkcontribs) 18:28, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Islam What the West Needs to Know - Front Cover.gif[edit]

⚠
Thanks for uploading File:Islam What the West Needs to Know - Front Cover.gif. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:

  • I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions. If you have a question, place a {{helpme}} template, along with your question, beneath this message.
  • I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
  • If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
  • To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
  • If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.


Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 06:28, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

AE case[edit]

[11] Gatoclass (talk) 17:22, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Present Status paragraph[edit]

This paragraph in the I-P conflict has been significantly altered by NightW. Yours thoughts please
Best Wishes AnkhMorpork (talk) 17:37, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Jakabou, as I pointed out on the talk page your bold edit changed a passage that was factually correct and well sourced (though admittedly overlong and repetitive), to one that contained a glaring factual inaccuracy, and does not fully represent the cited sources. I cannot understand how you feel justified removing the neutrality tag with this still unresolved. Yes concision is an issue, but a clear factual inaccuracy unsupported by sources is far worse surely. Dlv999 (talk) 14:06, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

The reason I put up the tag was due to an overblown writeup on a single issue. Once that single issue was summarized into a single paragraph, I felt there was no more need for the POV tag as issues were presented in a fairly neutral manner. As far as the accuracy of the revision -- I'm not too attached to the words, but only to the spirit in which they were written (i.e. making the text legible). I have no objection if a consensus can arise regarding a rephrase. Regardless, I don't think the state of the text is quite as bad as you think -- but I might be wrong. From my understanding -- there was condemnation at the UN. The intricacies of that are not that important when we try to convey an idea (who criticized). What matters is that we allow readers to know that there was some type of condemnation. If I mis-explained the type of condemnation in question -- I have no objection to rephrase efforts that will be more accurate. I invite your collaboration and the collaboration of others to get the text to a better state. My idea was only about neutrally presenting the ideas in the section. I'm not even sure I'm interested in going deeper than that into the text -- the floor is yours to persuade others in why your concern is important. I'm not opposing your concern -- I didn't even dive into the material deep enough to understand it. I hope this helps you move forward with your concerns.
With respect, JaakobouChalk Talk 14:30, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Incitement to vioence[edit]

Can you construct this paragraph; seeing as your version of the settlement criticism was generally accepted
Best Wishes AnkhMorpork (talk) 16:11, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm a tad busy and am trying to stay away from heavy editing, but I'll try to give it a look in the upcoming day-two. JaakobouChalk Talk 19:34, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Ahem, gentle reminder... Also is the zoological conspiracy theories contained in I-P ArbCom ruling, and if so, can you cite this in the talk page as I may have have inadvertently infringed the rules. Todah
Best Wishes AnkhMorpork (talk) 22:56, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

AE result[edit]

The recent AE request against you has been closed without formal action. However, I am advising you that, should the edits for which you were reported to AE form part of a pattern that develops in the future, sanctions may be considered. If no such pattern emerges, you should hear nothing more about that AE request. Sincerely, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 04:10, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

A/E[edit]

Could you please remove your double posts from my sections? Thanks. -asad (talk) 18:52, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Topic and interaction ban[edit]

For the reasons stated in this AE thread, and under the authority of Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions, as incorporated by WP:ARBPIA#Standard discretionary sanctions, you are banned indefinitely from all articles, discussions, and other content related to the Arab-Israeli conflict, broadly construed across all namespaces. Further, you are indefinitely prohibited from interacting with, or commenting on, Tiamut (talk · contribs), broadly construed, anywhere on Wikipedia, except in cases of legitimate and necessary dispute resolution, and are further indefinitely prohibited from seeking any admin action related to Tiamut (talk · contribs), broadly construed, either publicly or privately through any means, except through the arbitration enforcement process or by email to the Arbitration Committee.

These sanctions may be appealed at WP:AE after twelve months, and every twelve months thereafter. They may also be appealed to AE once within twelve months of their imposition, and may be appealed to the Arbitration Committee at any time. T. Canens (talk) 04:16, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

I apologize for creating such a fuss about statements I find extremely offensive. JaakobouChalk Talk 08:50, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
Jaakobou, this was a bad block, to say the least WP:POLEMIC is clear in what action to take, sadly, the admins decided to turn a blind eye to it. It wouldn't be the first time at least on admin's turned a blind eye to that particular policy.
@-Kosh► Talk to the VorlonsMoon Base Alpha-@ 17:43, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
Whoa! WTF? You deserve more respect than that. So they finally got you and it was a quickie over the holiday too. Take a break, it's good for your health. IMO, you've done well. --Shuki (talk) 20:48, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
You presented your case in a dignified coherent manner despite the shenanigans of what was patently a kangaroo court. It was a pleasure collaborating with you on various topics and I hope you are still somehow able to provide your input. Than you for keeping the Hamans at bay.
Best Wishes AnkhMorpork (talk) 22:02, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

March 2012[edit]

To enforce an arbitration decision, you have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 month for blatant violation of your topic ban and persistent battleground behavior here. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing arbitration enforcement blocks and follow the instructions there to appeal your block. T. Canens (talk) 14:23, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Notice to administrators: In a March 2010 decision, the Committee held that "Administrators are prohibited from reversing or overturning (explicitly or in substance) any action taken by another administrator pursuant to the terms of an active arbitration remedy, and explicitly noted as being taken to enforce said remedy, except: (a) with the written authorization of the Committee, or (b) following a clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors at a community discussion noticeboard (such as WP:AN or WP:ANI). If consensus in such discussions is hard to judge or unclear, the parties should submit a request for clarification on the proper page. Any administrator that overturns an enforcement action outside of these circumstances shall be subject to appropriate sanctions, up to and including desysopping, at the discretion of the Committee."


Another outrageous decision by Wikipedia's biased administrators. Years of laboring on Wikipedia and trying to collaborate with extremists just thrown away like it was nothing. Rather than trying to understand the concerns of pro-Israel editors that something may be a polemic and insulting, they merely give pro-Israel editors and their concerns the big FU(K YOU. Why not just let the Jihadists and the Palestine supporters and the garden variety antisemite just take over the area entirely? Oh wait, I forgot. They already did. One decent editor after another is forced out. Jaakabou, I suggest you get a life outside of this antisemitic, Jihadist environment. You will find your personal health improves. Oh and for the record, there are some people who appreciate the work you've done, though most are probably no longer editing themselves. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.92.9.78 (talk) 15:50, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Dispute resolution survey[edit]

Peace dove.svg

Dispute Resolution – Survey Invite


Hello Jaakobou. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Wikipedia, in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The survey takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released.

Please click HERE to participate.
Many thanks in advance for your comments and thoughts.


