→Jaakobou: + |
|||
(One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) | |||
Line 136: | Line 136: | ||
::Thanks for the tip, never knew about the redirect. I would note that most seem to be following the chat, mainly along partisan lines, rather than looking at the Q_D_S page. I haven't remarked on it, because I expected in these cases that evidence would be analysed, rather than political battle lines be drawn. For example, Jaakobou thinks [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Q-D-S&diff=251972278&oldid=251972049 this a helpful contribution to the page], making an edit which accentuates what is already implicit about the Jewish holy city, while introducing a remark about Mohammed ''touring heaven'' with the angel Gabriel. Perhaps I was raised in another era: in polite company once, if one boosted one's own beliefs while describing those of another group in comical, undisguisedly satirical terms (a revered figure's ascent in tradition phrased as 'touring heaven' is Montypythonesque to put it gently), it would be taken as a put down (apart from being irrelevant to the article). I suspect Jaakobou can't see the problem, not out of malice, but because he can't see where other people are coming from, and the way language works.[[User:Nishidani|Nishidani]] ([[User talk:Nishidani|talk]]) 23:00, 17 November 2008 (UTC) |
::Thanks for the tip, never knew about the redirect. I would note that most seem to be following the chat, mainly along partisan lines, rather than looking at the Q_D_S page. I haven't remarked on it, because I expected in these cases that evidence would be analysed, rather than political battle lines be drawn. For example, Jaakobou thinks [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Q-D-S&diff=251972278&oldid=251972049 this a helpful contribution to the page], making an edit which accentuates what is already implicit about the Jewish holy city, while introducing a remark about Mohammed ''touring heaven'' with the angel Gabriel. Perhaps I was raised in another era: in polite company once, if one boosted one's own beliefs while describing those of another group in comical, undisguisedly satirical terms (a revered figure's ascent in tradition phrased as 'touring heaven' is Montypythonesque to put it gently), it would be taken as a put down (apart from being irrelevant to the article). I suspect Jaakobou can't see the problem, not out of malice, but because he can't see where other people are coming from, and the way language works.[[User:Nishidani|Nishidani]] ([[User talk:Nishidani|talk]]) 23:00, 17 November 2008 (UTC) |
||
:::(ec) Might be better to assume good faith and suppose his English isn't quite at native fluency, and suggest a better alternative. He didn't show me that post before it went live, but from interacting with him off wiki and reviewing other statements pre-post I'll affirm that his use of idiomatic English isn't picture perfect. On a less contentious topic that wouldn't ruffle any feathers, but he's usually proactive about checking when something might come across the wrong way. <font face="Verdana">[[User:Durova|<span style="color:#009">Durova</span>]]</font><sup>''[[User talk:Durova|Charge!]]''</sup> 23:11, 17 November 2008 (UTC) |
:::(ec) Might be better to assume good faith and suppose his English isn't quite at native fluency, and suggest a better alternative. He didn't show me that post before it went live, but from interacting with him off wiki and reviewing other statements pre-post I'll affirm that his use of idiomatic English isn't picture perfect. On a less contentious topic that wouldn't ruffle any feathers, but he's usually proactive about checking when something might come across the wrong way. <font face="Verdana">[[User:Durova|<span style="color:#009">Durova</span>]]</font><sup>''[[User talk:Durova|Charge!]]''</sup> 23:11, 17 November 2008 (UTC) |
||
::::::Actually I did rewrite the passage, suggesting an alternative, though thinking it bizarre. Tiamut rightly elided it as irrelevant padding.[[User:Nishidani|Nishidani]] ([[User talk:Nishidani|talk]]) 10:26, 18 November 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::::To clarify, I was working from [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Isra_and_Mi%27raj&oldid=248928347 Isra and Mi'raj (stable link)] and the relevant text I referred to was ''"the Mi'raj, is taken to the heavens, where he tours the circles of heaven, and speaks with the earlier prophets, and with Allah."'' <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">[[User:Jaakobou|Jaakobou]]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>''[[User talk:Jaakobou|Chalk Talk]]''</sup></font></b> 23:49, 17 November 2008 (UTC) |
::::To clarify, I was working from [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Isra_and_Mi%27raj&oldid=248928347 Isra and Mi'raj (stable link)] and the relevant text I referred to was ''"the Mi'raj, is taken to the heavens, where he tours the circles of heaven, and speaks with the earlier prophets, and with Allah."'' <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">[[User:Jaakobou|Jaakobou]]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>''[[User talk:Jaakobou|Chalk Talk]]''</sup></font></b> 23:49, 17 November 2008 (UTC) |
||
Line 145: | Line 146: | ||
::I don't see why you continue to misrepresent the contents of that page, nor why you continue to use that misrepresentation as an opportunity to soapbox about the use of "holy" by militant groups. It's entirely irrelevant to article improvement and tt's tendentious argumentation which is either provocative by design, or a result of incompetence. In either case, it's a pattern, and it's getting awfully tiresome. [[User:Tiamut|<b><font color="#B93B8F">T</font><font color="#800000">i</font><font color="#B93B8F">a</font><font color="#800000">m</font><font color="#B93B8F">u</font><font color="#800000">t</font></b>]]<sup>[[User_talk:Tiamut|talk]]</sup> 00:32, 18 November 2008 (UTC) |
::I don't see why you continue to misrepresent the contents of that page, nor why you continue to use that misrepresentation as an opportunity to soapbox about the use of "holy" by militant groups. It's entirely irrelevant to article improvement and tt's tendentious argumentation which is either provocative by design, or a result of incompetence. In either case, it's a pattern, and it's getting awfully tiresome. [[User:Tiamut|<b><font color="#B93B8F">T</font><font color="#800000">i</font><font color="#B93B8F">a</font><font color="#800000">m</font><font color="#B93B8F">u</font><font color="#800000">t</font></b>]]<sup>[[User_talk:Tiamut|talk]]</sup> 00:32, 18 November 2008 (UTC) |
||
:::My main argument/comparison regarding groups which use "Islam", "Allah", "Quds", etc. in their name should probably be addressed and it would be a nice change if comments made would stop taking a personally oriented tone. <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">[[User:Jaakobou|Jaakobou]]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>''[[User talk:Jaakobou|Chalk Talk]]''</sup></font></b> 09:50, 18 November 2008 (UTC) |
:::My main argument/comparison regarding groups which use "Islam", "Allah", "Quds", etc. in their name should probably be addressed and it would be a nice change if comments made would stop taking a personally oriented tone. <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">[[User:Jaakobou|Jaakobou]]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>''[[User talk:Jaakobou|Chalk Talk]]''</sup></font></b> 09:50, 18 November 2008 (UTC) |
||
::::[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Second_Intifada&diff=next&oldid=198880261 I have absolutely nothing against Muslims and/or Arabs]. Please note, Jaakobou, that even when, on second thoughts, you reined in your remarks, you didn't see them as 'offensive', but, as one can see in this diff, '''possibly''' offensive. That your outburst proves you think Tiamut is heir to a terrorist and racist culture is obvious. You may have had second thoughts, but history is as the records state it, not as we would now rewrite it.[[User:Nishidani|Nishidani]] ([[User talk:Nishidani|talk]]) 10:26, 18 November 2008 (UTC) |
|||
== Cukiger == |
== Cukiger == |
Revision as of 10:28, 18 November 2008
Edit this section for new requests
Asgardian
Arbcomm case: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Asgardian-Tenebrae
Diffs showing violating behaviour:
- Reverting without discussion on the talk page, in violation of the Remedies.
- Unseemly conduct—including, but not limited to, personal attacks and incivility- on my talk page, in violation of the Principles.
After 7 blockable violations of the Arbcom decision, I trust that a diff showing prior warnings is not necessary. 98.210.221.64 (talk) 20:22, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
- If we wanted to apply the strictest letter of the law, then *maybe* he should be blocked however, he's correct that your changes introduced error into the article and needed to be removed. I think this is so marginal that a block might be over the top, however, in future he should note that clearly in the edit summary about what he's doing - I'd take that as fulfilling the "discuss" clause (obviously he'd then need to discuss any further reverting. --Cameron Scott (talk) 21:00, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
- The user with the IP address seem to be a good editor, but is in error. An examination of the comment here: [1] shows that it is incorrect. As indicated, the user removed a legitimate link and restored text in the wrong tense and grammar. Despite this, I was accused me of writing a false summary. In effect, lying. This is not true. Given this, the edit is by literal definition, "ignorant", as given the user's impressive Edit History I'm surprised the comment was written. There, was however, no venom in the comment. Finally, my curiosity is piqued as to why there was such a strong reaction to what was a very minor and beneficial edit. Cordially, Asgardian (talk) 21:08, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
Wow. So this editor, who's repeatedly had a problem with civility, is just given a pass for calling another editor ignorant? I would think this demonstrates that not only does he have problems with the letter of the law, he's still unclear on the spirit of it. 98.210.221.64 (talk) 22:54, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
- Fine. I apologise. You, however, have yet to address the original point for which you are in error. It could also be argued that your own Edit Summary was uncivil. Asgardian (talk) 23:08, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
Jaakobou
Arbcomm case: WP:ARBPIA
In March 2008 Jaakobou (talk · contribs) was blocked for a week for disruptive talk page conduct, and two months later he was blocked for a week for continuing to spar with PalestineRemembered (talk · contribs). He knows what soapboxing is, but he continues to do it, despite the recommendations of the Arb comm to which he was a party to avoid it. Recently, he has returned to soapboxing with prejudicial allusions at Talk:Q-D-S. I am at the end of my rope here. I created the article with the Arb comm recommendations regarding disengaging from contentious articles in mind. It's only very remotely related to I-P issues, and yet Jaakobou followed me (or perhaps User:Nishidani) there to pick a fight over the inclusion of a wikilink to Al-Quds (disambiguation). Please review his talk page comments at Q-D-S. It's not a long page and the problem is pretty self-evident. If you require specific examples of what is so offensive and tendentious about his argumentation there, I'd be more than happy to provide them. Please, help. Tiamuttalk 18:18, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
- This is a rather odd request; Jaakobou's editing has been quite restrained in the past few months. And if you were truly concerned with soapboxing, you would have instead suggested sanctions for User:PalestineRemembered, whose every talk page edit is a soapbox (e.g. [2] [3] [4] [5]), or User:Nishidani, who is infamous for filling Talk: pages with 2000 word screeds (e.g. [6]). Jayjg (talk) 18:34, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
- You are an involved and partisan editor, Jayjg, so it's unsurprising that you would not see a problem with Jaakobou's comments. Tiamuttalk 18:52, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
- I haven't been involved in the Q-D-S article. Jayjg (talk) 19:13, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
- But you have been involved with me, and we have had many unpleasant interactions in both the distant and recent past. Tiamuttalk 19:31, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
You and I haven't much significant interaction in a long time. When the usual I-P suspects show up to support you and insult me, will you also say to them "you are an involved and partisan editor"?Jayjg (talk) 19:35, 16 November 2008 (UTC)- Jayjg, this discussion should be focussing on Jaakobou. If you want to start a new section for a different editor, then go ahead. However, in this section, please stay on topic. PhilKnight (talk) 19:42, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
- But you have been involved with me, and we have had many unpleasant interactions in both the distant and recent past. Tiamuttalk 19:31, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
- I haven't been involved in the Q-D-S article. Jayjg (talk) 19:13, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
- Concur with Jayjg (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 18:35, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
- You are an involved and partisan editor, Jayjg, so it's unsurprising that you would not see a problem with Jaakobou's comments. Tiamuttalk 18:52, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
- Why should I report Palestine Remembered or Nishidani? The problem is Jaakobou's commentary at the Talk:Q-D-S page. Nishidani made one comment there in response to Jaakobou's soapboxing and PR doesn't appear there at all. Am I suppose to follow the two of them around? Tiamuttalk 18:52, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
- At Jaakobou's request I have been monitoring his edits occasionally and keeping an eye. I also agree with Jayjg. PeterSymonds (talk) 18:53, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
- Why should I report Palestine Remembered or Nishidani? The problem is Jaakobou's commentary at the Talk:Q-D-S page. Nishidani made one comment there in response to Jaakobou's soapboxing and PR doesn't appear there at all. Am I suppose to follow the two of them around? Tiamuttalk 18:52, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
- There has been a longstanding problem of Jaakobou's interactions with Tiamut, however I agree his soapboxing comments on the article talk page are not in themselves sufficient reason to apply a restriction. I'll give him a final warning on his talk page - he has been warned about this before. PhilKnight (talk) 19:13, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
- It's far too early for a "final warning", considering that several uninvolved admins have spoken up as opposing views on this subject. Jayjg (talk) 19:21, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
- Also agree with this comment by Jayjg (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 19:27, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
- Earlier this year, I banned Jaakobou for a week for disruptive talk page conduct, so I disagree - this an ongoing problem. PhilKnight (talk) 19:30, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
- Note:
- I'm not sure why an action from March 2008 (9 months ago) is still held against me, when I've obviously changed my editing habits.[7][8] To put it succinctly, I'm not aware that there's an ongoing issue or that a warning for nothing less than a one month ban[9] should be awarded my attempts to improve the article. (Samples: [10][11][12])
- Cordially, JaakobouChalk Talk 22:10, 16 November 2008 (UTC) add links 22:58, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
- Note:
- Earlier this year, I banned Jaakobou for a week for disruptive talk page conduct, so I disagree - this an ongoing problem. PhilKnight (talk) 19:30, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
- Also agree with this comment by Jayjg (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 19:27, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
- It's far too early for a "final warning", considering that several uninvolved admins have spoken up as opposing views on this subject. Jayjg (talk) 19:21, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
- There has been a longstanding problem of Jaakobou's interactions with Tiamut, however I agree his soapboxing comments on the article talk page are not in themselves sufficient reason to apply a restriction. I'll give him a final warning on his talk page - he has been warned about this before. PhilKnight (talk) 19:13, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
Another opinion from an 'involved' admin (I guess)... I agree with Jayjg, especially about PR and Nishidani, who are well-known soapboxers. I presume that this AE complaint was made in good faith, but also ask Tiamut to seriously compare the actions of the 2 editors (you mentioned them!) with Jaakobou's. Especially PalestineRemembered, a self-proclaimed single-purpose account, where the 'purpose' seems to be adding pro-Palestinian information to articles. By comparison, Jaakobou (whose editing habits I strongly opposed in the distant past, including the time he was blocked by PhilKnight) seems to have changed his ways, contributing to articles related to Israeli culture and other unrelated stuff, getting a few DYKs in the process. He also significantly improved his conduct in the past few months, with little to no edit-warring and tendentious editing.
