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.
Under WP:ARBMAC I banned Grandy Grandy (talk · contribs) from editing Bosnian mujahideen for a month. The account The Dragon of Bosnia (talk · contribs) immediately took up the torch, and checkuser Confirmed that The Dragon of Bosnia and Geographer X (talk · contribs) are sockpuppets of Grandy Grandy. I have blocked all three accounts indefinitely. The question is whether to consider the block of Grandy Grandy as a ban or to reblock with a definite expiry and consider it a warning block/second chance. Thatcher 01:38, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
- My notes and thoughts:
- The block log for The Dragon of Bosnia doesn't show your block Thatcher. Nor does the log of blocks you issued show anyone else it might be. I suggest you confirm that that block took.
- The editor was put on notice of the case by Stifle in December, as evidenced by his talk page.
- I note a mediation cabal case where 2 of these accounts were on the same side of a 4-2 editing division before the case opened. The problematic use goes back to at least late November. There is a later mediation cabal case about this specific article where these two are the same side of a 2-1 editing division as the case opens.
- I see evidence of the accounts talking to each other in order to create the appearance of being different users (e.g. "I just came back from vacation. What happened with the Bosnian Genocide? I think we should make an effort to improve it. Do you agree? Regards. The Dragon of Bosnia (talk) 22:09, 5 February 2008 (UTC)" [1].
- All in all, it seems clear that there is a longstanding (months) pattern of using these accounts on that article. I'm not sure I'd go for a ban at this time, as I don't at an immediate glance see evidence of issues unrelated to this article. But the block should not be particularly short either, for behavior that is a months long pattern, with intent to deceive other editors. Given the topic ban on Osli73, and the handful of other editors with any to that article in the past few months (none of them particularly demonstrating a sustained interest), I'd say the block needs to last for at least a few weeks just to give the article a chance. GRBerry 03:01, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
- I swear I blocked all the accounts; oh well, that's fixed now. Thatcher 06:24, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
I have recieved advice by administrator Fut.Perf. to give here demand for reverting his WP:ARBMAC decision with which he has put me under a revert parole of max. 1rv/48h for 3 months. Reason for his decision has been "my" POV editing and edit warring against nationalistic SPA account [2]. In my thinking he has commited mistake because I have not done for what he has accused me [3] but only protected version of article writen by established users against SPA account. My defense is that I have not writen any word in article [4] and in the end I have recieved penalty for being POV editor ?? All in all 3 editors has protected that article against SPA account.
Is is not honest that user which is protecting article (with other users) against nationalistic SPA account recive 3 months ban when this other editor has recieved 24 hours ban for sending me to hell [5] during time when he has been banned, using multiple accounts [6] to edit article and edit warring [7]
It is not honest that user is blocked because of POV edits when he has not made any edits but reverted SPA account which has made changes in controversial articles without even 1 time explaining reason changes on talk page.
For me decision of Fut.Perf. is POV without any question and because of that I am here so that this decision can be reverted.
Like it is possible to see from my edit history in last period I am more vandal police for Croatia related articles of anything other else. It is important to notice I am good in discovering nationalistic SPA accounts and banning them (user:Stagalj, user:Standshown, user:Smerdyakoff) or blocking POV edits. I will this night revert changes made by puppets of this 2 banned users and .... --Rjecina (talk) 19:23, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
- Comment: My reasons for the restriction explained Revert warring|here and here. The other guy involved in the edit war is Mike Babic (talk · contribs), see block comments on his talk page. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:02, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
- I have forget to point how I have never recieved edit warring warning in 3 years on wikipedia and this is needed before blocking or banning actions. I know that because administrators have always wanted to see this warning on talk page before blocking on my request.--Rjecina (talk) 20:47, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
- Now even Fut.Perf. has recognized that I am guilty only of overlooking sneaked addings of another user during "heat of battle" with SPA account [8] . I will take editorial break between early hours of 21 March and 29 March and in my thinking this will be enough for this problem.