You are receiving this invitation because you have had some activity in dispute resolution over the past year. For more information, please see the associated research page. Steven Zhang DR goes to Wikimania! 12:04, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Jaakobou/Polemics and Decorum[edit]

Please see Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Jaakobou/Polemics and Decorum. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:24, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

File:City of Jenin and refugee camp.jpg listed for deletion[edit]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:City of Jenin and refugee camp.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Fut.Perf. 10:33, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Category:Interim and Acting Presidents of Israel[edit]

Category:Interim and Acting Presidents of Israel, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. DGtal (talk) 10:48, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Clarification motion[edit]

A case (Palestine-Israel articles) in which you were involved has been modified by motion which changed the wording of the discretionary sanctions section to clarify that the scope applies to pages, not just articles. For the arbitration committee --S Philbrick(Talk) 15:26, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

= Stealth Canvassing at Wikipedia_talk:User_pages#Rephrase_suggestion_to_WP:UP.23POLEMIC[edit]

It appears that you have been canvassing—leaving messages on a biased choice of users' talk pages to notify them of an ongoing community decision, debate, or vote. While friendly notices are allowed, they should be limited and nonpartisan in distribution and should reflect a neutral point of view. Please do not post notices which are indiscriminately cross-posted, which espouse a certain point of view or side of a debate, or which are selectively sent only to those who are believed to hold the same opinion as you. Remember to respect Wikipedia's principle of consensus-building by allowing decisions to reflect the prevailing opinion among the community at large. Thank you. -Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 22:23, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

French people are not neutral about policy? JaakobouChalk Talk 22:38, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
Targeting people with French sympathies and emotions because there was a recent terrorist attack there is not neutral. There's also the stealth canvassing, you contacting members thru email.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 22:56, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
@Serialjoepsycho:
My reponse here. Let's discuss this though. a) Why do you think French people are not neutral about the phrasing of the policy? b) What do you think about participation of people supporting militancy commenting and voting without disclosing their political affiliation with illegal activities? JaakobouChalk Talk 23:18, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
A) It's not a matter of whether French people or neutral or not. That is a straw man tangent that is not worthy of a response. This is about Canvassed people, and and all canvassed people regardless of race, religion, nationality, or what ever else. Canvassing compromises the consensus making process. B) This is another straw man tangent not worthy of a response.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 23:37, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
@Serialjoepsycho:
I think you may have fumbled when you wrote down "straw man tangent that is worthy of a response". Please let me know before we continue discussion. JaakobouChalk Talk 23:39, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
Indeed I did. Thank you.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 23:47, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
@Serialjoepsycho:
Focusing on your main argument, I wholly agree and respect your note about 'Canvassing compromises the consensus making process.' I've made some overall notes which I'm not sure if we can come to agreement on (i.e. French are neutral, editors supporting militancy are not) but I cannot discuss the merit or lack-thereof of these points further until that other matter is resolved. JaakobouChalk Talk 00:57, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
You have made no points to which we can agree on. French neutrality is meaningless. Palestinians can be neutral as well. When you taint the jury pool the jury can not be considered neutral, even if they are French. Editors that support Militancy can be neutral as well. I'm guessing that you don't realize that George Washington was a militant. I recognize the Right of revolution.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 01:13, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
yes, you do. But that is not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about this type of polemics being allowed on user-pages. JaakobouChalk Talk 07:52, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Poetic militancy[edit]

Your soapboxing, That's great and all but you can save yourself time by not soap boxing me. I disagree with your view. I see no reason to reach any compromise at all. The rules as they stand already cover what you want. Now there's the need for a long conversation and in some cases you might not be able to convince others of your view but that's a good thing. The conversations should actually be much longer especially when you are taking actions to to silence speech.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 03:33, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

I shouldn't need to convince that advocacy against Jews, Israelis, Zionists is a violation. That discussions are always tainted by people not understanding the policy as well as the ones who openly want to post such content is absurd. JaakobouChalk Talk 07:52, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

AE 2[edit]

WP:AE#Jaakobou nableezy - 23:34, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

The complaint at AE has now been closed, with a finding that your edits at WT:UP were a violation of your ban from WP:ARBPIA. For now, no other action has been taken. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 15:12, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

It's highly accurate[edit]

You violated the canvassing policy. It's a simple matter. It's not hard to actually understand. You have no argument against or excuse for it. It's great that two people who responded to your canvassing decided to be upfront about your inappropriate canvass. It's also not relevant or meaningful in anyway. None what so ever. Not even kind of, sort of, or in a round about way. We can not clearly determine who you have improperly canvassed. The closer will be unable to exclude their opinions if they are unable to determine who is meatpuppeting on your behalf. This RFC will not end in a policy change. And it looks like your part in the discussion is over anyway.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 10:03, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

The fact that you still don't understand that your message in your highly inappropriate canvassing is not neutral by any standard is also concerning. But again the conversation is over. Hopefully an Admin will have the time to explain this to you when you either block you or give you are warning about your TBAN and IBAN.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 10:07, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
You are not accurate when you assume things without asking or when you repeat things again and again, and now, again.
I indiscriminately and without prejudice contacted 10 editors from the contributors of the Paris attacks article with a benign message that makes no attempt to influence their judgement regarding policy discussions. This was a bad idea and I've apologized for it multiple times. The rest of it, contacting Wikiproject France is sanctioned under Wikipedia:Canvassing#Appropriate_notification. JaakobouChalk Talk 10:16, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
I can not verify that you contacted 10 editors thru email. It could be 10 or it could be 200. This is stealth canvassing Wikipedia:Canvassing#Stealth_canvassing. You have no significant reason for not using a talk page notification. None. Zero. Zip. Evidence provided by one of these stealth canvassed users suggests that your message was an inappropriate attempt at campaigning similar to the one you inappropriately posted at wikiproject France. Wikipedia:Canvassing#Appropriate_notification does not sanction your actions. Wikiproject France is not directly related to Wikipedia policy. It does not become directly related because you want to play on the emotions of people because there was a terrorist attack in France. This is what the language you choose suggests and there is no reason what so ever to think you were trying to do anything but that. And great you apologized. I'm not sure what you think relevance is of the apology but what ever and apology accepted. You still compromised the consensus making process and this still makes the consensus indeterminable. The RFC still can not result in a consensus to change the policy. But your apology is accepted. Don't poison the well and expect people to drink the water. This is what you are not understanding. But this conversation is pointless. Your part in that conversation is over. That conversation is over without a consensus to change policy. -Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 10:58, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
Again, you assume things without asking or assuming good faith. I disclosed my activity and agreed to my mistake. As for closing the other thing in a fair manner. Ask arbcom if my message on Wikiproject France is "campaigning" or Wikipedia:Canvassing#Appropriate_notification. Try to do it without declaring beforehand as to not sway the conversation. Let me know. JaakobouChalk Talk 11:21, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
As the long time saying goes on Wikipedia goes, "AGF is not a suicide pact." I don't have to ask anything and I did not assume anything at all. I read exactly what you wrote [12]. Would you like to insult my intelligence and lie and say these recent events you are discussing is not the terrorist attack in Paris? That the sympathies you share are not for the people that were effected by this terrorist attack? Yes campaigning but without the scare quotes. You can read all about it at the policy that you violated WP:Canvass. And no worries the RFC will end fairly. No matter what it will result in no change to policy. This conversation is has met it's end.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 12:06, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
There's nothing fair about having the joy of encountering pro-terrorism bullshit on user-pages. JaakobouChalk Talk 12:24, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
A couple more from today: [13]. Was Tel Aviv occupied territory? JaakobouChalk Talk 12:26, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:10, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Let's go over to AE Then[edit]