PhilKnight, I don't think you're being quite fair here. For example, a long time ago there was a discussion where Jaakobou complained against Eleland, and the discussion actually turned into an analysis of Jaakobou's actions, not Eleland's. You were present in the discussion and didn't interfere with this change in topic. I therefore ask you to look at all involved parties here again, not just Jaakobou, and decide who is really soapboxing, block-shopping, etc. Jayjg provided some relevant diffs, and I can probably provide more if you need some specific ones. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 20:19, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
- For the record, the WP:ARBPIA decision defined an "involved admin" as anyone who edits articles in the I-P "area of conflict". Jayjg (talk · contribs) does regularly edit there (most recently at Israeli settlement, and we interacted at Second Intifada just a few days ago). Ynhockey (talk · contribs) also regularly edits there. Both are therefore disqualified from invoking discretionary sanctions related to the WP:ARBPIA ruling. This is a good thing. Because for editors like myself who find themselves often on the opposing side of a debate with these guys, it would be difficult to accept that they could determine our fates without prejudice. Tiamuttalk 20:28, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
- Tiamut, I'm not block-shopping and didn't come here to try and get you or anyone else blocked. If you believe otherwise then you have absolutely no understanding of what I'm all about and why I came to Wikipedia. I came to this page merely to offer my opinion as someone who is only moderately involved and thus knows extremely well the problems in I-P articles, and hope that as such, and as a Wikipedian who has been around for a very long time, my position will be seriously considered by actual uninvolved admins. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 20:38, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
- For the record, the WP:ARBPIA decision defined an "involved admin" as anyone who edits articles in the I-P "area of conflict". Jayjg (talk · contribs) does regularly edit there (most recently at Israeli settlement, and we interacted at Second Intifada just a few days ago). Ynhockey (talk · contribs) also regularly edits there. Both are therefore disqualified from invoking discretionary sanctions related to the WP:ARBPIA ruling. This is a good thing. Because for editors like myself who find themselves often on the opposing side of a debate with these guys, it would be difficult to accept that they could determine our fates without prejudice. Tiamuttalk 20:28, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
After a more serious inspection, it is fairly clear to me that this is a content dispute, and not a case of one user breaking the rules. From Talk:Q-D-S#Disambig linkage you can see that there is a disagreement about a certain 'see also' link, and the one user there who came close to soapboxing was Nishidani. Jaakobou might not be perfect, but it was actually Tiamut who edit-warred on that page, so there's no room here to make accusations against just one editor. All sides should be warned to stop immediately (Tiamut, Jaakobou and Nishidani), end of story. If someone doesn't stop, that's another problem. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 21:12, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, I reverted twice to re-include the link. I have avoided edit-warring for ages, and though I definitely lapsed today, I won't be continuing, so no worries there. However, this does not change the fact that Jaakobou stalks me to articles I create or am hard at work expanding to make arguments heavily peppered with WP:SOAP. If anyone needs more evidence of the wider context of a pattern of stalking and provocation, I can work over the next few hours to collect the diffs. I think PhilKnight's course of action was the right one and will help towards diffusing the situation. Jaakobou got a warning and hopefully he will stop engaging me the way that he has been over the last year.Tiamuttalk 21:59, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
- The behavior of PhilKnight (talk · contribs) is - at the very least - perplexing. He criticizes Jayg for going off topic while Jay was only responding to Tiamut's off hand
snide[unfriendly] comment directed at him. PK then proceeds to dish out his "final warning" after the only two uninvolved admins who chimed in agreed that Jaakobou's behavior did not warrant any sort of warning. I propose that PK should no longer be considered a neutral and uninvolved admin in regard to I-P editors. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 21:49, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
- I meant to write "You are an involved and partisan admin", and not editor. I was only referencing the WP:ARBPIA decision that admins who edit in the I-P area of conflict are disqualified from invoking discretionary sanctions. It was oblique sure, but snide? Please WP:AGF. Tiamuttalk 22:05, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
- Okay, I modified my comment.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 22:17, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
- Also, I am not sure that anyone said the behavior "did not warrant any sort of warning." I've only briefly evaluated the underlying issue, but that claim doesn't seem to be accurate with regard to PhilKnight. I'd also note that Tiamut responded before Jayjg included any evidence for the claims that PalestineRemembered's "every talk page post is a soap box," or that Nishidani is "infamous for filling Talk: pages with 2000 word screeds," as did PhilKnight. If Jayjg corrected this, that hardly renders PhilKnight's comments less appropriate. Mackan79 (talk) 22:24, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
- Although the word "warning" was not mentioned, it was clear from the discussion that the uninvolved administrators held that Jaakobou's edits were valid and no warning was warranted. Regarding the initial lack of diffs, that's irrelevant to the on-topic/off-topic discrepancy. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 00:22, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
- I just noted this. If I may be permitted to write a word of two without being hit with the charge of soapboxing, which all of a sudden, from the usual group, is thrown my way. Tiamut asked me on my page, given what she thought was a certain knowledge on my part of linguistics and languages, if I could review her work (see November archive). Notwithstanding a reluctance to edit wikipedia in its present hyperpolitized atmsophere, I went over, corrected some spelling, and added two citations from academic sources, one to clarify a wording that might have led to ambiguities regarding an Ugaritic expression, the other to clarify that the etymology of kudos in Indo-European linguistics is not thought of as related to Semitic as a loanword, even though that has been proposed, as Tiamut's original text made out. All of a sudden I found, having earmarked the page, that Jaakobou turned up and started reading everything as a political battle. 'Uh, God starve the flamen crows, even in Indo-European and Semitic philology, after Cyrus . . these folks are seing, well not red, but anti-Israeli, pro-terrorist POVs everywhere' was my private exasperated reaction. I now see, as Tiamut rightly complained, that Jayjg, Ynhockey and several others are now talking about my soapboxing. What in the fuck is wrong with this place? I'm a trained philologist. I did my bit to fix a few errors, and now we have politics? I'm fucked if it's worth it, Tiamut. These people are indeed malicious, and will stop at nothing to insinuate politics in order to take scalps. Throw a sanction at me, whatever. Crap, and under it, pure paranoia and gamesmanship.Nishidani (talk) 23:03, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
I've had concerns with Jaakobou in the past - me and him have discussed them at length. About 9 months ago I thought he was on his way towards a community sanction/ban, but since he's been with Durova he's been doing just fine. I've taken a look at Talk:Q-D-S and I don't really see a problem with his comments. I wouldn't class them as soapboxing at all - he's putting facts and points forward to back his side of the dipute up. It's certainly within his normal article scope and AGF would suggest that he didn't simply follow Tiamut to the article. I'd suggest closing this down and seeking outside opinions on the article at a content RfC. If that fails, try mediation. This is a content issue, not behavioural. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 23:13, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
- Is wikistalking not behavioural? You are wrong on his 'normal article scope'. This is strictly an article on the linguistic reflexes of the word for 'holy' in Semitic languages. If he is concerned, he would do well to ask any number of qualified specialists in Semitic languages to look over it and improve it (it could certain benefit from any native Hebrew speaker with a good background in linguistics). He hasn't. He is arguing on a disambiguation link, and came there because he saw Tiamut and I were editing it. I don't care to ban anyone. I just wish them to ratchet down their suspicions, keep off pages unless they can improve real content about which they are informed, and stop editing pages just because someone one clashes with edits them.Nishidani (talk) 23:39, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
- Well, let's get on with a content RfC and we can hopefully get some outside opinions on the matter. I disagree with the wikistalking accusation if I'm being honest. The best thing that everyone involved with this can do is to concentrate on getting these neutral opinions and the content at hand, rather than the editors behind them. Cultural disputes always get fighting between various people - let's forget about that for a second and think of a way forward with the actual article. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 23:42, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
- Is wikistalking not behavioural? You are wrong on his 'normal article scope'. This is strictly an article on the linguistic reflexes of the word for 'holy' in Semitic languages. If he is concerned, he would do well to ask any number of qualified specialists in Semitic languages to look over it and improve it (it could certain benefit from any native Hebrew speaker with a good background in linguistics). He hasn't. He is arguing on a disambiguation link, and came there because he saw Tiamut and I were editing it. I don't care to ban anyone. I just wish them to ratchet down their suspicions, keep off pages unless they can improve real content about which they are informed, and stop editing pages just because someone one clashes with edits them.Nishidani (talk) 23:39, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
- Bureaucracy. Look, if jaakobou or any other Israeli editor here is worried about the article, the simple thing to do is to get a native Hebrew speaking wikipedian with a background in semitic linguistics to look over it. That is helpful. Stalking, and making silly comments about 'Jewish attributes' being more relevant than 'militant' Arab stuff is provocative, as the extensive challenge over disambiguation links is vapid and boring. There is huge room for some good specialist Hebrew imput here, without trying to play politics or, make a milhemet qodesh (QDS) of what looked like a straightforward piece of work to contribute to Wikipedia by Tiamut, who, by the way, was gratuitously insulted by Jaakobou in the past, something which requires him to be careful in interactions with her, and certainly not to jump in on an article she is drafting before she's even got here wind. Nishidani (talk) 23:50, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
This report , and the actions taken as a result, are nothing short of bizarre. The report stems from an allegation of 'stalking', based on the fact that Jaakobu edited one (1) article, out of the more than twenty-five (25) main space articles that Tiamut has edited, in the last 24 hours alone[13]. Never mind the flimsy nature of the "stalking" accusations based on a single article which the two editors have edited together - what has escaped attention is the fact that the article in question - Q-D-S - was promoted by the complainer, as a self-nomination on the highly visible DYK page. A DYK nomination is an open invitation to editors, one and all, to apply close scrutiny to the proposal, and indeed, there are very stringent metrics used to judge the nomination. Jaakobu is a very active participant on DYK pages - with no fewer than 6 successful DYK nominations to his name, so it is of no surprise at all that following Tiamut's self-nom of an article in an area he is a frequent contributor to, he makes edits to this newly created and widley promoted article, edits which are clearly good faith, well argued changes to the article.
Now the bizarre part begins: PhilKnight apparently does not notice any of this, and without looking into the validity of the "stalking" charge, or the actual edits involved, issues Jaakobu a "final warning" - for what, exactly? And when his actions is questioned by another administrator, he issues that admin a warning as well!
Meanwhile, as more administrators weigh in, and side with Jaakobu or with the admin who questioned PhilKnight's actions [14][15], it transpires that Taimut herself has admitted to edit-warring on the article in question - a b lockable offense under the best of circumstances, and doubly so for an article subject to WP:ARBPIA. Yet, is there any 'final warning' issued to her by PhilKnight? or anyone else? I find PhilKnight's actions here to be highly questionable, and suggest he should not be further involved in WP:ARBPIA actions. NoCal100 (talk) 00:42, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
- Part of your confusion is that all though Jayjg does have admin status, he is considered involved, so he is treated the same as any other editor. PhilKnight (talk) 00:45, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
- Multiple uninvolved admins (Cirt, Peter Symonds, Ryan Postlethwaite) sided with Jayjg, making the above response a bit of a Red Herring. Now, to the substantive point: Did you bother to review the evidence presented for the "stalking" allegation prior to issuing your bizarre "final warning", or were you relying on an 8 month old prior interaction you had with Jaakobu? NoCal100 (talk)` —Preceding undated comment was added at 00:50, 17 November 2008 (UTC).
