→Result concerning Jaakobou: fair enough |
|||
Line 524:
:With regard to my last note: polemics about Israel's military, Palestinian violence, and links to, among others, a dead child are not [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:User_pages&diff=prev&oldid=691219656 "nothing polemic"].
:-- <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">[[User:Jaakobou|Jaakobou]]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>''[[User talk:Jaakobou|Chalk Talk]]''</sup></font></b> 14:50, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
re
[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement&diff=next&oldid=691335615] by {{ping|EdJohnston}}:
:a) I am not claiming user-space on wikipedia causes violence. Obviously, people with guns don't go around reading wikipedia user-pages. This point is irrelevant.
:b) I asked about bringing this to ARBCOM[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ACallanecc&type=revision&diff=689793733&oldid=689789674], but was answered that this type of material '''"is already prohibited"'''[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Callanecc&diff=next&oldid=689793733]
:c) Like I mentioned to {{ping|Callanecc}} on their MFD suggestion. It would seem there's always someone reputable to defend policy violations when it comes to a certain small country.
:d) 3 adjacent quotes/paraphrases about Jews, Israeli settlers and Zionism at the top of a user-page. One specifically links "sharpen the weapons with which he will secure his victory" against a '''certain group of people'''. Shakespeare, it's not.
:e) It is: ''"Polemical statements unrelated to Wikipedia, or statements attacking or vilifying groups"''[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:User_pages#POLEMIC]
:f) I have no intention of targeting a specific user or making this an Israel-Arab issue. It is the principle of polemics circumvention.
:g) If user-space were to support and/or promote ISIS aggression against Europe, it would be promptly removed. Having to argue about this is an absurdity.
:h) More-so when (outside the West-Bank) the wide scale wave of attacks include 80-year-old women (Rishon Lezion, November 2, 2015) and School teachers (Marseille. 11 hours ago) - not given exception, I am refraining from linking. The point in mentioning this not the conflict I'm living, but the general disrepute such activities can bring to the project and the environment that these type of writings creates for writers in already heated areas.
:i) ISIS support and songs about how the Paris theatre massacre "scratched the enemy’s face, broke his dreams and stopped his satisfaction with time" could be viewed as "very profound and of great value to us in these revolutionary times."[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ATiamut&type=revision&diff=480602104&oldid=480601045] -- but are they '''"already prohibited"''' or not?
:j) I reiterate my desire is to clarify WP:POLEMIC so that there won't be confusion anymore about what is allowed and what is not.
:Big picture: Support and promotion of terrorism against civilians is inappropriate for wikipedia's user-space.
:With respect, <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">[[User:Jaakobou|Jaakobou]]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>''[[User talk:Jaakobou|Chalk Talk]]''</sup></font></b> 08:23, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
====Statement by Serialjoepsycho 2====
|
Revision as of 08:23, 19 November 2015
Nocturnalnow
No action for now. But further edit warring at Huma Abedin may lead to sanctions. EdJohnston (talk) 17:33, 15 November 2015 (UTC) | ||
---|---|---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. | ||
Request concerning Nocturnalnow
Edit-wars the {{NPOV}} tag into the article despite clear consensus that it doesn't apply:
Notified of the sanctions by Gamaliel here.
This user is essentially a single-purpose account; out of fewer than 200 total edits to the encyclopedia, nearly 140 of them are to this biography or to its talk page. Effectively all of the edits and discussion have been highly negative toward the subject or have sought the inclusion of negative material about the subject, indicating that this user is not here to build an encyclopedic article about Abedin but rather to grind an ax against her and/or her husband. This is neatly demonstrated by this talk page comment which makes personal attacks on the subject and the subject's spouse. They have consistently edit-warred against clear talk page consensus to include negative material out of proportion to its prominence in reliable sources, to treat fringe allegations and claims with undue weight, to use poor and partisan sources and to cast aspersions on Abedin. Biographies of living people should not be edited by people with axes to grind against the article subject and I believe this editor should be encouraged to edit something else. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:27, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
Discussion concerning NocturnalnowStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by D.CreishBased on edits since my involvement in this article I question the filer's neutrality. They have several edits to the article so I'll confine my evidence to this one example: They insist on title-ing one particular section "Conspiracy theories" despite the lack of majority support for that statement and that those who allege the theories are living congresspeople, so BLP applies. They've reverted a number of editors to retain this heading: [1] [2] [3] [4] On the talk page they misrepresent sources to support the "conspiracy theory" heading:
This is misleading. Only some do, a fact acknowledged in the opening sentence of the section:
Again, a misrepresentation. The National Review article, a reliable source cited in that same section, describes her mother (Saleha Abedin) as "closely tied to the Muslim Brotherhood" - the claim here is supported [6] Their last edit to this heading [7] relented somewhat in titling it I also believe the filer has violated rules against canvassing. He notified an editor who frequently agrees with his edits of this filing [8] but failed to notify me despite my involvement just yesterday in a disagreement involving myself, the filter and Nocturnalnow where Nocturnalnow and I agreed. I only discovered this filing after seeing his latest revert and "stalking" his contribs. I believe more editors on the article and talk page, and a focus on neutral language throughout would be beneficial. D.Creish (talk) 08:17, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