Save your warnings. Let's go over to WP:ARE. You can tell them about how I'm just uncivil by stating facts and then you can explain why you are violating your topic ban. If you decide to do so message me accordingly, otherwise stay off my talk page.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 12:45, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

@Serialjoepsycho: As per my deleted notice,[14][15] if you want to reiterate and regurgitate allegations of an alleged transgression, that is inappropriate. If that editor violated a policy take your advice and go to AE about it. JaakobouChalk Talk 17:19, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
Take it to AE. Don't ping me either.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 22:06, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
If that editor violated a policy take it to AE. Anything else you do might be further looked into. End of conversation. JaakobouChalk Talk 23:02, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
The conversation was over when you violated your topic ban and made that post on my talk page. Everything you said has been ignored.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 00:29, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
BTW, Was he one of the people that you inappropriately canvassed to that conversation?-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 00:30, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
I hate to break it to you again and again (and again...) for the first time, but I did not notify anyone I shouldn't have. I did not notify him. Now that you got that answer will you stop being a pest about it? ARBCOM concluded that because I mentioned Israel in the lead for the policy issue that it was considered inside the scope of the ban. Anything further, e.g. your repeated allegations, is disruptive and improper conduct. JaakobouChalk Talk 06:53, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
First of AE is not Arbcom. It's a noticeboard to seek admins to enforce ARBCOM sanctions. EdJohnston had addressed that you were canvassing [16]. It's not an allegation that you[17] were in violation of canvassing policies. You are banned from taking part or discussing anything related to the Israel and Arab conflict broadly construed. But you are right, me trying to further to discuss this with editors showing WP:IDHT behavior is disruptive.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 21:38, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
Ed's mentioning of your notice is irrelevant. He couldn't care less about the facts.[18] In conclusion: If that editor violated a policy take it to AE. Otherwise stop muddying the waters. JaakobouChalk Talk 21:57, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
Canvassing muddies the waters. Pointing it out helps the closer to either disregard the positions of editors who are known to have been canvassed or to close it with no consensus because it's impossible to determine the consensus. Bickering back and forth with bad faith editors who show classic signs of IDHT behavior is mostly a waste of time, but it does present a question of their competency. This conversation (and violation of your topic ban) has amounted to nothing and has ended.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 22:51, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
Ah. But here lies the point. If it amounted to nothing and has ended, why do you keep bringing it up as an insidious plot to destroy the Wiki? Why aren't you paying any attention to the plethora of other issues on the project. e.g. uncivil editors with extreme prejudice who go about pointing fingers and chant "foul" at everybody instead of opening an AE thread like a decent person. Best I can see, no one was improperly canvassed in both threads. You're not helping a closer, you're derailing any chance for conversation. What makes the canvassing allegations even more ridiculous is a bit of an examination on the history of the editors involved. If I didn't know any better, I'd say you were part of a scheme to prevent input from less involved editors who might see your bickering and choose to avoid the drama. Seriously, what do you think you're doing? Helping the project by filling it up with drama? Citing IDHT is very appropriate as you're not hearing what you're being told. If that editor violated a policy take it to AE. Otherwise stop muddying the waters. JaakobouChalk Talk 07:04, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
Insidious plot to destroy the wiki? Isn't that your whole spiel with the whole terrorist are promoting their cause on wikipedia? That is the reason you opened that RFC in bad faith and inappropriately canvassed people via email and via the wikiproject France? There's no further reason for conversation once you have done such. It's very important regardless of what is said that no change is made from your effort. You don't hear that because somehow saying "the French are neutral" is some how relevant to you. It's not even remotely relevant. Your inappropriate canvass was not neutral, being the reason it was inappropriate. You using off wiki correspondence, such as email, is highly inappropriate. You are an advocacy editor. Your violating your topic ban now lol. There's no point to even discussing anything with you. If you don't want someone to "derail" a conversation consider actually having an honest attempt at seeking a consensus. You ended up getting boot from that conversation due to your canvassing. This is why this conversation amounts to nothing. Hell the only reason you violated your topic ban and started this conversation is because their effort forwards your advocacy.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 10:17, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
I honestly couldn't continue reading after "That is the reason you opened that RFC". If you don't bother reading things properly and that absurd hyperbole and personal attacks you employ incessantly... you can't expect people to take you with good faith. You've been nothing but a disruptive force whenever editors have acted in an honest attempt to get input from the less involved community. This nonsense is just one example of a growing list. Summing up (yet again): If that editor violated a policy take it to AE. Otherwise stop muddying the waters.JaakobouChalk Talk 12:59, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
I loved your "what about the sport of boxing" comment.[19] Should have gone with MMA on account of more blood pouring in it. Cock fighting springs to mind as well. I recently heard an interesting Mexican children's song on a cock learning to fight. Interesting anthropological stuff. Thinking about it and about your boxing comment is quite a thought experiment. Anyway, good to see an attempt at discussion. Best of luck. JaakobouChalk Talk 00:30, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
Good luck? Is this some type of competition to you? Is that why you continue to violate your topic ban? Thought Experiment? No boxing actually is violent. MMA would have been covered by the other contact sports comment. I mention boxing because of it's history. The condemnation of the sport, such as from medical professionals. The argument was that condoning a recognized right is condoning violence. Such an argument is in itself a request to broadly interpret a policy. But anyway, it's over now and the right thing was done, the userbox remains.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 22:10, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
I honestly stopped reading after "Is this sometime of competition to you?". Your participation is incompetent if that is your response to a very benign compliment (per "good to see an attempt at discussion"). I wish you the best of luck anyways. JaakobouChalk Talk 21:15, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
My participation is incompetent? Because of my response to a snarky "compliment"? You started a discussion and then quickly derailed it by inappropriately canvassing users thru email and non-neutral messages. You have violated your topic ban by starting this very discussion. But it's all over now. You are topic banned from taking any effort to promote your change. Your change has failed. And the userbox that you have such a problem with remains. You seem to have a problem moving on but certainly good luck in doing so.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 22:34, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
I distinctly remember asking you to stop dangling your canvassing allegation. Due to its weak nature, it was not reviewed even. As you insist on being a disruptive force, I stopped reading after "quickly derailed it by inappropriately". Try again please, this time with competence. JaakobouChalk Talk 22:57, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
I thought it went without saying that I ignored that request. It's no surprise that you continue to deny your bad faith. That's one of the reasons your RFC failed and that is one of the reasons the MfD opened on your behalf failed. If you had been honest from the start you might have accomplished some part of what you are promoting. But you are "not" reading this and it's all over now, there's nothing left to say.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 05:39, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
You are dishonest and lying out of your keyboard. Repeatedly. Anything you have proof for. Bring it forward. Otherwise, you are in violation making repeated bogus allegations. Imagine I would do the same, lumping you together with all the familiar names from the MfD. NSH, Nableezy, Nishidani, Zero et al. Now, that would be the only fair thing to do. Not just openly sharing an ideology, but voting patterns as well. Now if that's not canvassing.... loved your boxing argument. Certainly reminds me of the cartoon about a cock learning to fight. I guess when you're so immersed in something, you just can't see all the problems it creates. Best of luck with that. Anyways, I lost my exception by mentioning real world stabbing, so I can't divulge in the matter further. Cheers. JaakobouChalk Talk 15:03, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