- I don't consider your approach is helping matters. I agree with Ryan concerning the best approach to resolving this dispute, and suggest this discussion is closed. PhilKnight (talk) 01:00, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
- I'm sure that you don't find criticisms of your actions helpful, and would like to consider the discussion closed, but I don't think that closing it now would be fair to the people impacted by your actions. You have issued a bizarre "final warning" to Jaakobu, who has done nothing wrong as far as I can tell, warned an administrator who disagreed with your actions, and let the complainer here, who has filed a bogus bad faith accusation of stalking and admitted to edit warring on the article, off without so much as a word of caution. We will resolve the content dispute via an RFC, but the behavioral issues here are far from closed. Unless you plan on retracting the warning to Jaakobu, I would like an answer to my question: Did you bother to review the evidence presented for the "stalking" allegation prior to issuing your bizarre "final warning", or were you relying on an 8 month old prior interaction you had with Jaakobu? NoCal100 (talk) 01:28, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
- I'm suggesting this discussion is closed. Obviously, if you want to a RfC then go ahead. PhilKnight (talk) 01:32, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
- Just for the record, I took a mutli-month break from editing and only picked it up again in earnest very recently. So Jaakobou has not had much opportunity to interact with me over the last eight months. Therefore, any apparent improvement in his attitude toward me (no stalking or provocations) had to do with my being absent, not a sea change in his behaviour in this particular regard. In any case, if people are not as familiar with the context as PhilKnight is and want to see diffs to get a better sense of the context, I can work on that on a sub-page. But I too don't mind taking Ryan's lead to consider the discussion closed. Tiamuttalk 01:17, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
- You've filed a bogus, bad-faith report alleging 'stalking' , when nothing of the kind occurred. You admitted to edit warring on that page, and have in fact edit warred today on at least one other page. And you are now compounding matters by, rather than apologizing to Jaakobu for you bad faith, alleging that the improvement in his attitude, attested to by numerous uninvolved editors, are just due to your absence. Sorry, this matter is not closed until your actions in it, and Phil Knight's, are hashed out and addressed. NoCal100 (talk) 01:32, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
- That isn't the purpose of this page, which is explained in the header section. Also, I suggest reading dispute resolution. PhilKnight (talk) 01:41, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
- You are wrong. The purpose of this page, as stated in the header section is "This is a message board for requesting and discussing enforcement of Arbitration Committee" decisions". You have enforced an ArbCom decision, by issuing a warning to an editor, and we are discussing this enforcement, which appears to have been a very poor call on your part. Please answer my question: what did you give Jaakobu a warning for? Do you seriously think there is stalking here? NoCal100 (talk) 15:58, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
- That isn't the purpose of this page, which is explained in the header section. Also, I suggest reading dispute resolution. PhilKnight (talk) 01:41, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
- You've filed a bogus, bad-faith report alleging 'stalking' , when nothing of the kind occurred. You admitted to edit warring on that page, and have in fact edit warred today on at least one other page. And you are now compounding matters by, rather than apologizing to Jaakobu for you bad faith, alleging that the improvement in his attitude, attested to by numerous uninvolved editors, are just due to your absence. Sorry, this matter is not closed until your actions in it, and Phil Knight's, are hashed out and addressed. NoCal100 (talk) 01:32, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
- I'm sure that you don't find criticisms of your actions helpful, and would like to consider the discussion closed, but I don't think that closing it now would be fair to the people impacted by your actions. You have issued a bizarre "final warning" to Jaakobu, who has done nothing wrong as far as I can tell, warned an administrator who disagreed with your actions, and let the complainer here, who has filed a bogus bad faith accusation of stalking and admitted to edit warring on the article, off without so much as a word of caution. We will resolve the content dispute via an RFC, but the behavioral issues here are far from closed. Unless you plan on retracting the warning to Jaakobu, I would like an answer to my question: Did you bother to review the evidence presented for the "stalking" allegation prior to issuing your bizarre "final warning", or were you relying on an 8 month old prior interaction you had with Jaakobu? NoCal100 (talk) 01:28, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
- PhilK's status as an "uninvolved administrator" becomes more and more questionable as this thread continues. Instead of apologizing for insulting Jaakobu by plastering his talk page with - what is becoming more and more clear - an unwarranted "final warning" or at least discussing his actions he continues avoid the issue with his procedural claims. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 01:56, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
- NoCal and BrewCrewer, my view is that you should cease this baseless hectoring of an admin who has acted thoroughly within reason. First BrewCrewer arrives to say that PhilKnight should not have issued warnings because Tiamut had made a snide comment and because other admins argued against a warning; never mind that the first point has now been retracted, and the second is simply false. Now NoCal arrives and says that this all comes down to an accusation of stalking, presents their case for why that didn't happen, and somehow concludes that PhilKnight ignored the case he just made. This approach is not just unhelpful, but amounts to hectoring, and has no place here. Mackan79 (talk) 02:12, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
- PhilK's status as an "uninvolved administrator" becomes more and more questionable as this thread continues. Instead of apologizing for insulting Jaakobu by plastering his talk page with - what is becoming more and more clear - an unwarranted "final warning" or at least discussing his actions he continues avoid the issue with his procedural claims. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 01:56, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
- Well if PKnight can can act within reason (despite going against the consensus of uninvolved admins) and hector Jaakobu surely I can act within reason and hector him. Not only that, I have no problem with the fact that you are acting within reason and hectoring me for hectoring Pknight for hectoring Jaakobu. Turning to the main point of your comment, you mistakenly misrepresented my comments. I never said PKight should never had issued a warning to Jaakobu because Tiamut made a snide comment (the "snide" was later modified to "unfriendly"). I said that PKnight's comment to JayG might be evidence that he should no longer be considered "uninvolved" because JayG's off-topic comment was in response to Tiamut's off-hand comment. Your claim that is it "false" that other admins have argued against warnings is also off. Although none have said "no warnings" they were never asked if warnings should be given. They were just asked if there was a problem with Jaakobu's behavior and they both said that his edits to the article's talk page were valid. To argue that they never said "no warnings" is clearly misconstruing the context of their statements. No diffs are needed. Everything is right above. Best, --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 02:58, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
- As I read the restrictions, any uninvolved admin is entitled to implement them. You've suggested there was consensus against a warning, but 1.) consensus isn't a prerequisite, and 2.) there was no such consensus or even any comments to that effect. One or two editors had said they agreed with Jayjg, who stated that Jaakobou has been restrained recently, and (as I read him) that other editors are worse or just as bad (this would of course be fully consistent, then, with a warning). PhilKnight then commented and said that a.) there have been problems with this before, b.) he agreed however that restrictions for this alone were not justified, and c.) that he would give Jaakobou a final warning, following previous warnings for the same thing.[16] The effect, as far as I am aware, is not actually anything, since Jaakobou seems already to have been warned; however, it highlights that the comments pushed boundaries, potentially not for the first time. As I said above, the approach seems to me to have been more than reasonable and consistent with the other assessments that were given. Mackan79 (talk) 07:50, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
- what was the "final warning" issued for? NoCal100 (talk) 14:26, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
- PalestineRemembered seems to have taken a new-found interest in articles concerning Polish Jewry. Some of his SOAPBOXING semi-rants are cited at the top of this section; he's also decided to make some contributions, such as an extended, irrlevant rant about Jerzy Kosinski] in the middle of an article about Polish rescue efforts of Jews during the Holocaust, and a seriously bad-faithed deletion of well sourced material, among others. I won't bother to speculate about why this editor suddenly has an interest in minimizing instances of Polish antisemitism. Boodlesthecat Meow? 15:31, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
- what was the "final warning" issued for? NoCal100 (talk) 14:26, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
- As I read the restrictions, any uninvolved admin is entitled to implement them. You've suggested there was consensus against a warning, but 1.) consensus isn't a prerequisite, and 2.) there was no such consensus or even any comments to that effect. One or two editors had said they agreed with Jayjg, who stated that Jaakobou has been restrained recently, and (as I read him) that other editors are worse or just as bad (this would of course be fully consistent, then, with a warning). PhilKnight then commented and said that a.) there have been problems with this before, b.) he agreed however that restrictions for this alone were not justified, and c.) that he would give Jaakobou a final warning, following previous warnings for the same thing.[16] The effect, as far as I am aware, is not actually anything, since Jaakobou seems already to have been warned; however, it highlights that the comments pushed boundaries, potentially not for the first time. As I said above, the approach seems to me to have been more than reasonable and consistent with the other assessments that were given. Mackan79 (talk) 07:50, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
- Well if PKnight can can act within reason (despite going against the consensus of uninvolved admins) and hector Jaakobu surely I can act within reason and hector him. Not only that, I have no problem with the fact that you are acting within reason and hectoring me for hectoring Pknight for hectoring Jaakobu. Turning to the main point of your comment, you mistakenly misrepresented my comments. I never said PKight should never had issued a warning to Jaakobu because Tiamut made a snide comment (the "snide" was later modified to "unfriendly"). I said that PKnight's comment to JayG might be evidence that he should no longer be considered "uninvolved" because JayG's off-topic comment was in response to Tiamut's off-hand comment. Your claim that is it "false" that other admins have argued against warnings is also off. Although none have said "no warnings" they were never asked if warnings should be given. They were just asked if there was a problem with Jaakobu's behavior and they both said that his edits to the article's talk page were valid. To argue that they never said "no warnings" is clearly misconstruing the context of their statements. No diffs are needed. Everything is right above. Best, --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 02:58, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
The bottom line here is that Jaakobou was almost kicked off the project about a year ago for harassment of Tiamut. Tiamut has been absent for eight months, and it appears that no sooner has she returned than Jaakobou has resumed where he left off. Perhaps Tiamut has overreacted a little to Jaakobou's intervention at the page in question, but given its peripheral relationship to the I-P conflict, J's unexpected appearance at the page and his immediate politicization of the contents, with disparaging comments about "hate movements who consider their ideology holy", it doesn't in the least suprise me that Tiamut interprets this as another episode of harassment.
Given the poor relationship that these two have had, and Jaakobou's record in this regard, it seems to me that J. would be well advised to stay away as much as possible from Tiamut. Following Tiamut to obscure pages to start political bunfights is really the last thing he should be contemplating. Perhaps a "final warning" might be a little harsh for this fairly minor episode, but I do think it might be in J.'s own best interests to try and avoid any appearance of stalking or harassment of Tiamut, because the more often this kind of situation is repeated, the less generously it is likely to be interpreted by the community. Gatoclass (talk) 16:32, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
- Originally I commented here on the accusations of soapboxing, but it seems that the stalking complaint is getting attention, and in light of this last comment I will say the following: Jaakobou is a frequent DYK poster/viewer, and would obviously have seen the submission by Tiamut. There is almost zero possibility of stalking here, but as to the opinion that 'Jaakobou should stay away as much as possible from Tiamut', you could also say 'Tiamut should stay away as much as possible from Jaakobou'. It works both ways and I don't see why the discussion is so biased and double-standarded against Jaakobou when everything negative said about him so far can be applied to Tiamut as well (and a slew of other involved editors). If policy has been broken, action should be taken, following warnings to both parties. If it has not been broken, there should be no action, and no warnings. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 20:47, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
- Firstly Yn, I must reject the equivalence you are trying to draw here between the behaviour of Jaakobou and that of Tiamut. Jaakobou has come under community scrutiny on numerous occasions, not only in regards to his interactions with Tiamut but also for tendentious editing (for which he has been topic banned for a week on two occasions in the last nine months) and he is also currently under mentorship. Tiamut AFAIK has never been subject to any such sanctions and is, I think, generally regarded as a responsible and productive editor.
- Secondly, when I suggested that J. should try to steer clear of Tiamut, it was not my intention to suggest that he should completely avoid pages in which she is involved. That, I think, would be both impractical and unfair. I am simply trying to suggest that he should avoid unnecessary interaction. In this case, for example, we have Jaakobou turning up at a page on a very obscure subject which was authored by Tiamut, and repeatedly removing a link he apparently finds personally objectionable in some way. My question is, was this really a necessary interaction? Was the issue so vitally important it was worth risking, once again, a confrontation with Tiamut, with the attendant possibility that it might be perceived as another episode of harassment?
- There are editors on Wikipedia with whom I too do not get along, but you won't find me following them to obscure pages to initiate content tug-o-wars over minutiae, for the very reason that they might start to accuse me of harassment, and perhaps rightfully so. In general, I try to limit my interaction with such editors to substantive issues where I feel an important principle is at stake. I am simply suggesting that Jaakobou adopt a similar approach in Tiamut's case, and vice versa. Gatoclass (talk) 06:08, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
For the record, Tiamut has only been absent for two months, and our interactions have been quite scarce for quite some time. I've no idea where the suggestion that I stalk her is coming from and certainly there's not many articles we collaborated on. -- JaakobouChalk Talk 21:26, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
- The fact is, your personal interactions with Tiamut have been grossly offensive. And that's on top of the other outrageous comments you've made about various nationalities (it's not just Arabs you've slighted or abused). You almost succeeded in driving her off with your conduct earlier in the year, and (if I'm reading the signs rightly), it looks as if you came back for the kill. PRtalk 22:20, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
- Gatoclass' comments above seem very fair. Ynhockey & Gtstricky, tbh yours were not - it is uncontroversial that Jaakobou followed Tiamut to a page that Tiamut had created, despite the history between the two of them (yes it is history, but it is surely remembered). Either way, it most certainly is not an issue that "works both ways". --Nickhh (talk) 22:35, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
Hi, a few words from Jaakobou's mentor. First, a reminder to all that Wikipedia:Wikistalking has become a redirect to Wikipedia:Harassment#Wikihounding. Let's avoid use of the old term that conflates online irritation with a real world felony. As mentor I won't comment on the decisions made here other than to encourage editors who see a problem with Jaakobou's conduct to contact me with diffs; will endeavor to work things out. The suggestion for article content RFC isn't strictly an AE matter and seems like a good idea. Best wishes, DurovaCharge! 22:50, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for the tip, never knew about the redirect. I would note that most seem to be following the chat, mainly along partisan lines, rather than looking at the Q_D_S page. I haven't remarked on it, because I expected in these cases that evidence would be analysed, rather than political battle lines be drawn. For example, Jaakobou thinks this a helpful contribution to the page, making an edit which accentuates what is already implicit about the Jewish holy city, while introducing a remark about Mohammed touring heaven with the angel Gabriel. Perhaps I was raised in another era: in polite company once, if one boosted one's own beliefs while describing those of another group in comical, undisguisedly satirical terms (a revered figure's ascent in tradition phrased as 'touring heaven' is Montypythonesque to put it gently), it would be taken as a put down (apart from being irrelevant to the article). I suspect Jaakobou can't see the problem, not out of malice, but because he can't see where other people are coming from, and the way language works.Nishidani (talk) 23:00, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
- (ec) Might be better to assume good faith and suppose his English isn't quite at native fluency, and suggest a better alternative. He didn't show me that post before it went live, but from interacting with him off wiki and reviewing other statements pre-post I'll affirm that his use of idiomatic English isn't picture perfect. On a less contentious topic that wouldn't ruffle any feathers, but he's usually proactive about checking when something might come across the wrong way. DurovaCharge! 23:11, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
- To clarify, I was working from Isra and Mi'raj (stable link) and the relevant text I referred to was "the Mi'raj, is taken to the heavens, where he tours the circles of heaven, and speaks with the earlier prophets, and with Allah." JaakobouChalk Talk 23:49, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
- (ec) Might be better to assume good faith and suppose his English isn't quite at native fluency, and suggest a better alternative. He didn't show me that post before it went live, but from interacting with him off wiki and reviewing other statements pre-post I'll affirm that his use of idiomatic English isn't picture perfect. On a less contentious topic that wouldn't ruffle any feathers, but he's usually proactive about checking when something might come across the wrong way. DurovaCharge! 23:11, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for the tip, never knew about the redirect. I would note that most seem to be following the chat, mainly along partisan lines, rather than looking at the Q_D_S page. I haven't remarked on it, because I expected in these cases that evidence would be analysed, rather than political battle lines be drawn. For example, Jaakobou thinks this a helpful contribution to the page, making an edit which accentuates what is already implicit about the Jewish holy city, while introducing a remark about Mohammed touring heaven with the angel Gabriel. Perhaps I was raised in another era: in polite company once, if one boosted one's own beliefs while describing those of another group in comical, undisguisedly satirical terms (a revered figure's ascent in tradition phrased as 'touring heaven' is Montypythonesque to put it gently), it would be taken as a put down (apart from being irrelevant to the article). I suspect Jaakobou can't see the problem, not out of malice, but because he can't see where other people are coming from, and the way language works.Nishidani (talk) 23:00, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
- (In response to comment from talk page)
- I have absolutely nothing against Muslims and/or Arabs. I still believe that my noting that, militant groups who tend to call their endeavors "holy" are a not relevant enough for a "see also" link on the Q-D-S article, was not soapboxing but a fairly reasonable and certainly not an anti-Muslim argument. Let me know if you feel otherwise and I'll think of ways to rephrase this argument in the future.