Statement by NocturnalnowWith regard to the a single-purpose account assertion, I tried to show the Filer yesterday that I have a long history of editing going back to 2007, albeit under 4 different User names as I have forgotten my password several times after a rest from editing. I have always had a notification and linkage of that fact on my talk and or User page. I always figured the edits are what's important, rather than the name of the Editor, but in respect of other opinions, I have now written down my password and put the piece of paper in a drawer. With regard to the other complaints, I think that any objective and thorough analysis of my editing history of the article will show a reasonable person that my accepted edits have dramatically improved the BLP even as it currently stands, and at least some of the non-allowed edits would have improved it even more. Nocturnalnow (talk) 03:37, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
Statement by MuboshguI'll comment a bit later. For now, World Series! – Muboshgu (talk) 06:37, 2 November 2015 (UTC) Statement by JohnuniqThe Huma Abedin article needs some serious protection and topic bans. The subject is closely associated with Hillary Clinton's campaign and hence is receiving special attention, primarily focused on WP:UNDUE mention of Abedin's husband's sexting scandal, and claims that Abedin had "immediate family connections to foreign extremist organizations" (claims where one ref states "Sen. John McCain denounced the allegations"). As an example of the "NPOV" editing on this BLP, it appears this edit at 07:27, 13 October 2015 changed the accurate "Conspiracy theory allegations" heading to the smear "Allegations regarding family members". That edit was by 119.81.31.4 which is now blocked for three years! D.Creish (talk · contribs) has a total of 24 edits, six to Huma Abedin: two highlight a scandal regarding the subject's husband (1 + 2); two repeat the removal of the "Conspiracy theories" heading (3 + 4); and two are minor adjustments. An article like this should not be getting attention from blocked-for-three-years IPs and perfectly formed new accounts and Nocturnalnow who has a total of 203 edits including 67 to Huma Abedin and 79 to its talk. Johnuniq (talk) 09:42, 2 November 2015 (UTC) Statement by GamalielThis editor should be encouraged to use some less contentious articles to learn about Wikipedia policies like BLP, PRIMARY. UNDUE, RS, etc. and return to this article after the election. I believe they want to improve the article but they appear to have a strong viewpoint and a less than ideal grasp of current BLP practice. Gamaliel (talk) 04:00, 3 November 2015 (UTC) I think that Rhoark's excellent review of the diffs illustrates the situation well. Nocturnalnow is not quite up to speed on how to properly handle BLP issues, and so a lot of time is wasted explaining basic policy and dealing with minor conflicts. Other editors are getting frustrated, as is Nocturnalnow because perhaps they feel that the resistance they are getting is obstructionist and not policy-based. Nocturnalnow should realize that the incident is already covered in the article - nobody is advocating shoving it down the memory hole - and so they should be satisfied even if it is not described in the exact language and manner they would prefer. Wikipedia is often about compromise. I"m not sure how to handle this, but I think the best thing would be for Nocturnalnow to practice with these issues in a less contentious article that they do not have such strong opinions about. Gamaliel (talk) 14:28, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
Statement by Rhoark
Nocturnalnow does not seem to have a firm grasp on evaluating the reliability of sources. He also needs to be reminded that the "discuss" part of BRD is a two-way street. The claimed history of accounts seems plausible, as they seem to have similar linguistic patterns and a recurrent interest in American political scandals. I would not call that interest so narrow as to be a SPA, though. I suggest Nocturnalnow be placed under 0RR for BLP articles / claims to avoid similar disruptions. Although Nocturnalnow's behavior is not acceptable, the filer should be admonished that NPOV does not read "representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views except conservative ones." While sources can be found who unleash all sorts of invective about the Muslim Brotherhood allegations, it is a claim that was supported by five congressional representatives, and many respectable news organizations chose to criticize Bachmann only by proxy of John McCain.[13][14][15][16] That is the profile of a minority view, not a fringe one. There are some very good sources to draw on to criticize the allegations[17][18], but it is simply indefensible to do so through such prejudicial section titles. This is an encyclopedia. Rhoark (talk) 04:54, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
I had intended not to further argue content issues with @NorthBySouthBaranof: on this page, since there seems to be a loose consensus on where things stand with Nocturnalnow. In light of @EdJohnston:'s comments however, I need to speak to the content issues that bear upon the conduct of all parties. We should not tolerate anyone wishing the article to read more negatively, no matter how patiently they negotiate. That is what we call civil POV pushing. We shouldn't tolerate that from any point of view. Per NPOV, Wikipedia should describe disputes but not engage in them. If reliable sources substantiate the claim that a POV is factually wrong, that's still describing. That's not the state of sourcing in this matter, though. I don't think you will find a reliable source contesting any of the following:
The mainstream point of view is that worrying about these things is paranoid, vicious, ignorant, Islamophobic, McCarthyist, regressive, and generally unworthy of consideration. That's my take as well. It is not, however, objectively verifiable or falsifiable. The majority opinion is still an opinion, and to express it through the form of a section heading is engaging in the dispute. All the disparaging things the media has said about Bachmann should be put to use in describing the level of acceptance of her views, but not the views themselves. I highlighted the fact that these concerns were raised by a group of congressional representatives - not because I'm so naive as to suppose elected officials are reliable sources, but because the closest thing there is to a bright-line test of fringiness in non-academic topics is a lack of prominent adherents. Congress is fairly prominent, which is why I said this issue has the profile of a non-fringe minority view. Were it fringe, though, the only prescription would be to leave it out of the article. If it's in the article, it has to be described impartially. Avoiding false balance is a matter of weight, not a call to endorse the majority. There is no hybrid or middle ground of NPOV and FRINGE that allows Wikipedia to take the gloves off. Rhoark (talk) 16:06, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