- To tell the truth I am making great problem of this story because I have never been accused by established editors or administrators for making POV changes.--Rjecina (talk) 02:06, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
- I have forget to point how I have never recieved edit warring warning in 3 years on wikipedia and this is needed before blocking or banning actions. I know that because administrators have always wanted to see this warning on talk page before blocking on my request.--Rjecina (talk) 20:47, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Jaakobou continues to make poor editing choices that have more to do with soapboxing and assumptions of bad faith than with editing to improve articles per WP:NPOV and WP:RS. The latest example is this edit which comes on the heels of this section opened by El C just three days ago. Attempts to get Jaakobou to reflect upon the inappropriateness of such comments on his talk page are going nowhere and it was only two days ago that I asked him to please "reflect upon how your behaviour might be interpreted negatively by others or be coming from a place unrelated to or incompatible with the building of a healthy, collaborative working environment." [9] He seems unable to understand what this means or how to do so.
Considering that Jaakobou is a repeat-offender whose editing at Palestinian fedayeen led to the original WP:ANI complaint which led to the opening of the Arbcomm case on I-P articles, and considering that he is repeatedly before WP:AE for his edits in this domain, I am proposing that he be topic-banned for a period of three months. His repeated ability to escape sanction for multiple, repeat offenses has led him to think such behaviour is okay. It's not. It's corrosive to the general working environment and is often disruptive. Durova (talk · contribs) has indicated that he is doing great work on featured pictures outside of the I-P subject area. He would do well to continue that and other work until he learns how to bring the same spirit of collaboration to I-P related articles. Tiamuttalk 16:30, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
- Tiamut, is a highly involved editor; upset that I replied to her soapboxing against Israeli civilians which insisted on a Palestinian "liberation struggle" POV disregarding the Israeli POV. I've since toned down my language and suggested to tone down anything else that might be offensive. JaakobouChalk Talk 16:45, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
- p.s. Tiamut believes I assume bad faith by explaining the subtext of her suggestion, but this is untrue. I assume good faith, but also see that Tiamut misses the problem of her own soapboxing. JaakobouChalk Talk 16:50, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
- p.p.s. Tiamut's is not alone in missing the issue, as editors seemed to have completely ignored a certain perspective expressed by a sizable number of editors on the article's talk page. JaakobouChalk Talk 16:55, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
- To all admins and editors, please do review the discussion at Talk:Second Intifada#What is neutral? where you will be able to judge whether there is any validity to Jaakobou's characterization of my comments as "soapboxing" or as "disregarding the Israeli POV". Tiamuttalk 16:58, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
- Jaakobou's conduct on Talk:Second_Intifada has recently been poor, and has included soap boxing. Also, his user talk page conduct is overly aggressive. I'll wait for Durova to give her opinion, however, I'm inclined to give a 1 week topic ban. Addhoc (talk) 17:02, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
- Addhoc, I apologize for aggressive behavior, but my people have been soapboxed against on that article repeatedly and vehemently for a prolonged period and I myself stood silent taking repeated personal attacks by three separate involved editors, claiming that there isn't a conflict(?). If there is any comment that catches your attention, I am interested in retracting it and apologizing. However, I believe that more than one of the involved editors (Nickhh in particular) should have their demeanor examined. The recent discussions started here. JaakobouChalk Talk 17:13, 17 March 2008 (UTC) small addition. JaakobouChalk Talk 17:19, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
- Based on your response, I'm more confident that a 1 week topic ban should be applied. The arbcom sanctions exist because there has been widespread edit warring and talk page soap boxing on these articles. In this context, it's a statement of the obvious that comments have been made on both sides. Using this to justify or mitigate continuing poor behavior only allows the problem to continue. The entire purpose of the arbcom sanctions was to prevent a continuation of this poor conduct. Addhoc (talk) 17:38, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
I don't really see what the big deal is. I just read the comments on Talk:Second Intifada after following the discussion on Jaakobou's talk page. There basically seem to be two options: 1) Jaakobou is completely alone in his opinions, and alone prevents the article from progressing. If this is true, then he can just be ignored when editing the actual article, and if he edit wars, he will be wrong and there will be justification to ban him. Or 2) Jaakobou is not alone in his views, which means that Tiamut's accusations of bad faith are unfounded, and maybe there is merit to what Jaakobou says. If this is true, then it's clear that Tiamut is pushing to get Jaakobou banned in order to advance her own POV in the article by taking out her prime opposition on the talk page.