You calling anyone dishonest or a liar is a laugh riot. If you feel I'm in violation by all means take it to the appropriate location so we can get you banned.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 15:54, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
Laugh all you want. Regurgitating bogus allegations is why you're here. When you keep it up, it goes on the list. I or others on my "behalf" might take you to task for it. Your "behalf" will surely pop up again then, which should be a real laugh riot when it does. Best of luck.
p.s. I have no behalf here and I am not looking for one. Your entire composition as a disruptive force is detrimental for the project's goals. Boxing as permitted violence in comparison with violence against random civilians. Pah! JaakobouChalk Talk 23:12, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
Take me to task then so when can go and get you banned. Pro-Tip: When you don't wish for people to make "bogus allegations" of you canvassing, don't actually canvass. Do not use private email correspondence (stealth canvassing) to contact people to seek their input when trying to change a policy. Do not advertise on an unrelated noticeboard with a non-neutral message (campaigning). Do not target people, like those at wikiproject France, on the basis of their association with to a recent terrorist attack. Attempting to appeal to their emotions in such a manner is highly dishonest and disrespectful. Since 2012 you have made no substantial contribution to wikipedia. Your primary contribution has been the same behavior that got you topic banned in the first place. You are a single purpose account and there's not anything in your contribution history suggests that you are here to help create an encyclopedia.
P.S. Boxing is permitted violence as is fighting against an occupation force. The userbox, that you can't discuss due to your topic ban, a topic ban that you are trying to skirt, does not mention attacking civilians or purport to support that. Your sniping doesn't actually bother me. Let's review: The userbox remains. Your proposed changes to WP:UP did not succeed. You are still topic banned.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 01:09, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
Ah. But I don't care about that userbox. The principal is on whether or not it is allowed to promote violence against civilians on your user-page. For me, actually naming the party is more serious than not naming them and using ridiculous userboxes. You seem to think it is a matter of winning vs. losing. That is such an incompetent way of looking at wikipedia.
p.s. it is pretty sad you use hyperbole and make things up, repeatedly, when discussing others' participation. If that is the norm, it would make a fine list indeed. JaakobouChalk Talk 03:17, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
p.p.s. "Fighting against occupation" sure sounds like a debased euphemism. I wonder if beheading is included in your profound definition... perhaps you don't read the news. JaakobouChalk Talk 03:23, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
No it's not about winning or losing to me but it actually is to you. Your a SPA that has been prevented from taking part in their single purpose. You came back after 3 years and climbed on same soapbox and got knocked off it. Make what up? The emails? Two users in the RFC you started make it clear that they were emailed by you. You are the one provided the evidence that you tried to manipulate the emotions of wikiproject France members due to the Paris attack. Euphemism? Yeah the 4th Geneva convention is a euphemism. Beheading? I've not promoted beheading or seen anyone on wikipedia due so. Before your already clear topic ban was clarified you were asked for an example of this on wikipedia. You failed to provide any. Well you did provide the userbox that you no longer care about now and something else. None of which matched your narrative. I'm going to let you get back to not editing wikipedia and you can go plan your next attempt for 3 years from now.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 03:46, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
How about mowing random civilians down by ramming a car into a bus stop and leaving the car to stab the lot? Sounds a lot like 4th Geneva convention stuff. Pah! What do you think "violence against X" means exactly? Are you really that incompetent to compare it to boxing or is that a cheap trick to try and get a rise out of people like your "behalf", the genius and his Vietnam fighting dad? As long as you try to assign win/lose to someone's view it reflects on you. I could care less about what is permitted here. My interest is purely for even-handedness. You can imagine my "behalf" might be happy to add a few words supporting Jewish retaliation against terrorist activity as well as a few words that explain why it is within their natural right to do so. That is a basic human right and free speech as well. See, either it is permitted, or it isn't. Right now, you seem quite unclear on the matter. Beheadings are perfectly legitimate in the eyes of ISIS. Just because you and the geneva convention don't support it doesn't mean your peronsal bias against it should get in the way. Either promoting violence is allowed or it isn't. But you think you've won something. SMH. JaakobouChalk Talk 09:31, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
This is all about a win to you. This is why you have been topic banned. Your inability to drop the stick and walk away. You have rhetoric and bad faith tactics, but no evidence or legitimate position for the change you promoted in that RFC. The same rhetoric you have here. Ramming random civilians? Who's promoting the ramming of random civilians on wikipedia or the beheading by ISIS? Where is this promotion at? You have the rhetoric. You have made the narrative. Where's the evidence? And boxing, you don't understand the argument. This is not surprising, you after all were arguing that the French are neutral as if that some how relevant to your bad faith canvassing. Note your own argument, "Either promoting violence is allowed or it isn't." Again boxing is violence. Your are arguing, as was argued, that the prohibition is against violence broadly construed and with no consideration. You aren't looking for an even hand. You are a single purpose account on a soapbox and it's the same soapbox your were on 3 years ago. The only change is now you've added ISIS to your rhetoric. Where is a wikipedia user promoting ISIS beheading on wikipedia? Where are they promoting ramming into civilians? It's not in Nableezy's userbox. Does it actually exist outside your head?-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 12:17, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
I honestly stopped reading after "This is why you have been topic banned." You haven't got a clue as to why I got herded off the site. I got fed up with text promoting stabbings and other forms of rising for "victory" against Jews, Israeli settlers, and Zionists. I went through proper channels, but as in every instance of this type, there are disruptive forces hanging about. I got fed up with them and allowed myself a farewell action from the topic. Whatever your interpretation of it as winning/losing is absurd incompetence. I won by allowing myself to either have the material taken off, or having the chance to leave the site peacefully. Which I did. As for your personal bias in favor of promoting beheading activity (aka "right to violence in favor of freedom from occupation"), that's great. Keep it up. JaakobouChalk Talk 13:02, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
You did not get herded off the site. You got a boomerang for your tendentiousness. There's still a paper trail. Your contribution history. Your inability to drop stick. IDHT behavior. Again, you calling anyone incompetent is a laugh riot. And again I ask, Where are the diffs? Where are the diffs that I support or it's beheading? You have a narrative. You have rhetoric. People in occupied countries have the right to use violence to fight the occupying force. You don't like this? I'm not exactly sure how that is relevant. Maybe you could start a blog or write an angry letter to the UN to promote changing this.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 22:21, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
When you compare a movement of violence that specifically targets civilians with boxing, you are basically condoning any violent activity. Any. Let's for a moment take your (naive) perspective about occupation and assume you have a point: From the near 300 Israelis (read: Jews) injured in the past 3 months, how many you think were occupying soldiers doing their subjugating work? Sample: "After hitting two people with his car, the assailant exited the vehicle and stabbed a pedestrian." Wait... wasn't this stabbing of pedestrians equivalent to boxing? As with your other misstatements, it is an incompetent argument. The one you chose to lead with after letting go of disruption. Not that it mattered since I know the usernames, gaming and tendentiousness patterns of of nearly every one who participated. Your "behalf" would support kicking Ronda Rousey in the face if it were passable (replace a few words in there). JaakobouChalk Talk 07:29, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
Here's a classic. Feel free to use it.