- Coridally, JaakobouChalk Talk 23:07, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
- If you still think that, then I think we have a problem. Because as I explained to you here, Al-Quds (disambiguation) is a not a link to page of "militant groups who tend to call their endeavours 'holy'", but rather a link to a page which defines the meaning of the term al-Quds "holy", a word derived from the Q-D-S root, also meaning "holy". What follows that definition is a list of Wikipedia articles that have the words "Quds" in their title. Of the eight entries listed there, two are militant groups.
- I don't see why you continue to misrepresent the contents of that page, nor why you continue to use that misrepresentation as an opportunity to soapbox about the use of "holy" by militant groups. It's entirely irrelevant to article improvement and tt's tendentious argumentation which is either provocative by design, or a result of incompetence. In either case, it's a pattern, and it's getting awfully tiresome. Tiamuttalk 00:32, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
- My main argument/comparison regarding groups which use "Islam", "Allah", "Quds", etc. in their name should probably be addressed and it would be a nice change if comments made would stop taking a personally oriented tone. JaakobouChalk Talk 09:50, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
- I have absolutely nothing against Muslims and/or Arabs. Please note, Jaakobou, that even when, on second thoughts, you reined in your remarks, you didn't see them as 'offensive', but, as one can see in this diff, possibly offensive. That your outburst proves you think Tiamut is heir to a terrorist and racist culture is obvious. You may have had second thoughts, but history is as the records state it, not as we would now rewrite it.Nishidani (talk) 10:26, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
Cukiger
Arbcom case: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Macedonia
Cukiger (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Per ARBMAC Cukiger is currently on revert parole - 1 revert per 48 hours (see [17]). He has breeched it twice already and was blocked for that - [18]. He did it today as well on Coat of arms of the Republic of Macedonia - two reverts ([19][20]). He is on 1r/48 hours and just made 2/hour. Here's the diff of the official warning--Laveol T 19:36, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
- Can easily confirm the second link as a revert, first link looks like the version reverted to. Revert parole however requires that Cukiger "precede all reverts by talk page explanation + 3 hours waiting time to allow for discussion)", so I recommend a block, but I defer to others on length.--Tznkai (talk) 19:43, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
96 hours. Duly logged. Moreschi (talk) 23:15, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
Setanta747
Arbcom case: The Troubles.
- Setanta747 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Setanta747 is on probation from the above case, and is limited to one revert per article per week, which was imposed here. He has reverted twice on List of flags by country to his version which includes an unofficial and POV flag - first revert and second revert. Domer48'fenian' 18:18, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
Declinedwith a caveat. List of flags is not within the "area of dispute", but this is a content conflict that needs to be sorted out, and my view on it is this: we record the controversy not our opinion on the controversy.--Tznkai (talk) 18:38, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
Tznkai if I could just draw your attention to the fact that edit warring over that flag is within the area of dispute, it was specifically stated in the case. "To address the extensive edit-warring that has taken place on articles relating to The Troubles, as well as the Ulster banner and British baronets, any user who hereafter engages in edit-warring or disruptive editing on these or related articles." Thanks --Domer48'fenian' 18:50, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
- Noted and in consideration, but I'd like to give Setanta747 a chance to respond.--Tznkai (talk) 19:18, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
- Accepted. Tznkai, it was clearly stated here that the dispute specifically included articles related to NI flags ("...The Troubles, as well as the Ulster banner..."). This double revert clearly violates that, and this is a second breaking of the ArbCom ruling. Therefore, I have blocked Setanta747 for a week. Black Kite 19:18, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
- IMHO, this all could've been avoided, if the dependant countries were deleted from the article-in-question. GoodDay (talk) 19:19, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
- I wouldn't disagree. However, all Troubles editors should know by now that edit-warring over the Ulster Banner is a guaranteed way to get yourself a short holiday from editing. Black Kite 19:22, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
- IMHO, this all could've been avoided, if the dependant countries were deleted from the article-in-question. GoodDay (talk) 19:19, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
Good to see Domer quick off the mark as usual. Always helps to improve relations, espicially considering his impecible behaviour.Traditional unionist (talk) 20:37, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
- Hate to muddy the waters, but at least one of those reverts (and possibly both) was to remove an edit of a persistent, and bothersome, banned user. Whether Setanta747 was aware of that is unclear (and the fact that there was no mention in the edit summary would suggest he probably wasn't). However, there is an ongoing issue of this banned editor using multiple IPs to revert edits from, shall we say, a more unionist perspective. Inevitably, the legal editors revert (usually multiple times) and the consequence is that those editors face sanctions where the banned editor just jumps to another IP. Now, the editors probably shouldn't be making those controversial edits in the first place at least without discussing them first, but we should be careful of blocking them as a consequence of a banned editor gaming the system. Rockpocket 20:45, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
- Whilst I take your point, given that one of Setanta's insertions of the Ulster Banner had a completely misleading edit summary as well, which was clearly meant to 'hide' the edit, something which he'd done a few days previously as well ("disambig template" - I think not), I don't think there's much doubt that he's being tendentious. Black Kite 20:59, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
- While I would disagree with Setanta's view on the flag issue I really think this goes yet again to show that reverting IPs should not count towards 3RR or even 1RR. Sarah777 (talk) 22:13, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
- I completely agree. GoodDay (talk) 22:16, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
- Actually Sarah777, they in fact don't count according to the arbitration case at hand. "2) Participants placed on probation are limited to one revert per article per week with respect to the set of articles included in the probation. Any participant may be briefly banned for personal attacks or incivility. Reversion of edits by anonymous IPs do not count as a revert." (emphasis mine)--Tznkai (talk) 23:13, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
- I don't dispute that the original edit was tendentious, but that wasn't the reason that the request was bought here. This isn't any old IP, its a banned editor doing his best to aggravate editors under restriction. There is typically two different issues here: there is editor #1 making edits that may be problematic, controversial or tendentious. Then there is a banned editor #2 reverting and an edit war ensures. Editor #1 gets restricted, incorrectly, for edit-warring. That should not be happening, though it does not change the fact that editor #1's edit was problematic, controversial or tendentious in the first place. We need to deal with the first issue (if it is a problem), without getting suckered into the second. Rockpocket 23:29, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
- (e/c)The first one would from any other editor deserve a quick trouting, but Setanta747 should know better, so some sort of more forceful measure (a block) may be sensible. I agree with Rockpocket's analysis of the situation, and recommend either vacating or reducing the block, Sarah's suggestion seems reasonable.--Tznkai (talk) 23:33, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
- I too think that might be appropriate, but since Setanta probably isn't even aware he is blocked yet, its better to wait for the blocking admin to comment. If Black Kite hasn't commented again after 24hrs we can probably unblock Setanta with a warning about misleading edit summaries. Rockpocket 23:40, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
- Setanta is probably out having a few scoops like any sensible Irishman on a Saturday night! Sarah777 (talk) 23:45, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
- As I was, which is why I haven't commented in the last few hours! OK, that's a fair enough consensus, I think, so I'm going to unblock Setanta, but really - any more sneaky editing like that and a block would be reasonable regardless of who it was reverting, as I'll say on his talkpage. Black Kite 00:07, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
- Setanta is probably out having a few scoops like any sensible Irishman on a Saturday night! Sarah777 (talk) 23:45, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
- I too think that might be appropriate, but since Setanta probably isn't even aware he is blocked yet, its better to wait for the blocking admin to comment. If Black Kite hasn't commented again after 24hrs we can probably unblock Setanta with a warning about misleading edit summaries. Rockpocket 23:40, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
- I don't dispute that the original edit was tendentious, but that wasn't the reason that the request was bought here. This isn't any old IP, its a banned editor doing his best to aggravate editors under restriction. There is typically two different issues here: there is editor #1 making edits that may be problematic, controversial or tendentious. Then there is a banned editor #2 reverting and an edit war ensures. Editor #1 gets restricted, incorrectly, for edit-warring. That should not be happening, though it does not change the fact that editor #1's edit was problematic, controversial or tendentious in the first place. We need to deal with the first issue (if it is a problem), without getting suckered into the second. Rockpocket 23:29, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
- While I would disagree with Setanta's view on the flag issue I really think this goes yet again to show that reverting IPs should not count towards 3RR or even 1RR. Sarah777 (talk) 22:13, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
- Whilst I take your point, given that one of Setanta's insertions of the Ulster Banner had a completely misleading edit summary as well, which was clearly meant to 'hide' the edit, something which he'd done a few days previously as well ("disambig template" - I think not), I don't think there's much doubt that he's being tendentious. Black Kite 20:59, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
[de-indent] Although this case was submitted and resolved (hasty decision reversed), I would like to comment on it. There was no "sneaky editing" involved. There was no "hiding" involved. I resent the lack of good faith and the accusation of it. My edit summary was as clear as most of my other edit summaries. In this case, I was disambiguating the flag of the United Kingdom from the flag of Northern Ireland. No 'hiding' or attempt at being "sneaky" was made and anyone who thinks that should perhaps take a look at the mote in their own eye. I am fully aware that any and all edits made by me is being watched by Republican-minded editors.
I have made an edit to the article in question and I feel this represents both "POVs" adequately until this dispute can be resolved in some way. --Setanta 14:33, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
- And I have reverted it. "Disambiguating" is fine if the Ulster Banner was the current flag of Northern Ireland. It isn't. Setanta is skirting the limits here. Further eyes welcome. Black Kite 14:37, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
Further problems
- See [22]. I have unresolved this, as it is clearly still open. Black Kite 18:17, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
- Ugh. This is lame. Someone please invite Setanta to explain himself.--Tznkai (talk) 18:46, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
- I did try. His talkpage should show you how much use that was. Black Kite 19:20, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
- Ugh. This is lame. Someone please invite Setanta to explain himself.--Tznkai (talk) 18:46, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
Request for a special restriction at Naked short selling
- Executive summary: To prevent sophisticated sockpuppetry, I propose that we bar new accounts from editing the mainspace of articles under probation.
Me and User:Mackan79 have become concerned that it is impossible to enforce the article probation from the Mantanmoreland ArbCom. Although editors are instructed to edit only from their main or sole account, technical evidence cannot enforce this instruction against highly sophisticated sockpuppeteers. Mantanmoreland, having learned from at least four prior sock puppets, is an extremely sophisticated sockpuppeteer. His most recent User:Bassettcat account initially passed check user with flying colors. This account was only caught after making one—and only one—unproxied edit.
There are two new editors now at Naked short selling who share Mantanmoreland's POV. Mackan79 suggests that they're violating instruction C of the article probation (no advocacy) by their inflammatory rhetoric. I don't know whether either of them is Mantanmoreland, but I find it hard to believe that they are completely new accounts—as they claim. For example, Janeyryan claims that this is her first and only account "since the dawn of time," but I note that her first edit was a sophisticated wiki-markup contribution to Wikipedia Review, in passages purporting to deal with the Overstock.com article.[23] Still, I don't know whether either of these accounts is certainly Mantanmoreland, and I don't see why we should spend more time worrying about it. Instead, I suggest we put controls on these articles to limit the incentives for Mantanmoreland (or Wordbomb, or anyone else) to sockpuppet in these subjects.
So, I present Mackan79's proposal.
Basically, new users (I would argue users who began editing after March 2008) should refrain from editing the mainspace of the reverting with other users in the topics under probation.
Mackan79 hoped that the editors would voluntarily agree to such restrictions, but Janeyryan rejects them, and casts aspersions on the motives of me and Mackan79.[24] Janeyryan suggests that this proposal seeks to exclude POVs from the article. This is false. I don't know about Macken79, but I don't have a strong POV on the article. (Here I reverted to JohnnyB's version[ because I thought it was better than Mackan79's. Here I removed some pro-lawsuit SYN that doesn't belong in the article. Here I added material proposed by JohnnyB and Janeyryan.[25][26])
Our objective is solely to prevent sockpuppeteering by removing the incentives to create new sock accounts. In this way, Mantanmoreland or any other interested party can suggest changes from the talk page, but these suggestions will be reviewed by editors who were never involved in this POV war. I think this arrangement will improve the quality of the encyclopedia; it should not be applied to just these two users, but to any new accounts in this area.