Statement by Cla68After looking at the diffs, it appears that both NorthbySouthBaranoff's and Nocturnalnow's edits are partisan. Both editors could be interpreted as engaging in BATTLEFIELD behavior. Cla68 (talk) 04:34, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
Statement by Professor JRI don't normally participate in Dispute Page or TalkPage discussions, but have decided to here, as I must agree with Cla68 -- User:NorthBySouthBaranof's edits certainly qualify as partisan, or in violation of POV, as well, if Nocturnalnow's can be adjudged to be so; and, upon my review, it appears to me that Nocturnalnow's have not been, and that this filing is unwarranted. Clearly there is also no basis for the assertion by the filer that Nocturnalnow is a single-purpose account(!), and the filer's neutrality is quite apparently and obviously in question (check NorthBySouthBaranof's contributions history) as pointed out by D.Creish. It might be advisable, and to the benefit of all Wiki users and readers, if NorthBySouthBaranof were to take a brief respite from editing the Abedin article, or any other article relating to Hillary Clinton; and this comment by another editor was also entirely out of line and uncalled for. --- Professor JR (talk) 13:31, 3 November 2015 (UTC) Statement by Ryk72Regarding the 500/30 restriction, referred to by EdJohnston below, and also independently here and at ArbCom Palestine Israel 3 here; I again urge the community to formalise this measure by amendment of WP:Protection policy and through the use of a similar technical implementation to Semi-protection. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 04:11, 7 November 2015 (UTC) Statement by (username)Result concerning Nocturnalnow
|
Onefortyone
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Request concerning Onefortyone
- User who is submitting this request for enforcement
- Excelse (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 06:28, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
- User against whom enforcement is requested
- Onefortyone (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log
- Sanction or remedy to be enforced
- Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Onefortyone#Onefortyone_placed_on_Probation :
- Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
- [19][20] Canvassing.
- Use of false sources and misrepresentation of source. Already pointed on his talk page[21] and here[22], he use this source on Graceland(edit) for claiming that Biltmore Estate is more visited than Graceland. However that source doesn't mention Graceland anywhere, neither they say that Biltmore is 2nd most visited. He made this new edit to the article, however this book[23] is not comparing Biltmore with Graceland or calling it second most visited either. Thus violating WP:OR too.
- Personal attacks: referring opposition as "Elvis fans",[24][25][26] and considers fair edits to be "vandal" or "vandalism".[27][28][29][30][31]
- Edit warring. Already told by user:EdJohnston[32] not to add any controversial material without gaining consensus first. There was discussion about his edits on three different venues.[33][34][35] Yet he selected to re-insert non-consensus and incorrect edits again.[36][37]
- Stonewalling. After he saw that consensus is against him, he resorted to stonewalling by copy pasting cherry picked quotes[38] and pasting same feud on at least three pages ("did user Excelse present irrefutable arguments..")[39][40][41]
This all comes from last 9 days. If we were to talk about his decade of editing, there have been many complaints and they can be pointed too. Excelse (talk) 06:28, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
- Now there is one more serious issue, it is that Onefortyone considers his opponents to be socks. Including WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. I have already described before that I am not a sock, neither these identities[42][43] were mine. Onefortyone has been told before to file a sock puppet investigation if he want to make these allegations,[44] but he is not wanting to do it and continuously copy pastes these misleading accusation of socking on multiple venues.[45][46] I have been editing for two years and I went to check Onefortyone's recent edits because his editing seemed like trolling, when he made this edit to "Graceland", this article is on my watchlist, not only it did misrepresented sources it considered fair removal of irrelevant content as "vandalism". I only targeted those pages where he was claiming such edits to be vandalism. I saw that he has been adding rumors and I also found out that he is the only one who has been edit warring[47][48] over removed content[49][50] and non-consensus content for over 6 years, and that's how I described it on edit summary, that somehow led him to claim that I am here for more than 6 years. It is actually obvious that Elvis Presley had over 1000s of biographer, Onefortyone happened to find a couple of biographers who have echoed some unpopular stories about Elvis only as "plausibility" and not as anything authentic, Onefortyone pushes such stories as "they are academics", while rest are "Elvis fans" as seen on WP:RSN too. Excelse (talk) 04:00, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
- Recent links included by Onefortyone[51][52] for supporting his edits are rather menial and failing to address the points already raised against his edits on their talk pages for years, one must see :[53][54][55], yet Onefortyone cites few small edits of others as exemption from making disruptive edits which is beyond me. Excelse (talk) 21:01, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
- Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any
- 2006 Topic banned on few Elvis articles for 2 months.
- 2006 Topic ban violation block.
- 2006 Topic banned for two months from Elvis Presley article.
- If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)
- [56]
- Additional comments by editor filing complaint
- Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
- [57]
Discussion concerning Onefortyone
Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.