It's not immediately clear which of the two is correct, so in either case, as I said before, I don't really see the big deal, and suggest to wait until there's visible disruption to the actual article before instituting any bans, because if #2 is true, then the ban will hurt the balance of the article.
-- Ynhockey (Talk) 18:09, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
The discussion on the Second Intifada article has really heated up lately, mostly over a contention between me and Tiamut. The dispute has led to high tensions and the involvement of many editors, and no editor -- myself included -- is free from blame. While Jaakobou's comments may be in poor taste, I think that banning Jaakobou given the conduct of all editors involved on Second Intifada and given that these comments arose directly in connection with a particular article and should not prevent Jaakobou from editing other articles, I recommend that the article be placed under severe anti-soapbox supervision. ← Michael Safyan (talk) 18:26, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
- Also, I would like to personally apologize for my improper conduct on Second Intifada. I should have approached the issue in a less disruptive manner. ← Michael Safyan (talk) 18:35, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
- (e/c)I would note further that the latest comments by Jaakobou come after a series of warnings that he simply refuses to heed. If there are other editors who have exercised poor judgement that is a separate matter, and one which in any case should be dealt with by providing diffs, rather than making blanket generalizations. Tiamuttalk 18:46, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
- It is? Where does it say that it is under arbcom probation? ← Michael Safyan (talk) 18:58, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
- I recommend that both User:Michael Safyan and User:Ynhockey be sent notices of the Arbcomm decision since both are regular editors at the I-P related articles. Additionally, Michael Safyan recently canvassed a number of users, including Ynhockey and Jaakobou, to participate in the RfC he opened at Second Intifada specifically in order to gather together users who shared in his view that "uprising" is a POV term. Tiamuttalk 19:15, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I was offline for about a day. Thanks very much for the note at my user talk. Jaakobou got me on chat as soon as I fired up the computer. I'm getting up to speed right now and will post a follow-up soon. If anyone else wants to do a gmail chat with me, drop me a line via Wikipedia e-mail and I'll send you an invite. DurovaCharge! 19:01, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
- An involved editor I know, but I did want to make a comment, not least because Jaakobou has dragged my name into this. This diff soon brings up the phrase "I have a different perspective ..", suggesting we are about to hear an honest description of Jaakobou's beliefs, and then launches into a borderline-racist diatribe posted on the talk page. The impression given is that he is only refraining from incorporating these views into the article itself verbatim because of his own concerns about balance and not giving offence. There is no qualification here that he doesn't actually believe any of this, or that he is arguing for a mock-extreme viewpoint, simply for the purposes of debate. When called up on it, he then tried to defend what he wrote as mere pretend soapboxing in response to Tiamut's stated preference for the use of the word "struggle" to describe how the Palestinians view the Intifada, which he states is offensive to the victims of suicide bombings and other attacks. Even if this is true, a) this is not how his original words read; and b) he misunderstands Tiamut's clearly expressed point that the word struggle is being used not to refer to suicide and rocket attacks, but to the Intifada as a whole, which includes many examples of non-violent protest as well. The prominent Israeli counter-view is in any event also included in the lead, with clear references to "terrorism" and how Arafat is to blame for the violence of the Intifada. Re-reading the talk page discussion again, all I can see is two or three editors haggling for the most part constructively as to how to reach an agreement on words, and one - who has only just emerged from having to apologise profusely for a recent piece of appalling ill-judgement, involving as it happens Tiamut again - coming in suddenly from left-field to rant about an entire ethnic group, which that editor happens to belong to. Not pleasant. --Nickhh (talk) 19:24, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
This is typical Jaakobou - he regards expression of mainstream, internationally-accepted, majority point-of-view on Israel-Palestine articles as contemptible "soapboxing" and "advocacy" for a Palestinian-terrorist point of view, and he constantly tries to stamp it out with accusations of disruptive editing and counter-rants of his own. One constantly sees conversations in this vein:
Somebody: Well, in fairness, the wall does cut off Palestinian farmers from their land, and it's been condemned by the international community. We can't just call it a "security fence against suicide bombers" as if that's the last word on the subject.