This externally-driven battle must stop. In the words of Newyorkbrad, "please, not here; no more here; no more, no more, no more. We need to stop the bleeding; we need our encyclopedia back." Cool Hand Luke 02:53, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
- Holy smokes. While I appreciate and understand the reasoning behind this, this has a huge number of practical and philosophical problems. Aside from the "wiki way" issues, enforcing this would require a completely new technical tool or blocking any relatively young account if they attempt to edit a probation topic. Semi-Permanent full protection would probably be less drastic than this. More than a few accounts got their mop at less than six months, so March 2008 as a cut off is really a bit much
- That all having been said, I trust that there are reasonable editors making these suggestions, which suggests a serious problem going on in the background that needs more attention.--Tznkai (talk) 03:09, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
- I also considered that new accounts could submit some form of identification, but that seems equally unwiki, and I don't believe we have the infrastructure.
- Semi-protection has been applied almost continuously since the ArbCom. Full protection is another option that I'd considered in the past, but I think it's overkill for simply preventing new sockpuppets. This is less restrictive. Cool Hand Luke 03:13, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
- Having additional, un-public information here, I am convinced that at least one of the accounts here directly relates to Mantanmoreland in some way (meat or sock). While I deplore having to take steps such as the one requested above (or something similar), this is a long term disruption from a user who is exceedingly good at preventing technical identification of his accounts. If we simply restricted the two users in question from the page (perhaps allowing them to use the talk page), I am convinced that yet another one would take his place, and attempt to use up the reservoir of Assuming Good Faith that we must do, lest we devolve into a witch hunt, the type the user in question used to do so many times to opponents in turn. This is a financial feud. This is a personal feud. This is something that has the ability to greatly harm the encyclopedia, and I urge readers to take it gravely seriously. SirFozzie (talk) 03:22, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
- I think it would be wrong to ban new accounts, because it would give too much of a POV advantage to editors on the page whose accounts were set up before March 2008. My suggestion is that anyone wanting to edit articles that fall under that ArbCom ruling should be asked to discuss on Skype, by voice and on webcam, their interest in editing those articles, with an experienced admin who has no prior involvement in the case. Certain questions can be asked to ensure that the admin really is speaking to the person behind the account and not a friend who's standing in for them. It would have to be the same admin conducting all the "interviews," for obvious reasons. The editors would also have to be willing to give their real IP address, and to commit to using only that one, or one within the same range if it's not static; and by editing the articles would be agreeing to be regularly and randomly checkusered.
- If this is applied to all accounts making edits to those pages, that would be much fairer than banning new accounts.
- Alternatively, as I suggested about 18 months ago and I see Luke has considered too, the articles should be protected so that only admins can edit if good suggestions for edits are left on talk, but where the idea would be to add new material only if there were a pressing need to do so. As I see it, what's needed is for those pages to be left in peace for a long time, in the hope that people with strong views get bored. SlimVirgin talk|edits 04:00, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
- Full protecting the articles as SlimVirgin has suggested above is a possible way to move forward on this. I do think that the proposers of this AE section have been working competently and fairly (fair disclosure: I have been a dilettante on this, when I see a bit in the news about naked short selling (such as international bans), but rather then possibly play whack a mole, or twenty questions, or put every user through an inquisition just to edit the article , the we just refuse to let it happen. I really don't like to lock this down "Long term" (ie, for the forseeable future), but rather then play the game every time a new user shows up (which is what I don't like about the current situation), or unfairly restrict a broad swath of users, it may be best to say "We're not interested in your battles." and full protect it until such point that people who want to use it as a battleground drift away. SirFozzie (talk) 04:06, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
- If we do full protection, I suggest that me, SirFozzie, and any other editor who has ever touched the article should be prevented from editing it. We'd use {{editprotected}} if required, just to get truly fresh eyes. I think announcing a long policy from the outset is the best way to bore would-be POV pushing socks. (By the way, 18 months ago this would have saved tons of drama!) Cool Hand Luke 04:13, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
Hm, tough one here. The Janeyryan account history certainly raises a few eyebrows. It's conceivable but unlikely that a genuinely new editor could share a pointed interest in Wikipedia Review, Naked Short Selling, Overstock.com, Patrick Byrne, and Gary Weiss without being our old friend. A number of arbitration cases have had a multiple editors with a single voice provision, including COFS, Starwood, and Midnight Syndicate. Although that provision wasn't specifically included in the relevant case to this thread, it may be arguable that it applies generally. So on the good faith supposition that the new accounts might somehow be intimately familiar with Wikipedia Review yet unaware of the history behind these particular article topics, suggest leaving this instance go with a caution. Although not an administrator, I am fully prepared to open a formal arbitration clarification request and seek an amendment to the Mantanmoreland case fashioned after the findings and remedies of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Agapetos angel. Specifically:
- The recruitment of new editors to Wikipedia for the purpose of influencing a survey, perform reverts, or otherwise attempting to give the appearance of consensus is strongly discouraged. A new user who engages in the same behavior as another user in the same context, and who appears to be editing Wikipedia solely for that purpose, shall be subject to the remedies applied to the user whose behavior they are joining.
- Agapetos angel and User:Dennis Fuller, User:Phloxophilos, User:220.245.180.133, User:220.245.180.134, User:220.245.180.130, User:58.162.252.236, User:58.162.255.242 and User:58.162.251.204 are banned from editing of Jonathan Sarfati and associated articles. This list is not exclusive and the remedy applies to any user, registered or not, who engages in the same type of tendentious editing as has been done by Agapetos angel.
Posted in trust that any actual good faith contributor in this unusual situation will get the message and contribute non-disruptively, refraining from confrontational actions such as characterizing a polite request to depersonalize a dispute as trolling. It is natural that concerns exist after 2.5 years of contending with a persistent and very sneaky sockpuppeteer. Nonetheless, we err on the side of good faith at this website, and in ambiguous situations seek to act politely in ways that resolve conflict (or ambiguity). DurovaCharge! 04:29, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
- That might be helpful, but I truly don't want this to be a finding about these editors. This is a sophisticated sock master. Like SirFozzie said, if we banned these accounts from the subject, Mantanmoreland could still start more, using each up until he depletes its share good faith. I would be interested, in whether Arbitrators would favor some kind of protection solution. Cool Hand Luke 04:41, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
- That's why I would open it as a clarification request, so that a remedy could deal with any return of MM & Co. The Agapetos angel case dealt with a dispute that had similar dimensions (although far less high profile) and a similar disruptive pattern, and the provision settled things down nicely. Given the history of CU-confirmed socking that was known even before Bassetcat was confirmed, it's a bit surprising that this year's Committee didn't include a 'who's who' provision already. DurovaCharge! 04:47, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
To respond to the main proposal, heck no. Several editors already oppose arbcom's over-extension of rulings that involve editors not named in a specific case, and this would be going far further than that. Extremely out of the scope of power that arbcom has. -- Ned Scott 04:37, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
- Ned's comment appears to be directed at Luke's comment, yet fwiw the Agapetos angel decision was enacted in April 2006 and has been enforced without controversy for 2.5 years. DurovaCharge! 04:43, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
I've just seen this, and would mostly like to clarify, with respect to Luke, that this is more his proposal than mine.[27] I don't have a strong opinion, but my comment was only intended to reflect the way I was approaching the situation, mainly in response to one of the new accounts' complaints that I was "revert warring" against the two of them. I consequently raised this, as I said on the page, mainly needing to clarify what was going on: two new accounts with the same views, jumping in with apparent familiarity, insulting other editors, making questionable edits, and as I considered notable, both tending to make grudgy comments about "Mr. Byrne."[28][29][30] The specific problem I saw was that without stricter enforcement of the probation, treating new accounts like this normally would lead to another quick devolvement of the article.
To be honest, I mostly felt that if other editors knew what was going on, then the problem might solve itself (at the moment it didn't seem anyone was paying attention). From the above, I think this may still be the best option, assuming that admins are willing to look on and deal with any editor who, under the circumstances, edits tendentiously. I do think something here needed to happen, though, so I can see the basis for Luke requesting clarification. Mackan79 (talk) 06:41, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
- Also, to clarify, my suggestion wasn't that new editors be restricted to the talk page, but that they "be asked to rely heavily on the talk page, and not join together in reverting other editors." Of course to a great extent all editors should do this; my reason for saying that new accounts should in particular on these articles is that it is one of few ways to disarm the specific problem of sockpuppetry without much more restrictive measures. I do think that's a reasonable and possibly needed principle, whether or not it needs some finding here. Mackan79 (talk) 06:57, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
Not to the exclusion of the excellent suggestions above, I have a recommendation to add. Part of the way that the WP:BATTLE was waged in the past was in the use of aggressive language and bad-faith accusations. Janeyryan's language perpetuates this: "please don't take out the articles you don't like", "you just want to remove opinions with which you disagree", "what I see are two editors...attempting to ban editors from an article who disagree with them", etc. Polite inquiry into another editor's reasoning and mindset is fine, but accusatory mind-reading inflames the discussion and disrupts the collaborative process. I'd like to recommend a low tolerance for mind-reading on the talk pages relevant to this case. Specifically: where such statements are made, they may be redacted by any editor without the permission of the one who made them, normal talk page etiquette notwithstanding. The editor who made the statement should be warned. And if an editor continues to use aggressive accusatory language or impute ill motives to another, they should be blocked or topic-banned quickly with appeal to Arbcom as the only recourse. alanyst /talk/ 14:09, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
- Public suspicions of sockpuppetry are also accusations of bad faith. Cool Hand Luke 14:25, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
- Indeed, and I think that such accusations (as distinguished from polite inquiry) should also be covered under the restriction I proposed. If sockpuppetry is a concern, a discreet checkuser request or note at this AE page would be far preferable to derailing a content discussion on an article talk page. alanyst /talk/ 14:38, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
- I regret some of my language such as that and apologize for it, but I was upset at edits that I felt were arbitrary and which changed things from correct to incorrect. This edit [31], reverted language by another editor that, however imperfect, made the point that the most serious NSS regulations were temporary, not permanent. That was pointed out on the talk page when originally made, but was changed back anyway. It has since then been changed back to reflect the temporary nature of those regulations.
- I also was upset by this edit [32]. While I agree that the language was inappropriate,this edit changed authorship of the cited article from correct to incorrect. Subsequent to this change, the citation was removed in its entirely by another editor, so I imagine that my concern over this was not unwarranted. I agreed that the language used by the other editor 'JohnnyB' was not good, so I later substituted more neutral language[33], discussed it on the talk page, and Mackan agreed with it. While all this was going on I had an exchange with Cool Hand Luke where I became annoyed, which I regret, but I was troubled that my editing was not properly appreciated. Also I felt that I was being goaded by Luke, but I now see that this was not his intent.
- I just wanted to clarify the editing in question, as the subject is complicated but at issue here were some simple factual matters. I feel that my edits were generally proper, even though I did not always display proper tempermant and I certainly apologize if anyone was offended if I was not diplomatic. I agree with Mackan that editors should preferably post in the discussion pages first before making chages. I think this should be followed by all, and I thought we were reaching that. Yes, to respond to another point, I most certainly did have knowledge of the controversies surrounding these pages in a general way, as it has received widespread publicity outside of Wikipedia. There seem to be other editors drawn to this article by the same publicity and it is not reasonable to expect that all editors who become interested in a page because of publicity will have the same viewpoint.--Janeyryan (talk) 14:21, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
- I'll briefly address the substantive issues. 1.) Most sources I have seen report that the September emergency rules "banned" naked short selling. The current source cited in the lead says so in the subtitle.[34] Yes, some of the rules have descriptions such as "provisional," while others don't. However, JaneyRyan and JohnyB256's decision to focus only on those that do, and therefore to remove the general assessments of many sources that have said the rules "banned" the practice, did not "correct" the article as Janeyryan says. Janey says above that he or she refers to the "most serious" parts of the regulation, but this is solely their interpretation. 2.) It is possible that JohnnyB256 was correct to expand a citation while adding the language that Janey concedes was not appropriate. However, I'm not exactly sure how this is relevant. Also, it was not someone else but myself who then removed the citation altogether in response to comments on the talk page.
- In any case, I don't believe Luke or I are of the opinion that Janey did not make any valid suggestions. My concern was that after Johnny made a series of problematic and contested edits that I undid and brought to the talk page,[35] Janey replaced the majority of them without discussion. Other changes were equally problematic, including that both removed mention of the failure of Lehman Brothers, and that both replaced contested language in the lead. The problem is that if new accounts can do this, then discussion becomes ineffective. This is why I suggest that new editors on these articles, or at least those that raise flags with the probation, should be asked to show some additional consideration for some of these problems. Mackan79 (talk) 20:32, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
- It is certainly true that the sources said the rules 'banned' the practice, but more detailed sourcing indicated without a shadow of a doubt that some of these strictures were permanent and some temporary. The edits by JohnnyB drew a distinction between the temporary and permanent ones, without making value judgments as to which were more significant than others. Your edit reverted JohnnyB in toto. I reverted that reversion, and explained my reasoning on the talk page.
- I think the issue concerning the authorship of the cited study is more significant than you portray it here. A study was cited in which two of the three authors were engaged in litigation related to naked shorting. Even if that conflict was not to be noted in the article (and it eventually was, as Luke agreed with me that it was important), there was no good reason to change the citation so that the two principal authors of the study were not mentioned as authors.
- I disagree with you about Lehman Brothers. I think that it is POV to imply, on the basis of an offhand comment in a wire service story, that Lehman Brothers' demise was affected by naked shorting. Mr. Fuld said that, which is in the article and should be in the article. However, in Line 35, I think that a more neutral method of dealing with that issue needs to be found, without the controversial implication that the death of Lehman Brothers was caused by NSS.
- While all this serious dispute was going on, you at this point placed on the article talk page your 'proposal' that in effect would ban me from the article. Luke then reiterated that proposal, again on the article talk page. Even though he said he did so to get the input of other editors, so as to not come here prematurely, I felt, and I still feel, that it was not appropriate for you to place that proposal in the article talk page. I felt that doing so derailed the discussion and turned up the temperature of the discussion considerably. Then Luke placed a post on my talk page that I felt was unecessarily confrontational. I felt beleaguered by these actions.