Statement by Onefortyone
As many diffs show (see, for instance, [58] [59] [60] [61]), Excelse and his supposed sockpuppets or meatpuppets (see [62] [63] [64]) are new users whose edits are nothing more than an attempt to remove well-sourced content from Elvis-related pages that is not in line with their personal opinion, but was part of these articles for many years. From time to time, some of these Elvis fans took me to arbitration, because I am not always singing the praise of the mega star, having a more balanced view of the singer. However, according to arbcom decision, my opponents in these cases were all banned from Elvis-related articles, as all of my contributions are well-sourced (see, for instance, this more recent list of sources here), and their massive removal of content was thought unjustified. Here is what the arbcom says: "Onefortyone's editing has substantially improved from that in the earlier arbitration cases. A sampling of edits shows reference to reliable sources without overstating of their content. To a greater extent he allows the reader to draw their own conclusions." Therefore, Lochdale, one of my former opponents, who had shown "evidence of misunderstanding of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view" and "has removed large blocks of sourced material from Elvis Presley," was "banned indefinitely from editing articles which concern Elvis Presley." See [65]. As Excelse says in one of his recent edit summaries, "Six years passed, only second self published forums cite these gossips other than this page" (see [66]), it could well be that he was deeply involved in the former edit wars and is one of these banned users, especially in view of the fact that in the past I had been more than once the victim of attacks by sockpuppets of Elvis fans. See [67]. So some warnings against Excelse may be necessary, as most of the sources I have used are mainstream biographies of Elvis, studies published by university presses and books written by eyewitnesses. See also this discussion or this one. Onefortyone (talk) 21:04, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
What exactly has happened during the last weeks? There was an edit war between two editors. On the one hand, there is user Excelse removing paragraphs from Elvis-related articles without plausible justification simply because this content is not in line with his fan view of Elvis Presley. On the other hand, there is user Onefortyone reincluding this well-sourced content, which was part of the said articles for many years and was written by different editors. See, for instance, this massive removal of well-sourced content or this removal of content, which was written by at least three editors, namely DomiAllStates, ElvisFan1981 and Onefortyone in 2009 and 2011.
Furthermore, in his statement below, administrator EdJohnston has raised the question "whether Onefortyone's zealous efforts to add certain material to Elvis-related articles crosses the line into disruption". Perhaps it is possible to explain which of my contributions have been disruptive. I have only reinstated well-sourced material that has been removed by Excelse and I have rewritten some paragraphs, adding additional sources. To my mind, Excelse's massive removal of well-sourced content, accompanied by false accusations, is disruptive. According to Wikipedia:Disruptive editing, "some tendentious editors engage in disruptive deletions ... An example is repeated deletion of reliable sources posted by other editors." This exactly describes the behavior of Excelse. Administrator EdJohnston also claims that "Onefortyone does not seem to be eager for careful discussion of his proposals". My contributions on the talk pages say otherwise. See [68], [69], [70]. Onefortyone (talk) 19:46, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
Other editors are also of the opinion that Excelse should not remove any reliable sources from Wikipedia articles. See [71]. Onefortyone (talk) 01:18, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
Statement by (username)
Result concerning Onefortyone
- This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
- See:
- Probation from 2005: "He may be banned from any article or talk page relating to a celebrity which he disrupts by aggressively attempting to insert poorly sourced information or original research."
- A ban on Elvis-related editing should be considered. There has been a previous discussion at User talk:EdJohnston#Onefortyone. The question is whether Onefortyone's zealous efforts to add certain material to Elvis-related articles crosses the line into disruption. Since there are three relevant Arb cases, the committee has already judged some of his past edits to be disruptive and they did enact a probation which allows for bans. One of the options is to go ahead and enact a ban from Elvis-related material, but that would need some evidence of recent bad behavior. The above complaint is more complete and thorough than the one left on my talk page, so I think the option of a ban should now be considered. Would like to hear from others who can look at the diffs in the above complaint and give their opinion. I became aware of this editor through a post by User:Laser brain on my talk page. Without carefully judging all the material, and just observing the attitudes of the participants, Onefortyone does not seem to be eager for careful discussion of his proposals. He is quick to accuse the people who revert him of various misdeeds: "Don't you see that Excelse is one of those POV warriors who are here to remove well-sourced content from articles that is not in line with their fan view?" EdJohnston (talk) 21:10, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
- For a more recent discussion of User:Onefortyone's editing, see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive616#Onefortyone. Lots of TLDR there from the accused person, which makes it hard to understand exactly what's in dispute. The level of disruption from Onefortyone seen in 2010 would probably be enough to justify a topic ban under the standards that are currently applied to others at this noticeboard. If he gave any hint of being open to negotiation, or being willing to express himself briefly, it might be taken into account.