Girl: "I do not fear the rifle

because your throngs are in delusion and are ignorant herds
Jerusalem is my land, Jerusalem is my honor
Jerusalem is my days and my wildest dreams
Oh, you who murdered Allah’s pious prophets (i.e., Jews in Islamic tradition)‎
Oh, you who were brought up on spilling blood
Oh Sons of Zion, oh most evil among creations
Oh barbaric monkeys
Jerusalem opposes your throngs
Jerusalem vomits from within it your impurity
Because Jerusalem, you impure ones, is pious, immaculate
And Jerusalem, you who are filth, is clean and pure
I do not fear barbarity
As long as my heart is my Quran and my city
As long as I have my arm and my stones
As long as I am free and do not barter my cause
I will not fear your throngs, I will not fear the rifle"

PA TV host:‎ "Bravo! Jerusalem is the eternal capital of Palestine, we will never forget it.‎"
If that is not your position, "Maybe you could start a blog or write an angry letter to the UN to promote changing this."
Best of luck. JaakobouChalk Talk 07:35, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
Again, Where are the diffs showing that users are promoting the ISIS beheading or ramming civilians with cars? You keep violating your topic ban to discuss it so where is the evidence? Yes you have an endless stream oh nonsensical rhetoric and loads of meaningless comments that you can make, but where is the evidence that issue you are promoting actually exists on wikipedia? Any evidence at all? Where?-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 10:31, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
It is a matter of naive interpretation. You might think they are supporting new scientific methods when they say 'Intelligent Design', but it is still Creationism. You might think they are promoting heroic actions against an illegally occupying force when they write "armed resistance against Israeli aggression", but the user page that I was herded off Wikipedia for was and still is an open call to use any weapon available against random Jews wherever they may be. As for the userbox, I concur with Sandstein's view: I'll not remove this box, but I don't object if other admins want to. Yes, this is obviously a silly userbox, but we prohibit disruption, not silliness. As noted below, this general kind of "I hate someone!" userbox may at least be useful in quickly identifying problematic editors. Sandstein (talk) 23:27, 5 January 2008 (UTC). I care not if it stays or not and no one opened anything on my behalf. Your previous assertions of victory/loss only reflected on your views of the project. That you (supposedly) fail to see the true nature of these advocacy driven pages is reminds me of the Swedish MFA.[20]
p.s. ISIS view is they fight against military occupation. I hope that much is clear to you.
-- JaakobouChalk Talk 11:02, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
So in other words you don't have any evidence? Just rhetoric? Well I think that was already clear. Back and forth between you have an issue with Nableezy's box and you don't have an issue. The box is such evidence and I'm just to naive to see it but the box is not an issue at all. This type of nonsense is why you got "herded" off of wikipedia. Although you haven't been herded off of anything. You have been topic banned from editing ARBPIA articles where you have proven to cause alot of disruption that wastes. You are free to edit other articles. But you are a single purpose account here to advocate and this topic ban has prevented that.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 11:28, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
From the example you requested: A Palestinian using an antisemitic piece where a Jew is a merciless blood thirsty villain seeking to purchase a living pound of flesh; abiding by the law, yet with a gruesome nature of his interpretation. Replacing the word 'Jew' (Shylock) with 'Palestinian'. It would only be a funny thing if it weren't meant as a call to attack Jews. As expected, it is followed by other similarly advocating quotes. "at the moment he realizes his humanity that he begins to sharpen the weapons with which he will secure his victory". It is not my failure when this bullshit stays on Wikipedia. It is incompetent to distinguish language and actions of "the resistance" (ISIS at el.) of nowadays.
p.s. I was not a cause for disruption on any article. Feel free to check (unlike my provided example).
Regards, JaakobouChalk Talk 11:36, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
So again, no evidence? -Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 13:16, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
How about trying for a little competence? JaakobouChalk Talk 16:14, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
I see one more mention of Tiamut's user (talk) page I'm going to ask that you be blocked. You are well aware that you have an interaction ban with her, and quoting from her page and claiming that it is "antisemitic" is a straightforward violation of that ban. Regards, nableezy - 18:41, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
Shakespeare’s antisemitic depiction of Jews, esp. in the Merchant of Venice, is a known hot potatoe. I found myself herded off Wikipedia for a similar mistake as the one you've just made. Misinterpreting comments. Albeit, there was a major difference. I was fed up with content promoting attacks on innocent civilians, your mistaken reading makes false assumptions regarding someone I have no interest in whatsoever. I do not speak about them and don't have any interest in doing that. Serialjoepsycho missed how ISIS view is that they fight against military occupation puts a damper on his boxing argument. He also repeatedly made a few false claims about why I was topic banned and requested, (again, repeatedly), an exampled explanation.
p.s. was a great laugh seeing all the familiar names on the userbox discussion vote stacking to keep it. I might have done the same but from the Sandstein point of view. Cheers. JaakobouChalk Talk 19:47, 16 December 2015 (UTC) minor correction. JaakobouChalk Talk 20:19, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
p.p.s. Here's a few words on "winning". JaakobouChalk Talk 21:01, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
@Nableezy:
How many times were you topic banned? If memory serves, there were at least four but I lost count at some point and I wouldn't want to write down the wrong number and misrepresent the facts. Asking first and accepting explanations, where reasonable, seems like better form than hyperbole and making shit up. Right?
Let me know, JaakobouChalk Talk 22:17, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
Jaak, with all due respect, how many times Ive been topic banned isnt really relevant to your existing topic and interaction ban. One more mention of Tiamut or her page and I will ask that the ban be enforced with a block. And as the violation is happening on your talk page that block should include edits to your own talk page. You are directly quoting from her userpage, that is a violation of your ban. If you want to challenge that fine, but just as the last time you claimed I was wrong on the scope of your ban Im fairly certain you will, once again, be proven wrong. As far as your question, Im pretty sure every ban of mine is listed on my user page, so add em up if it makes you feel better. nableezy - 03:57, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
Obviously, if there are false claims on my page, I have to explain why they are false. Making it personal is your doing and I reject that way of thinking. As for your user page, it does not list your bans. How many were there? JaakobouChalk Talk 07:43, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
Still no evidence? Me topic banned? Change that 4 to a 0.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 23:45, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
You've reached your highest level of incompetence. JaakobouChalk Talk 00:02, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
And yet where is the evidence?-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 00:48, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
First step made.[21] Now, take another. Read a bit, you will find it,[22] then ignore it and repeat your last 6 words. A reversion to the disruptive behavior this thread was started over. JaakobouChalk Talk 07:43, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
I'll find where you suggested something without providing any evidence of it. Your willing to attempt to manipulate the emotions of people due to recent terrorist activities and attempt to them to a discussion. This is so much simpler, show that the issue you have been so disruptive about actually exists on wikipedia and is not taken care of. You've not provided evidence of this. You say that people are promoting the ramming of civilians and the beheading by ISIS. Where? I can say the grass is purple but that doesn't actually make the grass purple. If I said the Capital of Tennessee is Jackson that wouldn't actually make the capital Jackson. You want continue to violate your topic ban, first by coming to my talk page and inserting yourself into a discussion you are banned from and Then continuing to do so on your talk page. You are not concerned at all with it. So again, where is this evidence?-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 09:32, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
