m Signing comment by Radical-Dreamer - "→Radical-Dreamer: " |
Radical-Dreamer (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 47: | Line 47: | ||
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2008_February_16&diff=prev&oldid=191865838] "The author is a Palestinian who inserts his own P.O.V. into articles and creates these kind of redirections." |
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2008_February_16&diff=prev&oldid=191865838] "The author is a Palestinian who inserts his own P.O.V. into articles and creates these kind of redirections." |
||
**Agreed with the substance of Eleland's report. Radical-Dreamer is therefore placed on various editing restrictions, including a revert limitation and civility supervision. See [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Radical-Dreamer&diff=prev&oldid=192521526 here] for details. [[User:Moreschi|Moreschi]] <sup> [[User:Moreschi/If|If you've written a quality article...]]</sup> 09:58, 19 February 2008 (UTC) |
**Agreed with the substance of Eleland's report. Radical-Dreamer is therefore placed on various editing restrictions, including a revert limitation and civility supervision. See [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Radical-Dreamer&diff=prev&oldid=192521526 here] for details. [[User:Moreschi|Moreschi]] <sup> [[User:Moreschi/If|If you've written a quality article...]]</sup> 09:58, 19 February 2008 (UTC) |
||
***You're doing this out of support for Eleland POVs and abusing your privileges. But fine, Eleland will get blocked eventually. It's only a matter of time. |
***You're doing this out of support for Eleland POVs and abusing your privileges. But fine, Eleland will get blocked eventually. It's only a matter of time. [[User:Radical-Dreamer|Radical-Dreamer]] ([[User talk:Radical-Dreamer|talk]]) 16:54, 19 February 2008 (UTC) |
||
== Martinphi == |
== Martinphi == |
Revision as of 16:54, 19 February 2008
Edit this section for new requests
- Add new requests to the top of the page. Old requests will be automatically archived off the bottom three days after the last time stamp.
eleland
- "This user's contributions consist almost entirely of contentious reversions on Israel-Palestine articles, often accompanied by hostile personal commentary" - Not true. "eleland" is pissed of because I submitted his "Israeli Occupation Forces" redirect to RfD.
- He has been bothering me and stalking me for quite a while.
- He's trying to get me blocked due to the fact that my opinions differs from his.
To "eleland" - stop stalking me and stop bothering me. I don't want any kind of connection with people like you. You seriously need to grow up and I won't even bother going over the infinite number of unjustified POVs you've edited into articles. I'm not interested in any kind of discussion with you. Radical-Dreamer (talk) 22:13, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Radical-Dreamer
This user's contributions consist almost entirely of contentious reversions on Israel-Palestine articles, often accompanied by hostile personal commentary. Since February he has made at least 15 reversions on Israel-Palestine pages and exactly 0 talk page postings.
- Edit-warring and POV
- [1] [2] [3] [4] Violating 3RR against 4 different editors to change "The 2006 war with Israel" to "The 2006 war which Hezbollah started against Israel"
- [5] Reverting an unsourced addendum including, "[Amnesty International] have pushed for Israel to be held responsible for the entire [Israel-Palestine] conflict to the United Nations"
- [6] [7] Repeatedly blanking and adding a contested prod template, after specific direction to take it to WP:RFD.
- [11] Inserting a non-existent image into an article, apparently just out of carelessness while WP:STALKing and reverting me.
- Incivility and assuming bad faith
- [12] "We are not debating here whether you're pro-Arab or pro-Israel (although, IMO, it is quite obvious that you're pro-Arab)."
- [13] "The author is a Palestinian who inserts his own P.O.V. into articles and creates these kind of redirections."