Jaakobou: I warn you be careful of WP:SOAP expressions of Arab POV, we wouldnt want "ultra-Zionist" counter-POV coming in would we, lets have a communal editing and less of the justification for terror.
(I apologize for the paraphrasing, I'll go digging for some actual diffs, but this is my general impression of trying to work with Jaakobou on the subject.) <eleland/talkedits> 22:07, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
- [10]; uses edit summary to call Nishidani a 'decent and ethical editor who so happens to soapbox against Jewish people "on occassion".' This after Nishidani objected to a message Jaakobou placed on his userpage which seemed to mock User:Tiamat's concern over the bombing of Gaza by likening it to concern over his upcoming exams.
- Jaakobou also has a nasty tendency to revert as part of an edit war, while simultaneously condemning reversions and edit warring as disruptive: [11]
- Jaakobou claims that because British media outlets were criticized in 2002 for their coverage of Jenin, no British newspaper can ever again be a reliable source for Isr-Pal coverage (and that using them somehow violates BLP:) [12] [13]
- And here's an exchange that captures what I was getting at above:
Nicknh:[in part] Jaakobou, if you want a viewpoint going in which refers to Muslim Arabs being warped, racist genocidalists who simply want to murder Jews and drive them into the sea, then the balance to that is the view which sees Jews as bloodsuckers in a conspiracy to take over the world, starting with an area that runs from the Nile to the Euphrates. Both are fringe, extremist viewpoints, and I apologise for having to even refer to them here, but it wasn't me who started down this road. And your comment about civility in discourse made me laugh, especially in the light of recent events. As usual even people more sympathetic to your POV are asking you to tone down your behaviour and act in a more constructive manner.
Jaakobou: [full comment] I'm highly offended by what you suggest and your phrasing. To be frank, I don't see how we can collaborate if you continue to warp my words and make personal attacks. [14]
<eleland/talkedits> 22:27, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
- Eleland (talk · contribs) has persistently attempted to marginalize me by characterizing me (and Jayjg) as an extremist to other editors. I resent that and view the following instances as attempts to burn my bridges ahead of me.
- The common pattern is of making numerous "indirect" user directed commentary and uncivil attacks in violation of the Arbcom final decisions.
- "a [[User:Jayjg|time honoured tradition]]... makes you look rather desperate" [15]
- "Jayjg... anyone who opposed his fairly ludicrous interpretation" - [16]
- "I can't help but wonder if a person or persons is pushing for the POV of the Israeli extreme right" - [17]
- "Sidelines about incivility (or whatever) will not distract from the real issue here... Benjamin Netanyahu and Avigdor Lieberman do not hold "veto power" over our presentation of facts in this encyclopedia. Nor do their adherents." - [18]
- "I'm aware that there are far worse Israeli right-wingers than Netanyahu. Some of them edit Wikipedia." - [19]
- Eleland's approach suggests he purposefully makes personal attacks that are "vague" and "indirect". It has been the same pattern when he previously had the audacity to "indirectly" suggest I was a war criminal or when he made an old apology that looked more like mockery; and I note that at the time the above comments were made it hasn't even been the pledged 7 days since his first block was lifted.
- To be frank, I'm stunned that he had the audacity to join this thread after his recent activity on Israel related articles.
- In response to a basic Arab nationality listing to the Palestinian people, Eleland has first removed the nationality implying that any editor who uses this is automatically denying the existence of a Palestinian people or nation and moved on to replace the State of Israel with Zionist movement. 19:44, 8 March 2008
- A revert on Battle of Jenin 23:37, 9 March 2008, blatently inserted an out of context quote made on March 5th at the end of a paragraph discussing the preludes to the operation in Jenin which followed a month of suicide bombings culminating with a March 27th attack that killed 30. This is a clear case of WP:NPOV and WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT as the issue was already discussed multiple times ([20], [21]), clarifying that it's context with Battle of Jenin and also Operation Defensive Shield was not only synthesis but also out of context propaganda. On this occasion there was no discussion/reply made [22] since the editor already knew the nature of the quote which he reinserted.