When you repeat bogus allegations over and over, it is Wikipedia's policy that this is improper. I notified you of this and in our discussion here, which you opened, have reminded you of this several times more. Visiting your page with a reminder about policy does not amount to being involved in content discussions on another page. Your reaction, starting a conversation here, rejecting the policy, and explaining why you think your boxing comment was worthwhile was taken with good faith and not as a baiting attempt. I cannot help but discuss it with you here once you've opened a discussion about it. Topically, you defended the right to act with violence against "occupation". I explained this to be tantamount to arguing an ISIL supporter -- they view their territory as occupied and act with violence. You rejected the premise and made bogus allegations as to why I'm not editing the subject of I-P anymore. If I did not think it were a baiting attempt, I might think it now. Gaming the system to try and get other editors banned is improper conduct. Either you have faith in your argument, or you shouldn't bring it up. JaakobouChalk Talk 10:57, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
If I was trying to get you banned I would took you to AE when you violated your topic ban by starting this conversation on my topic page. I could have done so at any of the many points thru out this conversation where you have violated your topic ban. I have made no bogus allegations against you. You did canvass users via email to the RFC at WP:UP. You did canvass people from wikiproject France. These aren't allegations. These are already known facts. I've not rejected the policy at all. I've rejected an interpretation of that policy that you support and an interpretation that failed to achieve a consensus at the mfd. I reject that the portion of the policy that mentions violence is to be broadly construed. It refers to only grossly improper violence. Legal actions that are violent such as boxing or using violence against military occupation forces are not grossly improper. There is no legitimately recognized military occupation in lands under control of ISIS. Your argument that supporting a principle in international law is tantamount to supporting ISIS is simply asinine. Though I note your cop out, you suggesting that people are supporting ISIS and ramming cars and such in to civilians is not new to this conversation. Your are an immensely disruptive force to wikipedia and I should never even wasted my time talking to you after your bad faith became clear. That became clear quickly into the RFC when you started canvassing people. However none the less, put up or shut up. Where are these supporters of ISIS beheading on wikipedia or these supporters of ramming cars into civilians? Where is a legitimate justification for your proposed changes to wikipedia? Oh, that's right, you don't have any.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 12:48, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
I noted WP:APPNOTE to you and suggested we close this matter properly by bringing it up for review. You can't reject dispute resolution and insist you are right. That is the definition of TE. As for "grossly improper violence", that really depends on interpretation. Now that you're finally addressing the ISIL example, I can note to you that there are about a billion people (possibly more) who do consider the middle easy as occupied territory. Iran, Turkey, the US, Russia, France et al. They have extensive military presence in the region. Thus, the term "legitimately" is up for your personal view. To top things off, you focus on the term 'against military', but we both know who are the main targets. There's further explanation to this above. It wouldn't hurt if you read it. To cap things off: "The purpose of Wikipedia is to create a high-quality, free-content encyclopedia in an atmosphere of camaraderie and mutual respect among contributors. Use of the site for other purposes, such as advocacy or propaganda or furtherance of outside conflicts is prohibited." - Passed 11 to 0
-- JaakobouChalk Talk 14:01, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
I am right. I don't need to go to AE to prove myself right. Ed Johnston pointed out that it was canvassing. Why would I go to AE because a bad faith editor exclaims they were not canvassing? The issue is already stale. It has been resolved. You were removed from the conversation and that conversation resolved with no consensus for your change. Go open another RFC and canvass users in bad faith via email or thru non-neutral messages that try to manipulate peoples emotions due to a recent disaster. I'm not aware of a Billion people who find the middle east to be occupied. The Palestinian territories (including East Jerusalem) and the Golan Heights are occupied. This is a small part of the middle east. Syria and Iraq are not under the effective provisional control of the United States, Iran, Turkey, Russia or Etc. It's occupied if you feel it's occupied is an asinine argument.There's a fringe movement suggesting Hawaii is under military occupation. I focus on "against military" because that is the right. I'm sure the purpose of your rant about attacking civilians. The fact that some groups do illegally attack civilians does not take away from their right to attack military occupation forces. The Userbox does not promote the support of attacking civilians. It promotes a legitimate action. This is no different than a userbox that supports boxing. You just don't like it. It's always funny to see single purpose accounts target advocacy. It's always one sided. Something that doesn't align with their single purpose. I'm not going to be for censorship simply because someone doesn't like something. There's been people that don't like boxing.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 16:39, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
a) What does "bad faith editor" mean?
b) What is stale is not your repeated claims, that posting on WikiFrance was canvassing, but my policy related discussion. Deemed an extension into the ban due to my mentioning of a wave of stabbing attacks in Israel as a lead. Insisting on your point does not negate my earlier response to the WikiFrance message. IDHT won't turn your argument right. Rejecting dispute resolution and repeating unsubstantiated claims is TE.
c) You mention an occupation that is a bit of a complex matter. e.g., there's an historic matter[23] and in your brief note you made a clear mistake where you assigned the Golan to, but I won't go further into this Israel connected matter since I'm sure someone will end up taking me to task for it. As for your claims that Syria and Iraq are not under "effective provisional control", I did not state my own opinion but a widely accepted one among the residents of the Levant and like-minded hundreds of millions outside the Levant. E.g.,[24] (relevant quote: "we launched two fronts against the enemies of Islam in Iraq and Syria", "No to humiliation!"). Here's another[25] (relevant quote: "By Allah, we will [take] revenge.", "France was the beginning, and tomorrow it will be Washington, New York, and Moscow."). Both these examples could be wikilawyered as "against military", but that would be a lie as to who these groups really target.
d) There is nothing wrong with an editor caring mostly about a specific topic as long as they care about the nature of the project being an encyclopedia which respects mainstream views. There is something wrong, as stated in the 'Passed 11 to 0' ARBCOM decision, with using the project for other purposes. Is it that you fail to understand that decision or that you choose to ignore it because you believe you are right and Wikipedia user-space should be used as a forum for advocacy?
-- JaakobouChalk Talk 09:10, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
a) Use a dictionary.
b)My repeated claims are not stale and you wish to take action by all means do so. An unsubstantiated claim is a lacking evidence. The facts I pointed out about your canvassing have been substantiated.
c)1500 years ago? Would you like to point out another irrelevant detail? This would be like me going to England and telling them they must give me citizenship because of some Celtic ancestry. It's an appeal to emotion and not a legal argument. I made no mistake about Golan. It's occupied. It's a part of Syria. The illegal and unrecognized annexation of it by Israel does not change this. Here's a source that talks about the Hawaiian occupation [26]. It's still a fringe movement lacking legitimacy, like your claim that Golan and Palestinian terrirtories are not occupied and Syria and Iraq are.
d)The is nothing with a neutral editor mostly caring about one topic. You are not a neutral editor. Advocacy is excluded. Not completely. On user pages editors are given plenty of leeway. The difference between the boxing userbox and the userbox in question is you do not support this advocacy in the latter. Advocacy alone is not enough to call for deletion.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 22:31, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