- Whatever steps you take to enforce good behavior in this article I hope will be applied evenhandedly to new and older editors alike. I don't think it's fair to say that only new editors are making or have made inappropriate reverts, when as I just described there were edits by more established editors that were inappropriate. I think that all editors should take pains to discuss changes before making them. I also think there also should be a firm rule against discussing editor behavior, or editing strictures affecting current editors of an article, in article talk pages, whether it be this article or any article.--Janeyryan (talk) 21:02, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
- To explain my "confrontational" postings: You accused me of being a POV warrior five times before I posted to your talk page, and I only did that after you said we should stop discussing it on the talk page altogether; I was doing what you requested. Contra what you state above, we were not "reaching that" or any other agreement. The talk page now stands in a position where you reject Mackan79's proposal as an attempt to "bludgeon" POVs we allegedly disagree with.
- The point is not whether this or that user is making good or bad reverts. The point is that by allowing new users to revert war, we continue to provide incentives for dedicated sock masters to battle over this material. Like Cla68 said (but you reverted calling it "trolling" [36]), this dispute would benefit if you stop personalizing it. Cool Hand Luke 21:14, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
- We're discussing what happened in the article and talk page, and I don't see how one can do that without naming the editors who did what and when. Certainl my edits have been discussed at some length, as you just did. Why is your describing my edits not 'personalizing' but when I discuss your edits it is 'personalizing.' ?
- A proposal was placed on the article talk page that specifically singled out new editors, naming JohnnyB and myself, for a topic ban. That's about as personal as one can get, and it had no place on the article talk page in my opinion. It turned up the heat level and it was unnecessary. I also think that it wasn't necessayr for you to post on my article talk page as you did, essentially to make the case that even though you were proposing a topic ban of new editors, that it didn't have anything to do with me, when it clearly did. This is not 'mind reading.' Mackan's proposal singled out me and Johnny B.
- I felt that the article talk pages should be confined to discussion of the article, not the editors, and I did not agree with your view that discussing a topic ban for new editors belonged in the article talk space, when it would specifically affect (and antagonize) new editors actively editing the article.
- As for reverting, I believe that no one has the right to revert war, new editors or old, and that all editors should be encouraged to use the talk pages.--Janeyryan (talk) 21:39, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
- No one ever suggested a topic ban. Along with SirFozzie, I don't even think a topic ban would be slightly helpful. It's a facially neutral proposal concerning editing to the article, not the editors. Cool Hand Luke 21:45, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
- The proposal was that editors from after March could not edit, but would be confined to the talk page. That;s a topic ban, in effect if not name. Look at the 'executive summary' at the top: Executive summary: To prevent sophisticated sockpuppetry, I propose that we bar new accounts from editing the mainspace of articles under probation. You then go on to talk about 'two new accounts,' one of which is me. How can you possibly claim that this has nothing to do with me? That is why I objected to your post in my talk page, as it was making a claim that was obviously not true, which obviously would annoy the recipient of such a post.--Janeyryan (talk) 21:48, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
- Just to clarify: the intial proposal to in topic ban new editors was made by Luke in this edit[37], in the article talk page, specifically mentioning JohnnyB and myself. I don't think it's correct to say that this is not plainly directed at myself and this other editor,--Janeyryan (talk) 22:16, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
- No one ever suggested a topic ban. Along with SirFozzie, I don't even think a topic ban would be slightly helpful. It's a facially neutral proposal concerning editing to the article, not the editors. Cool Hand Luke 21:45, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
Stepping back
Janeyryan, let's step back from the particulars of how Luke presented his proposal. You arrived at Wikipedia with substantial familiarity about Wikipedia Review and a distinct interest in several articles that were favorites of an editor who was sitebanned a few months ago--one whose POV appears to be indistinguishable from yours. During his two years as a Wikipedian he and his interests were discussed extensively on Wikipedia Review. If this is coincidence it certainly is a remarkable one, particularly as we extend the good faith assumption that you stumbled into this quandary innocently despite your demonstration of fairly in-depth knowledge of the website that was most critical of him. Combine that with two other circumstances: the sitebanned editor was a serial sockpuppeteer whose last accounts were identified and banned a few months before your first edit. Now one way you could distinguish yourself from him--if indeed you have no connection to him--is by breaking from other patterns he exhibited. He was extremely skilled at sidestepping pertinent concerns about his conduct, and at blowing smoke over minor side issues, and at taking umbrage at direct questions. If you have a simple and direct explanation for this highly unusual profile of interests and POV your account has demonstrated then the community would give you a fair hearing. Historically, every previous account that has exhibited the same profile has turned out to be a sockpuppet of that same banned editor. So you can clear the air right now if you want: please, how did this come about? DurovaCharge! 23:48, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
- I've already explained that I became interested in these articles and subject matter by raading about them off-wiki, in a number of venues where they maintain that Wikipedia is a center of market manipulation and other forms of agita. These articles (and subjects) have received substantial publicity. They were one of the numerous topics in the Deep Capture website, which devoted substantial space to them, and they were also addressed in the Register in several articles. Surely there are other editors who were similarly drawn to Wikipedia, to this article and others, by reading about them elsewhere. It's quite that simple, and I hope that is a direct enough answer. I don't think there is anything sinister about that, or suspicious, though I am aware in general terms of the recent problems and of the socking that has taken place on both sides.--Janeyryan (talk) 00:10, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
- "Surely there are other editors who were similarly drawn to Wikipedia, to this article and others, by reading about them elsewhere." Actually, no, there weren't; certainly not in this particular combination. A few new editors showed up after naked short sales made headlines in mainstream news, but they didn't seem to have interest in the rest of the spectrum. In any case, much as I would like to agree with the idea of locking the page and having neutral administrators make edits agreed to by consensus, I am afraid it will be largely ineffective. There is a relatively small group of editors working on this article now, and a consensus generally would mean more than 3/5 editors wanting something in, with the other 2/5 saying it shouldn't be added. Despite significant efforts by several individuals to try to attract additional (and knowledgeable) editors to these articles, there is very little interest in them outside of a core group. The article probation is, I believe, important to providing a degree of control; however, given the real-world issues surrounding naked short selling, editors who work in the financial industry are probably constrained from editing that article, in particular. The other three articles specifically covered by the Arbcom probation have been much less problematic. Aside from addressing edit warring and forcing people to stick to the talk pages to work out improvements, I am hard pressed to see what full-protecting will do other than keeping the article in static form. Risker (talk) 00:27, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
- Note too this was three days after the Wikipedia Review article was moved into mainspace. Cool Hand Luke 00:20, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
- @Risker: that's remarkable. These articles have been publicized everywhere, not to recruit people to edit them but to publicize their supposed deficiencies. I disagree that people in the financial services industry cannot edit articles on financial topics, if there is no direct conflict.
- @Luke, my first edit was nine days after the Wikipedia Review article was moved to the website. I was not seeking to imply that I read about the Wikipedia Review article elsewhere; I read about WIkipedia Review itself elsewhere, as well as reading that magnificent website myself. Personally I think it is remarkable that Wikipedia has the forebearance to allow an article on a critical site. One correction: you or someone said that I had engaged in 'sophisticated formatting' in my first edit. Not correct. I moved a sophisticatedly formatted citation from one place to another within that page. I hope that my having done so does not detract from the fact that in my first edit I corrected a mistake.--Janeyryan (talk) 00:41, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
- Well, new editors would usually be expected to make a mistake with their first edit. That you did not is clearly suspicious. John Nevard (talk) 00:47, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
Behavioral rather than technical solution?
Perhaps instead of trying to find a technical solution to this problem, a behavioral one will be better. I suggest that any editor who revert wars, personalizes any content disputes, is unwilling to compromise, or personally attacks any of the other editors/admins involved with these articles (the four mentioned in the ArbCom ruling), be immediately and completely banned from participation in these four articles for a month, with subsequent penalties escalating from there. That should be enough to make sure that any interested editor behaves. By the way, I've noticed that since the banning of Mantanmoreland at least three of those articles are now much improved. Cla68 (talk) 03:09, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
- This would almost work. The problem is in the loose definition of "edit war," and if we are still treating new users exactly like those who have been around. If I disagreed with an edit of Luke's and reverted it, for instance, I would be surprised if SirFozzie immediately reverted me, but I might say "ok, I guess I was wrong on that one." If SirFozzie tried a middle ground, I'd almost certainly go along. If new accounts can do the same thing, however, then there's more of a problem. That's what happened here: I disagreed with changes made by JohnnyB256, so I reverted them.[38] Janeyryan then replaced JohnnyB256's edit with some minor adjustments.[39] After explaining on the talk page, I reverted most of these edits again.[40] Whoever is right in this case, I think Johnny will be able to get a hearing and show in talk if I'm disrupting the page. I can't create another account like this one, so if that happens, I'm done. If new accounts are on entirely equal footing, however, then sockpuppets can effectively overtake the page.
- This isn't to disagree with your suggestion, but to say you probably still need something more to prevent that. From most restrictive to least, I see these options as 1.) Protect the page indefinitely, 2.) Restrict new editors to the talk page, 3.) Ask new editors not to revert, or 4.) Restrict editors who appear to be violating the terms or intent of the probation. Mackan79 (talk) 04:41, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
- When editors are put on article probation, aren't they allowed only one revert a day? Why not use that as the standard for what constitutes edit warring in those article? Cla68 (talk) 07:18, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
- As I see it, this could still be gamed by socking; in fact, it may even increase the incentive to sock in the same way as strict voting, by taking out the judgment element.[41] So, it could slow down revert wars in the hope that then more editors would pay attention, but I'm not sure it would solve this problem. Mackan79 (talk) 07:41, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
- When editors are put on article probation, aren't they allowed only one revert a day? Why not use that as the standard for what constitutes edit warring in those article? Cla68 (talk) 07:18, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
- I agree with Mackan79. As long as new and old accounts are treated equaly, there will still be a strong incentive to sock. I see Risker's point that locking the page will keep it in largely static form, but I think that's the core idea of SlimVirgin's suggestion.
- I dunno, it's not an easy problem. At the least we could try 1RR and hope that slowing reversion will provide enough time for more eyes, but I'm not confident it will be enough. Cool Hand Luke 14:31, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
Alarm bells?
You know, when I see edit summaries like the one here, all sort of alarm bells go off on my mind. Turns out that all the stuff removed by User:Janeyryan was a)weasel worded b)wrong c) in direct contradiction with the first source on the section d) already reverted once, told to go to the talk page, where his only discussion was placing in doubt the quality of the source and making a personal attack on the person that reverted him (Shapiro) [42] before killing the sentence again
See my repairs [43].
Notice that JaneyRyan writes the edit summary as if it was an unsourced sentence, but he had previously seen the source for that very same sentence and he had only put in doubt the credentials of the source, not the sourced material itself [44]
(TL;DR paragraph) He has also tried to downplay the incidence and damage of NSS[45][46] and puts in doubt that companies were bankrupted because of NSS[47] (doh) and restoring outdated articles from 2006 and 2007 before NSS started being a visible problem[48] and sort of misquoted sources[49] when the source says "For the market as a whole, however, it appears to be a large and growing problem (see chart). Hundreds of smaller firms claim to have fallen victim to naked short-sellers (though some clearly only say that to excuse underperformance)" so it's perfectly correct to say that there is concern of faltering companies and not just a reaction to a crisis.
Given that these edits show an attempt to whitewash NSS, given that he re-made his edits with only personal attacks as discussion, given Janeyryan's history (which I have only looked at superficially on the last two hours), given that it's not the first time that his edits try to whitewash NSS in some form, and given that the article probation says "to refrain from any form of advocacy concerning any external (...) allegation,". Can I has a topic ban on Janeyryan? (this is the correct noticeboard to ask for a probation-related topic ban, right?)
For all that is worth, JohnnyB256 edit warred over the same sentence and source the day before [50]. Maybe a coincidence, is it enough to has a checkuser too? --Enric Naval (talk) 23:43, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
- I don't understand the train of thought int he first paragraph in the above post, except that it appears to ascribing malevolent motives and actdions to me where none exist. The sentence in the litigationj section that I rewrote I explained in the talk page, under 'litigation section (redux),'[51] and it was agreed to by the other main editor on this article without any objection. I did not know that the language was taken from the Emswhiller article, and no one mentioned it. It is absolutely not true that I had 'previously seen the source of that sentence.' (the Emswhiller article, that is). As far as I could tell it was unsourced, and it was not supported by the law review article previously given as a source, for which the authorship was not properly stated.
- The assertion that thousands of companies have been bankrupted by NSS is highly controversial and should be sourced. The article saying that companies say they have 'fallen victim' to NSS is not proper sourcing for a claim that companies have been actually bankrupted, or put out of business, by NSS. If there are any such companies, let see a few examples. One would suffice.
- The articles from 2006 and 2007 were not 'outdated,' and represent a skeptical school of thought that should be in the article for purposes of balance. Attempting to balance this article is not 'advocacy.'--Janeyryan (talk) 01:00, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
- The wikilawyering... it hurts my eyes >.< . You removed a sentence saying that illegal NSS had happened, which should have been sourcable from multiple sources....
- Articles from 2006 and 2007 are of course outdated. I remind of the The Register from October 2008[52] where it's explained how Byrne's denouncing of NSS was downplayed by manipulating the wikipedia article, which in turn made the media believe that the issue was not important, and the manipulation wasn't uncovered until mid 2006[53] and it wasn't linked to the DTCC until mid 2007. Knowing that, it's silly to take at face value the media statements on 2006 and 2007, as we know that they were manipulated.
- Anyways, you make some good points: the number of bankrupted companies should be sourced. However, if multiple huge companies make public statements that their notable bankruptings were caused by NSS then that's a notable thing to add to the article (especially the ones claiming that it was the only causing factor) and then balanced with analysis of which were the real causes.