- I can't rule out that some of Onefortyone's opponents may be socks, but irrespective of who is on the other side, the long term issue of needing consensus for controversial material remains. I hope that Onefortyone knows there is a right way and a wrong way of bringing up sock charges. EdJohnston (talk) 21:10, 10 November 2015 (
- Signing again to delay archiving. EdJohnston (talk) 05:13, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
- I don't think that there is enough here to warrant a TBAN. A lot of the misconduct (such as personal attacks [72] [73] and edit warring at Toilet-related injuries and deaths) occurred before Ed's reminder about the probation so I'm willing to believe that Onefortyone has pulled their head in a bit. If a sanction is needed, I wouldn't go any further than a logged warning unless there is additional (recent) evidence of misconduct. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:59, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
Lvivske
Lvivske is banned indefinitely from the topic of the Azov Battalion, on both article and talk, but may appeal at any time. EdJohnston (talk) 17:45, 13 November 2015 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Request concerning Lvivske
Obviously, this is not the first time Lvivske edit-wars in EE articles, without giving any satisfactory explanation to their reverts. Whereas many of the opponents of the "neo-nazi" definition constructively participate in the RfC, Lvivske decided to edit-war. When I alerted them that I am going to file an arbitration enforcement request, they have chosen to revert again.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:12, 10 November 2015 (UTC) @Gamaliel:. Yes, I mean WP:ARBEE. If you open one of the folded templates on the page, Lvivske's name is there. Sorry if i screwed up smth, this is the fist time I file an Arb enforcement request.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:31, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
Discussion concerning LvivskeStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by LvivskeUser is headhunting. First edit was made independent of any ongoing dispute the user had (there was no dispute notice on the article so I had no idea he was arguing with someone when I came across it). After I made a long series of edits to the article, all of my work was reverted at once without a legitimate reason. I was then threatened by Ymblanter that he would go to arbcom if I tried to edit the article again. Naturally, I restored my work. Ends up he was having a dispute on the talk page about the lead, so no explanation was given for his reverting of all the work to the body I did, nor did he in good faith attempt to restore any of it. He got the page locked with the offending, disputed, wildly POV version in place. Five days pass, I come back and see that there is overwhelming consensus to go to 'my version' of the article. I wait another day since there is no real objection to anything, and restore my work. Ymblanter files this to spite me. Whatever. --LeVivsky (ಠ_ಠ) 22:41, 10 November 2015 (UTC) Statement by BeeblebroxI recently applied full protection to this page to stop the edit warring. I have only been involved administratiely and have no opinion on the underlying dispute, but obviously, just waiting for the page protection to expire and reverting again while there is an open, active RFC on the subject is not acceptable behavior. Regarding a few points in Lvivske's statement above:
Beeblebrox (talk) 19:30, 11 November 2015 (UTC) Statement by MyMoloboaccountIf you look into Lvivske's edit history it seems he violated his restrictions several times Revision as of 19:39, 30 September 2015 to Sputnik article. No discussion on talk page, no cooling off period observed. Revision as of 05:01, 29 January 2015 no cooling off period, no discussion on talk. Revision as of 05:01, Revision as of 05:00, 29 January 2015 Russia article, no cooling off period, no discussion on talk. --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 22:24, 11 November 2015 (UTC) Statement by Rhoark@Ymblanter: @Gamaliel: Lvivske is listed in ARBEE not in the original decision but as having received an alert that is explicitly expired. Lviviske has however been sanctioned in the area, which suffices as evidence of awareness that does not expire AFAIK. Rhoark (talk) 22:33, 11 November 2015 (UTC) Comment by My very best wishesLvivske is under editing restriction: "..they are required to first open a discussion on talk, provide an explanation of their intended revert and then wait 6 hours before actually making it to allow time for discussion". Here he provided an explanation of disagreement [75] on 5 November 2015, well before 6 hours prior to his last revert [76] and after his previous edits on the same page. Here is discussion on this article talk page that followed. None of editors who commented after November 5 explicitly objected to the edit by Lvivske. Even administrator who brought this complaint here mostly agreed with edit(s) by Lvivsky [77]! The condition of his editing restriction seem to be completely satisfied. My very best wishes (talk) 04:53, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
Result concerning Lvivske
@Ymblanter: You write that Lvivske is "Mentioned by name in the Arbitration Committee's Final Decision linked to above." Are you referring to WP:ARBEE? I cannot find their username on the decision page. Gamaliel (talk) 17:25, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
|
Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Yossiea~enwiki
AE block lifted per consensus. EdJohnston (talk) 23:25, 18 November 2015 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Statement by Yossiea~enwiki
In regards to the indef