c) I did not say anything about the occupation status regarding Israel, only that it is a complex subject with more than one viewpoint, I did say your statement was incorrect regarding the Golan. Specifically, I've misread that you thought Syria was Palestinian. Rereading it, I see it was my own blunder. I'm sure now that you don't think so. Still, you've made a mistake in thinking Syria exists. Ten years ago, sure. But who would you return the territory to now? P.S. mock it as much as you like, but historically speaking, the Golan was Israelite territory. Considering the population shift in the Levant between 1850-1950, perhaps you should try extending your Celtic arguments to everybody rather than just the side you agree with. Might extend your perspective just doing that as a thought experiment.
d) You haven't read my words if you think I care about that silly user-box. I said it before and I'll say again that I don't. I specifically talked about promotion of violence against civilians and made clear that games as well as clear advocacy have been used. Your leeway argument extends into anything that involves your political persuasion, but you've not been neutral enough to see that your pro-violence argument extends to include any form of mukawama as well, including current "military aggression" in the Levant and the freedom fighters resisting it. You say "military", but the targets have been mostly civilians. To advocate your political persuasion in a real world conflict on your userpage is not akin to saying "I love boxing". ARBCOM ruled on this 11 to 0. That a few examples, all in the topic I am barred from, have been allowed to circumvent policy is a long term detriment to the project. The users who promote use of this site for advocacy complain about IPs popping up with another view -- this can mostly be blamed on their own activity as well as the activity of enablers, e.g. [27]. On the enabling topic, we still didn't get a reply how many times Nableezy was topic banned. I'd like to think myself capable of more neutrality than him. i.e. I don't look at Wikipedia as a battlefield.
-- JaakobouChalk Talk 04:54, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
Most your retort is asinine, if not all of it. I can't be bothered to read it all. You've not shown evidence of a userbox or etc that anyone of wikipedia supports or condones attacking civilians yet this unrelated conversation you keep inserting in. You don't care about that box and you care about that userbox. It's all one side and takes no consideration beyond the POV that you came to Wikipedia to push. The difference between you and nableezy is that they are not currently topic banned. As far as you being more neutral... Well I've not seen Nableezy post a non-neutral canvass that is a an appeal to emotion to an RFC who might be sympathetic due to a recent terrorist attack but are in no way related to the RFC that was created. I've seen you do that.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 06:59, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
Have you really missed the same names in every discussion? You think Nableezy and Nishidani were watching WP:UP? Pah! Anyway, you consider proper arguments "asinine" and reject the ARBCOM conclusion. Your pro-violence argument includes ISIL supporting test just as much as it does attacks on the civilians of Tel Aviv. Should be fun to see the growth of that argument with the inevitable growth in violence in Europe and the US in upcoming years. Best of luck. JaakobouChalk Talk 08:36, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
Proper argument? Your argument is shear idiocy. You keep talking about attacks on civilians but again where is the evidence of wikipedia users promoting violence against civilians. The userbox that you do care about and don't care about doesn't contain it. I don't reject ARBCOM conclusion. I reject your conclusions. The userbox does not advocate any political persuasion in any real world conflict. It advocates for a real world right and it advocates against unilateral admin action in place of an actual consensus. You are an incompetent editor. You go to wikiproject France and appeal to emotion. Here you make an appeal to fear. You aren't even capable of an honest discussion. You want to mention those two say there aren't neutral and shouldn't have taken part in that RFC. This is not actually the case. It's really just another sign of your incompetence. But let's pretend for a moment that was the case and it was wrong of them to take part in the RFC. How's right for you to open that RFC if it was wrong for them to take part in it because they are not neutral? Let's ignore that you were topic banned. You are highly biased and take actions specifically to bias the discussion such as your canvassing. Again, here the appeal to fear. It is a universal right for people to fight against colonial domination, alien occupation and/or racist regimes. They have a customary international law to not attack non-combatants. But oh, because I point out the fact that they have that right, soon America will be attacked by Muslim terrorists. Muslims already commit acts of Terrorism in the United States and Europe. Jewish Extremists were responsible for 7% of terrorist attacks in the USA from 1980 to 2005. Muslim Extremists were responsible for 6%. But this now going to somehow change because someone mentions a right on wikipedia that has existed longer than wikipedia by decades. -Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 10:03, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
You ignore what I wrote about the userbox, and, it would seem, did not read what I wrote about Shylock. On top of that, it would seem you are arguing in support of Jewish terrorist activities in the US, or alleging that I would have. My point, again, is that promoting violence against civilians, using Wikipedia for advocacy is not permissible. That you give leeway to one kind of it, opens the door to any type of it, including ISIL related "resistance". You can't skip reading the arguments of others, insist on your correctness, reject dispute resolution, wikilawyer ARBCOM decisions - and consider your actions neutrally motivated and/or proper. Or can you? JaakobouChalk Talk 13:41, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
More IDHT behavior on your part. I just skipped to the bottom. I haven't rejected dispute resolution. You are free to open any dispute resolution that you wish. Do of course mind your topic ban.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 21:42, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
Though it was obvious, I appreciate your conceding to skipping what was written. Have you read what I wrote about Shylock? JaakobouChalk Talk 12:02, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
No. Because again you have said something exists on Wikipedia but again provided no verification. So what dispute resolution process are you opening?-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 12:59, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
You need a diff in order to find the page which includes the misused Shylock text or is that a baiting attempt? JaakobouChalk Talk 13:36, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
I need a diff to verify this exists. I need a diff to review what is said and what is in context. It's not a baiting attempt at all. If you would violate your topic ban by providing a diff you have already violated it by discussing it in the first place. By opening this conversation in the first place you violated your topic ban. Besides the fact you are not a trust worthy individual, it's just a good policy on wikipedia to verify everything. you'd probably be better served by not providing a diff and not discussing the matter at all.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 15:28, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
You're smart enough to find what you need without the actual diff. Pretty sure you've found it already and insist on playing dumb. Considering the boxing argument, maybe I'm wrong. JaakobouChalk Talk 20:48, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
It's possible that I could but the onus is on you to make your own case. Noting the dishonesty you've already shown there's little reason for me to put any effort in by searching for evidence for you.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 23:46, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
Just as before, when you were hiding your strong political affiliation while chanting "no one needs to disclose anything", you're being dishonest. I was upfront about my activity. You, on the other hand, were not and you again, and again (again again again...) repeat bogus statements and allegations. This thread was opened because you can't resist the temptation to make false allegations. Try to get over yourself. Don't take a page from the company you keep. Now, take that onus if you truly believe in your argument. Otherwise, you're just being ridiculously repetitive. JaakobouChalk Talk 00:26, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