- Seriously, your edits are just too sympathetic to NSS, to the point of whitewashing. If you are a legit account and not a sock, then you need to take more care to make neutral edits. --Enric Naval (talk) 15:43, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
- P.D.:Notice that the reason that I "attack" article specifics is because I am comment on your edits, not on you, so I forcefully have to cite specific issues. Once I have looked at them, I can tell if the edits go in a certain way. [I cut the rest of my comment, per WP:BEANS] --Enric Naval (talk) 20:19, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry, but content disputes are for the talk page of the article, not here. Please make this question again at Talk:Naked short selling --Enric Naval (talk) 00:53, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
Missing the point
Janeyryan: You are again arguing about article specifics, which has already been pointed out as not helpful, and is a diversionary tactic we have seen before. I agree with all the other editors here (that is, just about everyone) that you are exhibiting a lot of hallmarks of previously banned accounts that all ended up resolving to the same problematic person. There is a problem here that transcends this particular ID, because if we decide you too are Gary Weiss or whoever it was that was behind MM etc. (which I find behaviorally quite likely) then there will be a next, and a next and a next. A prohibition of a different nature entirely is needed. Without such, we will waste valuable time of otherwise productive editors, administrators, Checkusers, and arbitrators. (I looked at the CU log again to remind me, and a fair bit of time has been wasted looking into you by several CUs, to no avail) Remove the incentive to sock, and the socks will stop. Even if we posit that you are NOT a sock, your behavior is nevertheless problematic. Remove the incentive to get away with problematic behavior and the problematic behavior will stop. So I support the notion of developing and implementing a different sort of prohibition. The sooner the better. ++Lar: t/c 13:46, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
- 'You are again arguing about article specifics, which has already been pointed out as not helpful.' That is really unfair and not accurate. I am responding, on point, to accusations made against my editing, as can be plainly seen from the exchange above. I strongly disagree with your saying that my 'behavior' has been more 'problematic' than that of other editors on that page, where surely I was not the first to revert. Even Luke, a regular editor of the page who brought this case here, has gone to great lengths to say that he is not singling me out and that he has agreed with some of my edits. --Janeyryan (talk) 14:20, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
- This Janeyryan ID is an example of a class of problematic IDs. My beef is with the class which this ID is a member of. My commentary (in a new section that I started to break things out from being a response to any particular posting) is not a direct response to any one posting by this ID, but to the discussion on the page as a whole. I see a lot of diversionary activity, attacks, and the like. Not helpful. There is a real problem here and trying to divert this into a discussion of those pointing out the problem is not helpful. ++Lar: t/c 14:42, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
- This is amazing. Somebody attacks me on article specifics. I respond to that attack. You say, 'Don't argue about article specifics, it is unhelpful, and is a diversionary.' I respond that I had been attacked on article specifics. You respond again that my saying that makes me part of a 'class of problematic IDs.' I am at my wits end here. Am I just supposed to sit down and shut up and not respond to accusations against me?--Janeyryan (talk) 15:06, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
- Feel free to respond to article specific concerns if you like, but realize that in doing so you are not addressing the major concern I have. Which is that you and several other users that frequent NSS and related articles are as likely as not to be socks of a long term problematic user. Given that that user has a track record of becoming increasingly hard to detect with each new sock, it is unfortunately irrelevant whether you technically correlate or not. You pass the WP:DUCK test and rather than trying to cope with increasingly sophisticated socking (or what appears to be such, even if it is not) the users here addressing the problem (none of whom have the remarkably narrow focus you and the other users of concern do) are trying to come up with novel solutions. You're not helping that. I note that there seems to be a pretty wide consensus (absent yourself and a few other users most of whom pass the duct test) that there is a problem and something needs to be done. Hence, you're not addressing the main point. Which is an expected behaviour pattern. ++Lar: t/c 20:03, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
- I have already addressed your main point, which is to say that I am not the sock of a banned user or any other user. Apart from that I answered directly what people say. I am not being 'diversionary' (changing the subject). Enric Naval advocated my topic ban, and I responded to that point. I don't see how I can just let such a remark go unresponded to, even if it does not address your concern. You do seem to have a similar concern, which is that my 'behavior' is 'problematic.' I addressed that. My purpose here is to respond to comments directed at me, or concerning me. I have done that, and accusing me of responding in a way that is somehow sinister or inappropriate, or exhibits a 'behaviour pattern' that is to be 'expected,' is not fair. Why is it objectionable for me to discuss article specifics but not when other users raise the subject, and in a way that mandates a response from me?--Janeyryan (talk) 20:38, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
- A bare assertion that you are not a sock, given your behavior pattern and area of interest, is not sufficient for my satisfaction. Sorry, I'm fresh out of Good FaithTM in this matter. The rest of it matters not. I would like to find a solution that allows even socks to edit constructively in this area, or not at all. What we got now... ain't working. ++Lar: t/c 21:02, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
- Again, what behavior pattern? Every time I try to narrow this down to specifics, so that I can figure out what the problem is and respond, I am accused of being 'diversionary' or exhibiting 'an expected behavior pattern.' Apart from defending myself in this page and its calls for my banning from the article, I have tried to make the article on naked shorting more neutral and in that editing there seems to be agreement to my contributions, albeit grudging, even from editing accounts with which I have crossed swords.
- You made another comment earlier about other accounts involved in this discussion that 'pass the duct test.' Can you please elaborate? Are you claiming that I have brought socks into 'this' discussion on this page?--Janeyryan (talk) 21:26, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
- A bare assertion that you are not a sock, given your behavior pattern and area of interest, is not sufficient for my satisfaction. Sorry, I'm fresh out of Good FaithTM in this matter. The rest of it matters not. I would like to find a solution that allows even socks to edit constructively in this area, or not at all. What we got now... ain't working. ++Lar: t/c 21:02, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
- I have already addressed your main point, which is to say that I am not the sock of a banned user or any other user. Apart from that I answered directly what people say. I am not being 'diversionary' (changing the subject). Enric Naval advocated my topic ban, and I responded to that point. I don't see how I can just let such a remark go unresponded to, even if it does not address your concern. You do seem to have a similar concern, which is that my 'behavior' is 'problematic.' I addressed that. My purpose here is to respond to comments directed at me, or concerning me. I have done that, and accusing me of responding in a way that is somehow sinister or inappropriate, or exhibits a 'behaviour pattern' that is to be 'expected,' is not fair. Why is it objectionable for me to discuss article specifics but not when other users raise the subject, and in a way that mandates a response from me?--Janeyryan (talk) 20:38, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
- Feel free to respond to article specific concerns if you like, but realize that in doing so you are not addressing the major concern I have. Which is that you and several other users that frequent NSS and related articles are as likely as not to be socks of a long term problematic user. Given that that user has a track record of becoming increasingly hard to detect with each new sock, it is unfortunately irrelevant whether you technically correlate or not. You pass the WP:DUCK test and rather than trying to cope with increasingly sophisticated socking (or what appears to be such, even if it is not) the users here addressing the problem (none of whom have the remarkably narrow focus you and the other users of concern do) are trying to come up with novel solutions. You're not helping that. I note that there seems to be a pretty wide consensus (absent yourself and a few other users most of whom pass the duct test) that there is a problem and something needs to be done. Hence, you're not addressing the main point. Which is an expected behaviour pattern. ++Lar: t/c 20:03, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
- This is amazing. Somebody attacks me on article specifics. I respond to that attack. You say, 'Don't argue about article specifics, it is unhelpful, and is a diversionary.' I respond that I had been attacked on article specifics. You respond again that my saying that makes me part of a 'class of problematic IDs.' I am at my wits end here. Am I just supposed to sit down and shut up and not respond to accusations against me?--Janeyryan (talk) 15:06, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
- This Janeyryan ID is an example of a class of problematic IDs. My beef is with the class which this ID is a member of. My commentary (in a new section that I started to break things out from being a response to any particular posting) is not a direct response to any one posting by this ID, but to the discussion on the page as a whole. I see a lot of diversionary activity, attacks, and the like. Not helpful. There is a real problem here and trying to divert this into a discussion of those pointing out the problem is not helpful. ++Lar: t/c 14:42, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
The behavior problems are:
- Attacking the motives of other editors, even when it is just content that is being discussed. Huldra raised this on Janeyryan's talk page here. Cool hand luke has raised it again here. I raised it here, noting that you and JohnnyB256 were both doing this.[54][55]
- Other advocacy on the talk page, most noticabely in making off-topic jabs at Patrick Byrne. I noticed this coming from both Janeyryan ("Mr. Byrne is the dominant voice on this page, so please let's not be silly about this.")[56] and JohnnyB256 ("I think what you have here is an article that while it pleases your contributor Mr. Byrne is misleading to readers and skewed.")[57] ("Mr. Byrne no doubt is pleased that his pet crusade is given one-sided treatment, but you are doing a disservice to your readers.")[58]
- Editing of the article, for instance both Janeyryan and JohnnyB256 removing mention of the failure of Lehman Brothers without explanation,[59][60] as well as other generally partisan edits.[61][62][63][64] I note that the same also applied to JohnnyB256, possibly to a greater extent.[65] ("tangential at best");[66](adding that a statement was "generally derided," a term (and tone) also favored by one of the banned accounts on this page.[67])
As previously, the problem is not just one of these elements, but the three of them together; however, the three of them together is exactly what caused the problems last time. Mackan79 (talk) 22:25, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
- 1. My language was more antagonistic than it should have been and I've apologized for that, but this was in the midst of a heated argument, in which similar rhetoric was being used by others. Huldra was talking about people being blocked it they disagree with the 'Gary Weiss-people' and I replied by pointing to the action that was taken against me when I disagred with the 'Patrick Byrne people.' It was intemperate and I shouldn't have said that.
- 2. At the time I made that remark, Mr. Byrne was using the talk page to engage in lengthy advocacy of his point of view of naked shorting, to the point of dominating the discussion by sheer length. So yes, I indicated that Mr. Byrne was dominating the page at the time.
- 3. In footnote 38, I reverted your revert of the language distinguishing between permanent and temporary regulations, and added back that the authors of a study on NSS were suing the securities industry. I think most of these changes were later placed back in the article and are there now. The sentence in the litigation section was agreed to by Luke, and were there until recently removed. All this was discussed in the talk section.
- I agree that the Lehman issue was not discussed, so far as I can recall, and should have been discussed.
- In footnote 39 I added material from the SEC website that had been in previous versions of the article, and were needed for balance. In footnote 40 I took out language not substantiated by the underlying source. In footnote 41 I added reaction to the emergency order from Barron's and the Economist. Since they're both still in the article, I presume they are not too horrible. In footnote 42 I reinstated two notable skeptical opinions now not given sufficient weight in this article, which had been removed by you in this edit [68] without discussion.--Janeyryan (talk) 23:26, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
- I think the edits speak for themselves, in terms of content, tone, and approach to other editors. We could discuss it in greater detail, but I don't think it would negate my point that 1.) you and JohnnyB256 are unnecessarily attacking the motives of other editors, 2.) you and JohnnyB256 are making advcocacy-style comments on the talk page, and 3.) you and JohnnyB256 are editing from a strong POV, and are making controversial edits. As I said, the combination of these issues is the one we had before, and I believe what the probation was intended to address. Mackan79 (talk) 00:06, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
- My edits do speak for themselves, in the sense that most of them are still reflected in the article. My POV is no more or less strong than that ave seen from from other editors of that article, and I think my talk page comments, even the ones cherry-picked and cited above, have not advocated a blessed thing. Most are in reaction to what others have posted. I agree that this discussion can go on endlessly and I will try not to prolong it more than is necessary.--Janeyryan (talk) 00:19, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
- That only show that your edits have not been reviewed throughly, and that I need to clear a bit of time on my schedule to go throught them :) --Enric Naval (talk) 17:33, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
- My edits do speak for themselves, in the sense that most of them are still reflected in the article. My POV is no more or less strong than that ave seen from from other editors of that article, and I think my talk page comments, even the ones cherry-picked and cited above, have not advocated a blessed thing. Most are in reaction to what others have posted. I agree that this discussion can go on endlessly and I will try not to prolong it more than is necessary.--Janeyryan (talk) 00:19, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
- I think the edits speak for themselves, in terms of content, tone, and approach to other editors. We could discuss it in greater detail, but I don't think it would negate my point that 1.) you and JohnnyB256 are unnecessarily attacking the motives of other editors, 2.) you and JohnnyB256 are making advcocacy-style comments on the talk page, and 3.) you and JohnnyB256 are editing from a strong POV, and are making controversial edits. As I said, the combination of these issues is the one we had before, and I believe what the probation was intended to address. Mackan79 (talk) 00:06, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
Alternate proposals
The proposals below are my attempts to address the existing problems, but without completely upending how we do the burden of proof on Wikipedia. An attempt to follow Jimbo's principle of applying strict scrutiny.
- Advocacy concerning outside disputes, controversies, proceedings and feuds, is unwelcome on Wikipedia
- The appearance of advocacy is unacceptable on naked short selling and related articles, and such edits are unwelcome, as are their editors, and editors are mandated to address such disruption, keeping in mind the judicious application of common sense.
- Combative edit summaries are unwelcome on Wikipedia
- Edits with combative edit summaries on naked short selling and related articles are considered to be disruptive on face, and will be removed.
OR
- Naked short selling is protected indefinitely.
- {{Editprotected}} should be used to request the insertion of non controversial material
- Naked short selling/sandbox is created, and editors should feel free to use that space to work out their differences. Stable changes in the sandbox article may be migrated to the main article with the use of {{editprotected}}.