Statement by SwarmFirst, no one complained to me about you. I came across the discussion on my own and acted as an uninvolved administrator. Second, Statement by SerialjoepsychoI have to question if this 48 hour ban is actually enough. [79] I've just noticed in this diff that this user has attempted to canvass users from wikiproject Israel to the discussion. Targeting one interested on a perceived basis of their views, Vote stacking, per WP:CANVAS. There's what seems to me to be WP:IDHT behavior in the discussion. Certainly at the very least warning is called for with the canvassing.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 06:30, 12 November 2015 (UTC) Indefinite?While the comments in regards to a Hezbollah may go abit far, the position is not unreasonable. Wikipedia is not under a rock and it's editors do not live under a rock. A number of organizations/countries consider Hezbollah to be a terrorist organization. If these comments do (I'm not personally suggesting they do) go to far then it comes down to inflamed passions in a contentious topic area. There's plenty of folks that do this same thing without receiving an indef block. If a punishment is necessary in this regard then I ask you instead to consider an indefinite topic ban in regards to ARBPIA related topics. If they've not had any issues in other areas there's no point. Pinging @EdJohnston, Callanecc, and Gamaliel: as the facts have changed and the unban request has thus changed, unless it's necessary to open a new request in which case I apologize.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 22:17, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
ProposalThis is pretty much an aberration on the part of Yossiea the evidence suggests. It relates to a specific topic area. They as far as I understand admit this on their talk page[80]. A ten day block isn't necessary to end the disruption. Blocks and bans are not intended to be a punishment. A simple topic ban will do. Considering that they have suggested that they are aware that this was caused by stress of operating in this area and that they are not interested in operating in this area at this time it seems that the disruption has ended and you could simply take no action and just give them the rope. Any I would propose that you either give them a topic ban or take no other action but simply unblocking hem as soon as the first block is scheduled to end or right away.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 05:53, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
Comment of franp9amAs far as I understand it, Yossiea has been blocked forever. I'm quite new to en wikipedia and am not familiar with all corners of it. I participated in the discussion in the List of Military Occupations. While I don't agree with some of Yossiea overreactions, an indefinite block seems to me a bit too strict. In support of Yossia, I would like to remark that the discussion was quite heated anyway and some comments from "the other side" were also at least on the border of personal attacks, seems to me. (@Liz: Please, if this is the wrong place to write, move it to the right place instead of deleting). As for Liz comment below, I would like to note that Yossiea has not called another editor a terrorist but a "terrorist supporter". While I don't think that such a behaviour is helpful or constructive, it makes a difference. (The quotes given by user:RolandR were made after the block and could not have been the reason for the block). Franp9am (talk) 21:41, 12 November 2015 (UTC) Comment by RolandRFor the sake of accuracy, it should be noted that Franp9am is incorrect in her/his assertion that Yossiea has "has not called another editor a terrorist but a "terrorist supporter"". What Yossiea actually wrote is "I doubt he should be editing this since a terrorist who endorses terror has a COI... Calling a supporter of Hezbollah a terrorist is not attacking an editor in violation of WP:AGF,... To not be able to call a terrorist a terrorist is, have we gone so far PC that the world is upside down?" RolandR (talk) 21:50, 12 November 2015 (UTC) Comment by Nableezy@Rhoark: I am afraid you seriously misunderstand several things. First off, the userbox makes no mention of any group, or even Israel's occupation, and regardless of that, the right to violently resist aggression and foreign occupation is kind of codified in international law. There is no advocacy for violence, its rather a criticism of the inconsistencies in Wikipedia's process for dealing with certain unpopular views. But besides all that, why exactly would it be necessary to question the motives of somebody if they were a supporter of Hezbollah? Are only Zionists permitted to edit articles on Israel? Yossiea said, and thanks Roland for the quote I hadnt seen that, I doubt he should be editing this since a terrorist who endorses terror has a COI. Are people really so close minded to not see that there are multiple viewpoints that exist on such topics as the Arab-Israeli conflict? Or is the argument that only one side of that discussion should be allowed to edit articles on that topic? That is not the Wikipedia I remember. The userbox does not say I support Hezbollah, but even if it did that shouldnt matter. I shouldnt be insulted for such a view no more than I should be able to call a Zionist editor a war crime supporter or a war criminal (the latter being what was done here). People have different views than you, part of being a grown up is accepting that. As to the conflict at the article, no we both didnt have good points. Yossiea's position is backed by zero sources. Not a single serious source claims that Egypt occupies Gaza. That was what the lol no was a response to. Not a "reasonable argument". nableezy - 20:37, 15 November 2015 (UTC) Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Yossiea~enwikiComment by uninvolved AnotherNewAccountNo idea of all of the circumstances surrounding this, but I feel the need to stand up for Yossiea here. Honestly, if you've going to block or topic ban somebody for calling somebody a "terrorist" or such language, then frankly you'll have to block or topic ban half the editors in the topic area! It's a rough-and-tumble area, and sometimes debate does get heated, and I've seen far worse conduct by other users without any admin intervention whatsoever. An indef block or a topic ban is a gross over-reaction here, and I cannot support it - most users get away with merely a warning. By the way, Yossiea seems to have been a model editor until this unfortunate incident. And the condescending attitude shown towards him by Serialjoepsycho on his talk page is totally uncalled for. AnotherNewAccount (talk) 16:02, 15 November 2015 (UTC) Comment by uninvolved RhoarkThis case as well as the case against Jaakobou directly below stem from a userbox displayed by nableezy. The box reads " Yossiea~enwiki and nableezy came into conflict over the question of whether Israel's involvement in the West Bank should be classified as an "occupation". Both had reasonable arguments, but nableezy's comment "lol no."[82] provoked Yossiea to personalize the dispute.