- Agreed with the substance of Eleland's report. Radical-Dreamer is therefore placed on various editing restrictions, including a revert limitation and civility supervision. See here for details. Moreschi If you've written a quality article... 09:58, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
- You're doing this out of support for Eleland POVs and abusing your privileges. But fine, Eleland will get blocked eventually. It's only a matter of time. Radical-Dreamer (talk) 16:54, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
- Agreed with the substance of Eleland's report. Radical-Dreamer is therefore placed on various editing restrictions, including a revert limitation and civility supervision. See here for details. Moreschi If you've written a quality article... 09:58, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Martinphi
Martinphi (talk · contribs) who is under an editing restriction outlined here has stalked me from WTBDWK to Consciousness causes collapse where he made the following provocative edit: [14]. Another user pointed out that the effect of Martin's edit was to reinstate a word to avoid that has scientific implications which is particularly disruptive to an article about pseudoscience. Martin's response was astonishing: [15] where he states, in part: "That was only meant to reverse the nonconsensus stuff by a blocked user." The reference to "blocked user" refers to my wholly unrelated block for a claimed instance of incivilty in accusing another user of making an edit that looked POV-pushing at cold fusion mediation. The other problem in the reference to "nonconsensus stuff". These attempts by Martin to claim certain edits are "nonconsensus" while others are is a hallmark pattern in the disruptive editing by users of his *ahem* ilk. It appears to me that Martin is now taking it upon himself to wikistalk and revert me. ScienceApologist (talk) 13:06, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Response
Wikistalking- Consciousness causes collapse was posted on the Fringe noticeboard [16]. In addition, I was asked by a friend to look into it. The edit which SA says is disruptive above was merely returning to a version prior to many anti-consensus changes SA had made before his edit warring caused the article to be locked . Here is how I remember it:
Failing to gain consensus on the talk page (this for example), SA made heavy against-consensus edits to the article.
He edit warred to keep those edits in- I did not participate in that edit war.
The article was protected because of SA's actions [17][18][19].
The article was then unprotected because consensus on talk page indicated the need for an AfD tag.
SA was then blocked for 96 hours for unrelated disruption and incivility.
The article was unprotected, and rather than leave the anti-consensus changes in place for days, I reverted the article to about where I thought the last stable version was, and kept an edit I thought was non-controversial. However, I missed one edit at least which should have been retained, as explained on the talk page [20].
Please note my edit stayed in place- it was a consensus edit.
SA also does not show that I attempted to keep consensus edits by restoring WAS's edit [21].
I will leave it up to the admins whether this report itself is appropriate and appropriately phrased per SA's own restrictions. ——Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 00:36, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
I would also request that SA stop doing stuff like this. There seems to be a perception that any consensus with which SA doesn't agree is disruption- see this. ——Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 01:00, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
User:Martinphi wikistalking and harrassment
It has been suggested that this case[22] be brought here.[23]. Martinphi has engaged in disruptive editing at Yi Ching, has falsely accused me of many things including trolling which I find very offensive [24], has reverted me on Reiki and attempted to assuage this by saying he knows my edit was in good faith [25], has wikistalked me to Yi Ching and reverted me with the rude edit statement "egad" [26] and has removed the POV tag despite the wishes of at least two editors and falsely claiming consensus[27]. He has also removed from his talkpage my efforts to try to solve these problems [28]. He also wikistalked me to the project Wikipedia:Words_to_avoid and made this revert[29] despite my comments on the takpage standing for a few days. Mccready (talk) 01:19, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
User has violated the Decorum principals, specifically 'personal attack', 'incivility', and 'assumption of bad faith' with the following edit summary and diff:
- "Mr POV pusher himself"
- "the biggest POV pusher around" - пﮟოьεԻ 57, 16:00, 13 February 2008.