I'm not overly pleased by either prospect, but I find it more workable than whats already been suggested (which I liberally stole from to create these proposals. Trout away.--Tznkai (talk) 21:12, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
- Although I agree that these accounts have had some behavioral problems (see Mackan79's newest summary above), I think POV article editing is what really provides an incentive to sock. It's all well and good to say that advocacy should not be tolerated, that's theoretically the rule throughout wikipedia. Advocacy is a very subjective thing. Therefore, I think the best option is locking the page, even if that makes the article largely static for a time. Cool Hand Luke 22:56, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
- Of course the problem with locking the page is that other editors with a passing interest in the subject, such as myself, can't easily add new material like I did recently about Japan's temporary ban on NSS. That's why I advocate banning accounts from the article and its talk page as soon as they cause any problems, such as in the examples Mackan points to above. But, locking the page should work in the meantime, I guess. Cla68 (talk) 01:07, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
- I see that you folks are wrestling with, over and over, is the the unique style of Gary Weiss. I see from the comments above that everyone has caught on to the style. Once you know it, it stands out like a sore thumb, doesn't it. 67.166.120.86 (talk) 05:32, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
- Of course the problem with locking the page is that other editors with a passing interest in the subject, such as myself, can't easily add new material like I did recently about Japan's temporary ban on NSS. That's why I advocate banning accounts from the article and its talk page as soon as they cause any problems, such as in the examples Mackan points to above. But, locking the page should work in the meantime, I guess. Cla68 (talk) 01:07, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
Bogdanov Affair analogy
Does anyone remember the Bogdanov Affair, from a few years ago? Massive sockpuppetry by two individuals that revolved around external events - it prompted an arb case and much gnashing of the teeth. I propose a similar approach to enforcement here - any new user accounts or anonymous IPs which focus on naked short selling and related articles shall be presumed to be parties to the external dispute. In summary, any new account or IP that shows up on these articles is automatically subject to the MM remedies - namely, a topic ban. It's pretty hard-line, but it seemed to work well in shutting down the Bogdanov idiocy. Skinwalker (talk) 13:30, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
- Ah, this looks like a way better idea than full-protecting the page. --Enric Naval (talk) 14:39, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
- That's a pretty heavy presumption against WP:AGF, but if the community doesn't object to it, I agree with Enric Naval. Cool Hand Luke 19:20, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
- I'm not a big fan of it, it kinda goes against the "anyone can edit" part. Another problem I think, is the assumption that the sockpuppeteers and edit warriors will get bored, which I doubt. If you're willing to expend as much energy sockpuppeting as we know some have on this article, you're not going to get bored just because things get shut down for a while.--Tznkai (talk) 19:28, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
- This is why I suggested something a little more narrow, to say that new accounts who want to become involved in these article can edit as they will, but basically should not do so in ways that can be exploited by sockpuppets. A one revert per day for new accounts could do this, possibly beginning at notification (any new account that started editing the page could be notified, although they probably wouldn't be until there was some reason). If this seems in any way unfair, it's based on the fact that while new accounts are easy to create and leave behind, long term editors are more accountable to various dispute resolution mechanisms. I'm not exactly sure what would be considered a new account, but possibly there could be a starting point. Mackan79 (talk) 20:20, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
- (ed. conflict w/Mackan)Yes, it does abrogate WP:AGF. However, AGF is not a suicide pact. I've lurked throughout the MM RFC/Arbcom/CommunityBan process. I saw several gigabytes of drama, trolling, handwringing, bad faith, etc generated over editors who were obvious socks by any reasonable application of the WP:DUCK test. I think the community is done assuming good faith on this topic.
- It also denies the "anyone can edit" philosophy. If that is the sole decision point, I don't see how permanent full protection is any better. Do you (the community) want a stable and neutral article with restrictions on who can edit it, or do you want to have an open access article and waste countless hours arguing with, reverting, and otherwise chasing down socks and vested interests?
- To be completely arbitrary, let me suggest restricting editing privileges on naked short selling and associated articles (as well as talk pages) to named accounts with a minimum of 1000 edits to unrelated topics. Put a banner on the talk pages similar to that on Talk:Bogdanov Affair: "If you are new to editing at Wikipedia, do not start with this article, as you may be mistaken for an external participant editing with a sockpuppet account." Refrain from biting new editors to the article, but firmly point them in the direction of every other part of the encyclopedia. Topic ban them if they persist, and block them if they violate the topic ban.
- Tznkai has a point, though - MM et al have not become bored with the article, and there is no reason to believe they will become bored with this topic in the foreseeable future. I suspect that a large amount of the gratification this individual receives from their activities is the reaction of the community, e.g. "dramahz" or "lulz" if you prefer. If we had a strict and enforceable rule against new and/or single-purpose accounts mucking about with these articles it would allow us to deny this person/people their jollies and would help motivate them towards more productive activities. Skinwalker (talk) 21:25, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
- I'm not a big fan of it, it kinda goes against the "anyone can edit" part. Another problem I think, is the assumption that the sockpuppeteers and edit warriors will get bored, which I doubt. If you're willing to expend as much energy sockpuppeting as we know some have on this article, you're not going to get bored just because things get shut down for a while.--Tznkai (talk) 19:28, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
- Skinwalker has convinced me with the WP:DENY rationale. I think he's right about Mantanmoreland intentionally fanning the flames of drama, and so his proposal addresses both the POV and lulz incentive to sockpuppet. I also think his view would have a lot of support here. Lar agreed that the community is out of good faith on this topic. I think Durova was proposing something similar. Maybe they could comment on Skinwalker's proposal? Cool Hand Luke 02:55, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
- Too much collateral damage and more than a little bitey. Besides, all we're creating is another hoop to go through which sockpuppeteers will be plenty good at doing: say making 1000 RC patrol changes with tools and then starting up POV warfare. I understand the concept, but this isn't a game changer.--Tznkai (talk) 02:59, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
I think this proposal is overly harsh. But, if we can't come up with something better (and as likely to be effective) I'm for it. What we got now ain't working. Further, if the cost per sock is 1000 RC vandalism reverts before they can POV push, that might be not too bad a deal! (can I get 10 car washes instead?) ++Lar: t/c 04:48, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
- Mmm... while we are talking about cost per sock... how about 1 Featured article per POV sock... ok ok kidding. I'll review this issue if/when I get time if it is not fixed soon. —— nixeagle 03:32, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
Like someone above mentioned, locking the page(s), and maybe the talk page(s) for a long time might be the best way to go. Tom Harrison Talk 13:47, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
- That's an utterly unacceptable solution, mainly because the articles are still in a really terrible POV-CoI situation. --Relata refero (disp.) 13:58, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
- It stands a better chance of getting fixed if it's locked down for a while first than if things are left to continue as they are. Tom Harrison Talk 14:46, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
}
Request examination of the above edits plus User talk:Harrymph#The Troubles and User talk:Yachtsman1#Incivility.
Are accusations of vandalism by User:Yachtsman1 justified? If so, editing restrictions should be considered on User:Harrymph per Wikipedia:General sanctions. If not, editing restrictions should be considered on User:Yachtsman1. Alternatively, on both or neither. Harrymph (talk) 11:48, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
- I have been placed on notice of this posting by Harrymph on my talk page. The article referenced has been placed under special status, and any editor has been asked to consult on the discussion page. Notwithstanding, Harry has seen fit to make changes without meeting the requirements as stated. After reverting two edits, and leaving comments on Harrymph's talk page asking that he reach consensus before making edits[73], I finally resolved the matter by adding a citation to back up the portion Harry wished to have deleted without consultation.[74] I consider this matter closed, and would merely ask that Harrymph attempt to reach consensus before making any further changes to The Troubles.Yachtsman1 (talk) 18:30, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
I've no quibble with the citation provided or the content of the article. My request is for neutral examination of the editor behaviour. Either I am a vandal or Yachtsman is rude or both or neither.
I have no intention of ever editing the article again, nor have I ever edited it before this. As usual, the bullying tactics of the article's owners have succeeded in scaring me off. Harrymph (talk) 08:15, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
- The article you were editing was one under special sanctions. My initial attempt was to make you aware of that fact, my intent clearly stated that my undo was to avoid conflict if possible, and I extended the courtesy of explaining my actions on your talk page asking that you try to seek consensus on your edit. You changed it yet again, even after it was fully explained, which caused me to undo your change, provide another explanation, and finally conduct research to provide the citation in the article, and to place the entire matter to rest. Thus, the article received a citation, your reason for making the edit was obviated, and everyone can move on. In any case, at no time did I use abusive language, name calling, or any other device that would make my actions "incivil". As stated, I feel this matter is closed, and would merely ask that in the event you ever wish to edit The Troubles in the future, kindly seek consenses before making any siginficant change to the article. Yachtsman1 (talk) 16:04, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
- On the basis of what has been stated above, I would move that this matter be formally closed by any willing administrator. Thank you.Yachtsman1 (talk) 16:21, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
You did indulge in abusive name calling. You called me a vandal. Three times.[75][76][77] Harrymph (talk) 19:00, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you again for your comments. This does not rise to the level of abuse, nor is it "name-calling" as vandalism could be changed without penalty on the article in question. Each change was accompanied by full explanations in each case, none of which was incivil by any standard. In sum, I do not find your complaint has merit, and suggest, again, that this matter be closed by an administrator. In the future, please ask for consensus before making any additional changes to The Troubles in order to avoid conflict.Yachtsman1 (talk) 19:27, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
My changes were "accompanied by full explanations in each case, none of which was incivil by any standard". Unfortunately, yours were not. For which, you still have not apologised or acknowledged your mistake. Harrymph (talk) 09:54, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you for your comments. Let me expound for a moment. Your changes were to an article that is perhaps the single most controversial article on this site, one that has engendered heated debate, conflict, mediation, arbitration and other measures that are clearly stated on the Discussion page as the result of its subject matter. In other words, this is an article with a "troubled" history. Any editor, including you, is required to seek consensus prior to making any substantive changes to The Troubles. Thus, any serious change made without seeking required consensus is vandalism, and violates the unique standards set forth after arbitration for this particular article. If anything, it should be you extending an apology to me, an editor who has gone to great lengths to seek consensus on the article in question prior to making changes to meet both neutrality and quality standards. It should be you who extends an apology for so quickly dismissing my good faith effort to have you reach consensus, which you roundly ignored, instead creating the very conflict I was trying my best to avoid by stubbornly making the change yet again without seeking consensus, even though you were fully aware that such consensus was a requirement. Even then, I reverted your change back, performed research, and added a cite to remedy the problem, obviating your objection to the item in question (in other words, resolved the issue). I shall repeat - Your complaint lacks merit in my opinion, my comments were extremely civil, they were in conformance with the conditions placed on editing the article in question, and I consider this matter closed. Let me also take this opportunity to remind you to please seek consensus before making any additional substantive edits to The Troubles. If, as you state, you have no intention of editing The Troubles any further, then the matter is doubly closed. Thank you.Yachtsman1 (talk) 19:45, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
You keep going on about the article. This isn't about the article. It's about you callng me a vandal without justification. Harrymph (talk) 07:50, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you again for your comment. It's all about the article in question, and the unique character of that article. Under those circumstances, unilaterally changing the article without consensus was vandalism, the comment was civilly provided, justified and correct. Let me repeat - Please seek consensus before making any additional substantive edits to The Troubles. Thank you again. Yachtsman1 (talk) 15:06, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
- I again move that this matter be closed. An objective examination reveals that the complaint lacks merit, incivility is lacking, and this running debate is getting nowhere. Yachtsman1 (talk) 15:06, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
It says quite categorically at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles that "Wikipedia:Reliable sources requires that information be supported by a reliable source." It says nothing about removal of unsourced information being vandalism nor does it say that editing of the article is banned unless you first raise the issue on the talk page. You've now called me a vandal twice more based solely on your own personal rule which you've invented outwith of the arbitration case in order to impose your own opinion on the article.
It also says there that editors indulging in edit warring can be put on probation. If I edit-warred by making two similar edits in the space of twenty-four hours, then so did you: [78] [79]. The difference is that my edits were supported by policy WP:V and were civil, while yours were uncivil and unsupported by policy. Harrymph (talk) 15:54, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you again for your comments. Edit warring requires three changes on the same article in a 24 hour period by the same editor. The special sanctions for this article also require that consensus be reached before making a substantial change in the article. The remainder of your points, a non sequitor of the first order that does not incorporate an assumption of good faith, does not merit a response. Thank you again.Yachtsman1 (talk) 17:55, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
You keep mentioning the "special sanctions" which mean that consensus must be sought prior to editing the page but I can't find them anywhere. I do not see them on the article page, or the talk page, or the arbitration page, or the general sanctions page, nor do they appear when you click the edit button. Please provide a direct link and a quote. Harrymph (talk) 08:04, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
Alright, full stop.
I am reviewing this matter, but a few things need to be clarified:
- The Troubles is a highly controversial article and is under General Sanctions. There are a number of useless details and a lot of specific rules but it comes down to this: we (Wikipedia at large) have a lower tolerance of edit warring, incivility and other nonsense and administrators are mandated to address it.
- Apply common sense when editing any article, apply extra common sense when editing controversial articles.
- Vandalism has a very specific definition, and refers to a very specific kind of problem, and it never refers to actual content disputes.
- Edit warring is any set of actions, inactions, and mindsets that encourages or tolerates confrontational tactics when in a content dispute. This especially includes reverting edits and a lack of constructive discussion.
- Civility is an important behavioral issue that we mandate editors follow in order to produce a functioning productive environment for encyclopedia writing.
- The Vandalism, Edit warring and Civility policies are important, but they are not to be used as ammunition in personal or content disputes. There is probably nothing more counterproductive than using policies as a bludgeon against other editors.
- Harrymph and Yachtsman1 are highly encouraged to edit articles that have no mention of the words "Ireland" or "Irish" or "Troubles" while I sort this out.
Now there is an election or something that is going on today, so please be patient while I review the issue. --Tznkai (talk) 14:16, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry for dropping the ball on this, but it seems that action was not needed after all.--Tznkai (talk) 16:46, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
- A tempest in a teapot, Tzankail, and time heals all wounds. May I move to have this matter closed and properly archived at this point? Thank you.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 22:26, 16 November 2008 (UTC)