[83] The accusation that nableezy is "not interested in the truth" is clearly projecting motives onto nableezy that aren't supportable by evidence. However, I would consider it entirely appropriate to interrogate nableezy's motives in editing about Israeli occupation given the polemical userbox statement referencing Israeli occupation. "Assume good faith" is not a suicide pact. Apparently more contentious than the original issue is Yossiea's use of the word "terrorist". While appealing the block on his talk page he several times referred to nableezy as a "terrorist sympathizer". Honestly, that should be uncontentious, given the statement on nableezy's user page explicitly endorsing violence by "individuals or groups". That leaves no room for excusing the support as applying merely to Hezbollah's political arm or formalized military actions. Once, in a long winding discussion, Yossiea made the lazy gloss of omitting the "sympathizer" part, making for an apparently inaccurate accusation that nableezy is himself a terrorist. That would be very simple to redact, and in no way justifies an indefinite block. The notion that Yossiea's continued defense of wholly defensible statements is grounds for extending the block is Kafkaesque. Yossiea's continuing use of the word "terrorist" is not a pattern of escalating disruption, but a foreseeable consequence of the misplaced scrutiny between the disputants in this matter. Rhoark (talk) 19:24, 15 November 2015 (UTC) Comment by Nishidani
Comment by My very best wishesWhile comments by Yossiea were obviously inappropriate, no one was actually offended including Nableezy, as follows from his comment. Yossiea looks to me as a well-intended long-term contributor who spent a lot of time fixing vandalism problems and making gnomish edits. However, he has poor knowledge of dispute resolution procedures, administrative noticeboards, and sanctions in APBPIA area, as follows from his clumsy attempt to submit an arbitration request, his ridiculous appeal here, and comments on their own talk page. Based on their latest comments, he is ready to make every effort to improve. If I were an admin, my suggestion would be to limit the sanctions by a few day block he already received and a warning at this time. I also think he should voluntarily avoid editing the page List of military occupations that brought him the trouble. P.S. I think his argument about Gaza Strip (that was not West Bank) was reasonable, given that Israel currently conducts a blockade of this area, which is different from straightforward military occupation. My very best wishes (talk) 00:04, 16 November 2015 (UTC) Result of the appeal by Yossiea~enwiki
Per the indef block, this is (slightly modified) what I wrote on Yossiea's talk page: I'm not going to defend Yossiea's behavior - it is combative and uncooperative and he seems to have no awareness that it is inappropriate. But the user in question has had a userbox on his user page since 2010 which complains that he can't have a pro-Hezbollah userbox, and regularly has used his userpage as a soapbox on related issues. I don't think Yossiea should be calling out that editor or any other editor based on their personal views, but I'm not sure an indef block is appropriate in this case. Gamaliel (talk) 22:24, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
Proposal to redefine sanctionI support the indef as an appropriate response to an egregious personal attack which he proceeded to defend as if it were justified. We would not be in the wrong for leaving the block in place, IMO. That being said, I think a reduced, clearly defined sanction would provide the project with the same protection, without an indef. I would support Callanecc's suggestion for an indefinite topic ban for ARBPIA articles and an AE block with the length reset for 10 days. This seems like a sufficiently strong enforcement action and one that would provide ample preventative measures. Jpgordon and any others, objections? Swarm ♠ 05:28, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
Yossiea has posted a relevant message on his user talk page. Gamaliel (talk) 03:30, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
|
Jaakobou
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Request concerning Jaakobou
- User who is submitting this request for enforcement
- Nableezy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 23:34, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
- User against whom enforcement is requested
- Jaakobou (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log
- Sanction or remedy to be enforced
- Wikipedia:ARBPIA#Discretionary sanctions :
- Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
- 01:05, 13 November 2015 Discussing the real world conflict
- 12:13, 12 November 2015 Discussing the real world conflict
- Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any
- 04:16, 8 March 2012 banned indefinitely from all articles, discussions, and other content related to the Arab-Israeli conflict, broadly construed across all namespaces
- Additional comments by editor filing complaint
Didn't feel like adding every diff, but pretty much every edit made by the user since October 30th has been a violation of the topic ban. And add the stealth canvassing to a discussion opened in violation of the ban.
- Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
Discussion concerning Jaakobou
Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.
Statement by Jaakobou
This complaint is with no merit and should be quickly dismissed. I requested a review of a flaw in how policy is implemented.[84] Following that suggestion to go to WP:UP, I prepared text and pinged multiple admins.[85] I Listened to feedback as well.[86][87] Discussion on UP was very slow and with little participation, thus I contacted French, who have some recent knowledge on militancy. I have no special reason to think they support Israel or my preferred addition to the polemics policy -- which you can see does not mention Israel:
- " Poetic militancy in support of or promoting violent acts, quotes and paraphrases to raise the spirit of fight and other forms of political militant activism are not permitted." (on user-pages)
I did mention that there are a lot of stabbing attacks in Israel and changing clarifying the policy is not going to hurt the project. If there is real belief on Arbcom that by mentioning real-world casualties of terrorism in Israel I have crossed the line, I apologize. I've made a considerable effort to make the matter general.