Requesting a retraction and apology or administrative action. JaakobouChalk Talk 16:07, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- I'm certainly not going to apologise. I might have WP:AGF a year ago, but your contributions make it quite clear that you are a POV pusher; as evidenced here. пﮟოьεԻ 57 16:11, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- The Arbcom ended a month ago with no action taken against either of us. I believe that bad faith assumptions and personal attacks are detrimental to the Israeli-Palestiian articles and to the project in general. JaakobouChalk Talk 16:24, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- There was no action taken against me because I wasn't an involved party, and I have no idea why there was no action taken against you given the weight of evidence provided my myself and several other editors. пﮟოьεԻ 57 16:20, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- Your link is misleading as you were certainly mentioned in the presented evidence but this is entirely germane to the reason I posted this complaint. JaakobouChalk Talk 16:27, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- I have no idea on how your comment relates to this complaint about a personal attack, but I'd be interested in resolving the old disputes and avoiding future similar attacks in the future. I think the best solution would be a retraction (and maybe even an apology) so that we can move forward, but I don't see that you're interested in leaving the past in the past. JaakobouChalk Talk 16:36, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- Nickhh is not the person making the "Mr POV pusher himself" comment.
- I'm requesting a retraction. JaakobouChalk Talk 16:50, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- Links should always be to the final decision in a case, not the proposed decision. The final decision is at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles#Final decision. I, who read the enforcement definition of "Uninvolved administrators" very stringently, defer evaluation of the situation to other administrators here. Frankly, though, I think the complainant deserves close scrutiny and am certain they are not an uninvolved bystander. GRBerry 17:31, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- I also will not consider myself an "uninvolved administrator" by a stringent definition, since I am currently working with Jaakobou on a different Palestine-related article. However, it would seem to me that the operative part of remedy 1 of that case is "despite being warned, repeatedly or seriously fails". 1) Is there evidence that the user has been warned that his behavior is inappropriate? 2) Is there evidence that his behavior entails serious failings after said warning? If so, let's see it, please. - Revolving Bugbear 21:50, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- I can live with a retraction (and hopefully an apology), but Number 57 just repeats the same "he's POV!!!" vindication of the insulting comment. JaakobouChalk Talk 23:01, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
There are only quotes and case decision links here. Both sides please provide pertinent DIFFS. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:14, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
- I would say that Jaakobou's repeated reinsertion of a huge criticism section to the article on left-wing journalist Gideon Levy ([30][31][32][33][34] - at one stage the criticism section amounted to more than two thirds of the article's length) was a clear violation of WP:NPOV#Undue weight, and thus a good basis for pointing out that he is a POV pusher. пﮟოьεԻ 57 11:31, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
- My complaint here
- Has nothing to do with a months old argument from October that Number 57 has etched to his memory (similar opposite examples exist but are germane). Number 57's old notes only show that he is an involved admin, who refuses to let go of very old disputes, and therefore should not pertain to be neutral.
- On point, Personal attacks and assumptions of bad faith are a violation of the Arbcom final decision and as long as he does not post an ANI or AE notice about recent activity; Number 57 should avoid making comments while reminiscing about conflicts we had months ago.
- My request is a retraction (and hopefully an apology) or administrative action.
- -- JaakobouChalk Talk 12:28, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
- Number57-that's from 5 months ago. Anything more recent?
- Jaakobou-you have not provided diffs of your allegations of 57's incivility and personal attacks. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:16, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
- I may be able to help. How about this whole section, written by Jaakobou more or less in its entirety, and last amended only a couple of days ago? Or this factual error which happily meets a POV that suits. Or this, in total breach of a recent RfC? Can I also refer to several trivial and vexatious posts complaining about the actions of other editors on this very page, including this one and the one below? --Nickhh (talk) 22:46, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
- — Rlevse,
- There is a single recent diff of the POV charges issue I've raised here, and other similar comments go back about a month (Arbcom days) or more.
- The diffs presented by Number 57 and Nickhh, are misleading. They pick single edits out of their content based arguments. The "worst" example, Mar Saba, I've already admitted was a good faith error and my error was nicely resolved by ChrisO who corrected it, and actually made a small error of his own which I in turn corrected and all was well:
- "thanks for the clarification!" - ChrisO, 01:05, 2 February 2008.
- Mar Saba relevant discussion (if you're interested): [35].