I'm not hiding any strong political affiliation. I'm not affiliated with any political group. I can not help that you lack the competency to understand what a conflict of interest is. I've not made any false allegations. You have canvassed people. Either you now denying it in bad faith or your lack the competency to understand another policy. It doesn't matter to me which. The onus? That's on you. We are still waiting for your evidence. The onus is not on me to seek out the evidence for the case you have made.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 01:25, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Canvassing: I've said this a few times before, but here goes again. We disagree about the interpretation of the WP:CANVASS policy. I've linked to the allowed section a few times but I'm not sure if you've taken the time to look it up. Assuming the best, You read it but still disagree and use one comment which I believe was not a thorough examination but simply based itself on your estimation. If you want to continue insisting on your interpretation, it is only fair to bring this for dispute resolution. I am willing to renegotiate my perspective per community values. You, on the other hand, insist on TE. If you believe in your perspective so much, put it up to the task.
  • Boxing vs. Violent "resistance": Carlos Latuff, a person of high consideration among militant endeavors, understands that there is no difference between one mukawama and another mukawama. example. Pardon me if I am wrong with my understanding of your views, but it seemed you agree with freedom of speech on user-pages (against ARBCOM ruling of 11 to 0) when it comes to one conflict in particular but reject that same promotion and advocacy when it comes to another. This is not how the project should work and it is a shame that you allow your personal (naive) understanding of one conflict persuade you off a neutral examination of the issue.
  • Onus: It is clear that I am not at liberty here. If you think your argument is worthwhile. Make it without wikilawyering.
-- JaakobouChalk Talk 16:40, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
You have referenced WP:APPNOTE while ignoring the actual policy. Ignoring WP:STEALTH with your particular use of email. You were campaigning in that email as well as over at wikiproject France. You were also votestacking by contacting wikiproject France, your advertisement was highly bias. They are not a wikiproject related to the RFC and you were hoping they would sympathize with your opinion due to the Paris Attack. You specifically invoked the Paris attack for this purpose. You are free to take this to any dispute resolution that you wish. I'd urge you against it. They will either find that you don't have the competency to understand clearly written policy or they will find that you are wikilawyering in bad faith. I have actually figured out which is the problem yet myself.
Great for Carlos. It's not actually relevant to the discussion. But certainly great for him. It's a simple matter. Under international law Occupied people have the right to use force to fight their occupier. They can attack any part of the occupation force other than those deemed non-combatants under international law. Be it France during World War II, Palestine in 2015, or the Galaga Empire in 2255. You have a problem with this specific advocacy but not other advocacy on wikipedia, probably due to your personal relation with this. Advocating for a right that may be violent is not different than advocating for a violent sport. Neither of which violate the traditional leeway given to user pages.
Liberty? No Liberty? The onus regardless remains with you. My case had been made. The user bo that you can't decide whether you care about or not remains. the situation is resolved.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 04:01, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Your interpretation of campaigning is absurd. I did not use a single argument in my message in favor or against my suggestion. On top of that, I only wished for clarification on the policy -- I have no preferred version. Votestacking is what your little clique is doing. I am against such deplorable actions. I am willing to renegotiate my perspective per community values, not per your repetition of the same assertions.
  • ARBCOM ruled about advocacy in favor of terrorist attacks on civilians. Yes, assuming good faith, advocacy for mukawama is not equal to your naive interpretation. But even assuming the advocacy explicitly states one military or another rather than the more serious suggestion to 'stab', 'vengeance', 'humiliation' and 'victory' or some other mukawama clap-trap, it is a violation of the ARBCOM ruling. Latuff's cartoons on Syria are a good example of "occupation" in the minds of mukawama. At least he's consistent.
  • Your arguments do not gain credence just because I'm not at liberty.
-- JaakobouChalk Talk 19:38, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
Your use of the Paris attack to promote your RFC is absurd, loathsome, and dishonest. You weren't asking for clarification, you wee asking for a change to the policy. My clique? Who's that? Anyone that doesn't agree with you? You actually seeking to bias a discussion by bringing in others using dishonest tactics is not the same as individuals such as my self independently showing up.
We are not talking about advocacy in favor of terrorist attacks, We are talking about advocacy in favor of an international right. "But the terrorist say they are fighting against Military occupation." And yet Hawaiians state they are under military occupation. Neither meet the definition under international law of Military occupation. Neither are viewed with any actual legitimacy. It's just half ass straw grasping argument on your part. Or I could assume good face and view you as completely incompetent. It's one or the other.
I've taken view to the mfd. The mfd resolved with no consensus for deletion. Your arguments were brought by others. I'm satisfied with the results. Your not. I have no reason to do anything further. I've asked you to provide evidence that people are promoting car attacks on civilians or beheading by ISIS as you have suggest they have. This is a legitimate concern. Instead you've chosen to rant. I have no reason to take any further action the subject, especially not when it's because a user who doesn't understand simple wikipedia polices (wp:canvass for instance) is unsatisfied. I've continued this battleground discussion only because I wrongly assumed that you might provide evidence of an actual issue but it's remained a battleground since you violated your topic ban and started this discussion on my talk page. This matter is resolved.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 21:49, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
  • absurd, loathsome, and dishonest - Your opinion on the matter was duly noted several times already (sample). If you believe in the veracity of such an accusative and inappropriately repetitive statement ('Comment on content, not contributors.'), don't be TE about it. I'd be happy to see what "independently showing up" means when you finally agree to open it for review (one can be optimistic).
  • advocacy in favor of an international right - *smh* is that really what's been advocated by Nableezy (*wave*), Nishidani and the unmentionable, undiscoverable Shylock? You're really only fooling yourself. As for "legal" definitions, you're ignoring the other legal definition of more than a billion people. That you don't like it in one particular context doesn't make this a straw argument. I used Latuff as example. Your response was: "It's not actually relevant to the discussion. But certainly great for him."
  • Any mfd should not be "resolved" while people misunderstand policy and involved parties chime in and vote stack with numbers. Even then, I've noted several times my view that said userbox does not advocate anything other than stupidity and I would have supported it myself had I been allowed. I don't understand why you continually bring this anti-example forward. My lack of examples on attacks on civilians are a result of not being at liberty and that the only examples of pure advocacy I've encountered are in this topic area. Considering systematic bias, I doubt any such "sharpen the weapons", and "victory" proclamations would be permitted to remain outside the scope in which I am not at liberty. This is quite unfortunate considering this type of advocacy is at the core of daily racially motivated attacks on civilians ("an international right"?).
p.s. reminder: I placed a notice on your page to avoid repeated accusations against fellow editors.
-- JaakobouChalk Talk 13:50, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

File:Islam What the West Needs to Know - Back Cover.gif listed for discussion[edit]

Information.svg
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Islam What the West Needs to Know - Back Cover.gif, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. gobonobo + c 00:40, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Palestinian terrorists listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

Information.svg

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Palestinian terrorists. Since you had some involvement with the Palestinian terrorists redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Spirit Ethanol (talk) 22:15, 3 February 2016 (UTC)