- With respect, JaakobouChalk Talk 23:02, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
- Jaakobou has simply reposted a tissue of exaggerations and contextomies, which earned him a "Final warning [...] for trying to use WP:AE as a weapon for block-shopping" the last time he tried; see WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement/Archive14#Eleland (talk · contribs) again. Admins who take the time to check the discussions related to those diffs will see that Jaakobou ignored direct reference to reliable sources in favour of his personal interpretations. "Palestinians" is preferred over "Palestinian Arabs" on Google News sources by a margin of over 100:1; the "out of context quote" was cited by TIME magazine and Amnesty International in the same "out of context" fashion, etc. Jaakobou is being manipulative, and he is being deceitful. <eleland/talkedits> 23:18, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
- Jaakobou is drafting something regarding this thread and it should be ready to go in a little while. In the meantime I'll make a few general comments. In September 2007 he started approaching me to ask for advice. The requests came out of the blue in some regards: I don't edit this topic and don't have strong opinions one way or the other about it, and we'd never been introduced. Nobody had told Jaakobou to look for my advice; he just figured it would be a good idea to seek independent feedback and had seen my name around. We touched bases on a semi-regular basis until arbitration opened. At that time it was my idea to formalize the mentorship: he had already demonstrated a commitment for several months to trying to get things right, and hadn't sought to leverage the relationship in any way. Since arbitration he has branched out and become a featured content contributor. Now I don't mean to imply that he's perfect or to minimize his mistakes. Sometimes I do a facepalm when I see this dispute heating up.
- I do think he's sincere, rather than deliberately malicious or Machiavellian. And whether or not other editors agree with his perspective, the Israeli POV is notable in a way that (for instance) the pro-perpetual-motion-machine POV is not. Now per this essay I don't encourage editors to push their own hot buttons. In my experience with disputes generally, flareups tend to bring out heated and hasty actions: people who are already engaged intensify their engagement and the effects of that distract from the shared goal of creating an online encyclopedia.
- Shortly before this week's flareup I had been encouraging Jaakobou to take an eventualist approach and walk away from the Israeli-Palestinian dispute for a while (6 weeks? something like that). The reasoning was this: if he's right and the articles would lose neutral balance without him, then after a month or two the result would be obvious to any uninvolved observer. So if there's a problem a content RFC would get useful input then (and if there isn't a problem he'd be off the hook). The average encyclopedia reader is pretty smart. They can sniff the aroma of a soapbox. My general approach has been to encourage de-escalation; I don't have a specific solution to the problems now. Yet anyone from either side of the fence is welcome to come to me with concerns. Jaakobou will be posting shortly, I hope, and you'll see what he has to say. DurovaCharge! 22:32, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
- It's getting late here, I'll post a breakdown in the morning. JaakobouChalk Talk 23:11, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
- Stating the obvious somewhat, however I think a week ban should be applied because he is sincere and causing disruption. If he was insincere, I would be proposing a site ban. Addhoc (talk) 01:38, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
- How is he being disruptive? He posted a strongly worded comment on the Talk page. So have his ideological opponents. You yourself have stated, above that "It's a statement of the obvious that comments have been made on both sides." - so why is he being singled out for these comments? What , exactly is the disruptive behavior? I don't see it. I am Dr. Drakken (talk) 03:14, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
- I have no specific recommendation as to how to remedy this incident. DurovaCharge! 03:08, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
- May I ask a couple of questions, Durova? Do you think that the "several (very) long chats" you held "with him over the last twelve hours" on 15 March had the desired effect? As you wrote to Nishidani, "He's going to do his best to make amends and ensure that this doesn't happen again." Well, here we are (again) as there has not been any change in the behaviour. He's still making unconstructive edits that amount to poking other editors with sticks. So why are you witholding comment this time around? Is Addhoc's proposal really so unreasonable? Tiamuttalk 04:28, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
- Stating the obvious somewhat, however I think a week ban should be applied because he is sincere and causing disruption. If he was insincere, I would be proposing a site ban. Addhoc (talk) 01:38, 18 March 2008 (UTC)