- — Rlevse,
- My problem is that Number 57, who is an admin, sees nothing wrong with holding grudges and making these statements (self-justified "the biggest POV pusher around..I want you banned" charges); and he's promoting bad behavior from non admins who are emboldened by his comments. see this recent comment:
- "Get over yourself. It's like dealing with a sexually frustrated and incontinent adolescent." Nickhh, 23:18, 14 February 2008.
- My problem is that Number 57, who is an admin, sees nothing wrong with holding grudges and making these statements (self-justified "the biggest POV pusher around..I want you banned" charges); and he's promoting bad behavior from non admins who are emboldened by his comments. see this recent comment:
- I don't see a good reason that a highly involved admin will point fingers like Number 57 did. I believe it is not only a violation of the Arbcom Final decisions but that it promotes similar conduct from non-admins. I've initially requested a retraction since there was only a single recent such comment; but I don't see any sign that Number 57 might scale back. JaakobouChalk Talk 04:25, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
- If my entire purpose is as Number 57 proffeses, then I would not be writing 95% of Haim Farhi, retouching Image:Peasant Family of Ramallah 1900-1910.jpg (used as the main image for all the Palestinian articles) and Image:FatehMilitia.jpg, working to fix problems on Yemenite Jews etc. etc.
- I've already shown on the Arbcom that Number 57 has violated WP:3RR and WP:TE himself, and this entire discussion is not about content, but rather violations of the Arbcom decisions, which Number 57 refuses to recognize.
- To be specific, this comment is a violation of the Decorum Principals. JaakobouChalk Talk 11:26, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
- So you have made 10 edits to Haim Farhi; kinda pales into comparison with 182 edits on Battle of Jenin, 92 on Media coverage of the Arab-Israeli conflict and 71 on Muhammad al-Durrah. In fact every single one of your 15 most-edited articles are controversial Israel-Palestinian ones [41]. In reply to your other points (a) I was asked to provide evidence to back up my claim, and (b) in the "evidence" you link to, you only claimed that I violated WP:3RR, so now trying to claim to have shown that I violated WP:TE seems to be a little bizaare (though is in line with your standard attempts to devalue criticism against your behaviour by attacking the criticiser).
- Anyway, this will be my last reply to this farce, as quite frankly I have better things to do on Wikipedia (i.e. constructively editing articles) than this. пﮟოьεԻ 57 11:33, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
- Since a retraction request of the uncivil personal attack was rejected by Number 57, I request some form of administrative action that will hopefully prevent future similar "better things to do on Wikipedia" contributions. JaakobouChalk Talk 12:03, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
- comment - diff numbers say nothing; I've created 90% of the Haim Farhi article on my first contribution. I've also tried to slowly create good changes on problematic articles, and at those days tag-team 3RR was the norm.
- Number 57's violation of 3RR shows not only that norm in action, but also how (certain few) admins abused their rollback tools in these edit conflicts while deleting anything that might be construed as pro-Israeli.
- Sure, I've had my judgment lapses and made many errors in the (5 months ago past), but regardless, even if I am (allegedly) a POV pusher, an involved admin should not follow established editors to complaints they've made about someone else and bluntly state: "Mr. POV pusher... I want you banned". [42]
- I was thinking a retraction could, hopefully, solve this long standing issue fast and the suggestion still stands. JaakobouChalk Talk 10:44, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
- Oh, so it's ok so describe someone as "not neutral" [43] and strongly insinuate that they are POV pushing by saying they delete "anything that that might be construed as pro-Israeli."[44], but not to actually call them a POV pusher? Hilarious.
- Also, you might be interested to know that I also delete pro-Palestinian stuff.[45] The joys of working on Israeli-Palestinian articles! пﮟოьεԻ 57 00:10, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
- "I want you banned"... hysterical right? JaakobouChalk Talk 01:04, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
- p.s. You are an involved admin who assumes bad faith and makes uncivil personal attacks at the hint that you are not impartial. JaakobouChalk Talk 01:07, 18 February 2008 (UTC)