Side note: Nableezy (talk · contribs) has a bit of a history of grinding[88] axes with those "he is disallowed from naming".[89] I actually believe he's in violation of WP:POLEMIC as well, keeping a list of wiki-enemies on his user-page. I hope that others who comment on this request will disclose any COI which they might have. JaakobouChalk Talk 00:30, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
- Also: this. JaakobouChalk Talk 13:53, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
re: @Serialjoepsycho:
- I contacted the French wikiproject and a few contributors on the article for the recent Paris attack. I did so due to low participation rates (RfC) and assuming they are aware of what "militancy" means nowadays. I
had no reason todid not think they would favor my preferred policy amendments and I wanted to get the discussion going. I don't endorse a "let's count votes" mentality. I think they can add insight to the discussion. Perhaps persuade the parties of point a or b or raise a new point or new suggestion as well. In my process, I have contacted for input admins who have disagreed with me as well.[90] I do apologize for losing my patience (after three days and more of this) and using emails. Thatwasn't a good ideawas a bad idea and I will refrain from doing that. JaakobouChalk Talk 02:00, 15 November 2015 (UTC) clearer JaakobouChalk Talk 02:09, 15 November 2015 (UTC) + note, links, rephrase. JaakobouChalk Talk 02:28, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
- re to[91]:
- For some reason, maybe "ideological struggle", maybe not, two prominent participants' statements do not comply with WP:BARS. On and off-wiki matters have been presented with low degree of truth. This happened as well. I am a firm believer in proper disclosure on these matters. Comments like this show you want a balanced reputable Wikipedia. Not sure why, but this came to my mind as well. I will use that last diff as opportunity to reiterate my apology and acknowledgement of misjudgement in sending out a few emails. We've had very few participants and I got impatient and reached out to a project with some knowledge on the issue presented.JaakobouChalk Talk 12:42, 16 November 2015 (UTC) + JaakobouChalk Talk 12:44, 16 November 2015 (UTC) +balanced reputable Wikipedia JaakobouChalk Talk 13:43, 16 November 2015 (UTC) + JaakobouChalk Talk 13:52, 16 November 2015 (UTC) m JaakobouChalk Talk 13:53, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
re: @Nishidani:
- Proper disclosure, though his user-page was
the onlya clear standout from the few I looked at, I refrained from bringing it as example to the POLEMICS discussion.[92] "'Even Gandhi would understand the Palestinians’ violence"[93] is one of a few things that caught my eye. JaakobouChalk Talk 16:14, 15 November 2015 (UTC) - I hope that others who comment on this request will disclose any COI which they might have.
- p.s. This is irrelevant, but Jerusalem is in Israel. JaakobouChalk Talk 16:38, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
Al Rosh HaGanav:
- Proper disclosure on my part with this. Apologies for using an old and often humorously contexted proverb regarding the COI/'direct interest' issue, that wasn't helpful. I was taken by surprise seeing Serialjoepsycho showing clear bias (per: "subjugated population") after he repeatedly insisted that no one needs to disclose anything. JaakobouChalk Talk 12:15, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
- p.s. Not intending to be rude, but a few statements made by Serialjoepsycho about the Israeli-Arab conflict are incorrect. Sample. Anyway, everyone's entitled to their opinion. Though, I hope wiki user-space advocacy and soapboxing favoring violence would find its way out the door.[94]
- Respectfully, JaakobouChalk Talk 14:30, 18 November 2015 (UTC) + link JaakobouChalk Talk 14:36, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
- With regard to my last note: polemics about Israel's military, Palestinian violence, and links to, among others, a dead child are not "nothing polemic".
- -- JaakobouChalk Talk 14:50, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
re [95] by @EdJohnston::
- a) I am not claiming user-space on wikipedia causes violence. Obviously, people with guns don't go around reading wikipedia user-pages. This point is irrelevant.
- b) I asked about bringing this to ARBCOM[96], but was answered that this type of material "is already prohibited"[97]
- c) Like I mentioned to @Callanecc: on their MFD suggestion. It would seem there's always someone reputable to defend policy violations when it comes to a certain small country.
- d) 3 adjacent quotes/paraphrases about Jews, Israeli settlers and Zionism at the top of a user-page. One specifically links "sharpen the weapons with which he will secure his victory" against a certain group of people. Shakespeare, it's not.
- e) It is: "Polemical statements unrelated to Wikipedia, or statements attacking or vilifying groups"[98]
- f) I have no intention of targeting a specific user or making this an Israel-Arab issue. It is the principle of polemics circumvention.
- g) If user-space were to support and/or promote ISIS aggression against Europe, it would be promptly removed. Having to argue about this is an absurdity.
- h) More-so when (outside the West-Bank) the wide scale wave of attacks include 80-year-old women (Rishon Lezion, November 2, 2015) and School teachers (Marseille. 11 hours ago) - not given exception, I am refraining from linking. The point in mentioning this not the conflict I'm living, but the general disrepute such activities can bring to the project and the environment that these type of writings creates for writers in already heated areas.
- i) ISIS support and songs about how the Paris theatre massacre "scratched the enemy’s face, broke his dreams and stopped his satisfaction with time" could be viewed as "very profound and of great value to us in these revolutionary times."[99] -- but are they "already prohibited" or not?
- j) I reiterate my desire is to clarify WP:POLEMIC so that there won't be confusion anymore about what is allowed and what is not.
- Big picture: Support and promotion of terrorism against civilians is inappropriate for wikipedia's user-space.
- With respect, JaakobouChalk Talk 08:23, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
Statement by Serialjoepsycho 2
This falls outside of ARBPIA. While the language used is nonsensical it does nothing to specially target the Israel Arab topic area. Poetic Militancy could just as easily target the Ukraine insurgency and it's supporters.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 23:46, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
- This is stretching broadly construed far beyond intent. AE is not meant as a sword against your enemies. The subject Poetic militancy. It's core focus is not using Wikipedia to promote and support the violence of groups that have in someway been labeled terrorist. Or more specifically not using wikipedia to soapbox. This would target you nableezy and the soapboxing userbox that you have on your user page. That's why we are here.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 00:47, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
- While I agree that this should not fall under WP:ARBPIA or more specifically discretionary sanctions should not be used to handle this. However noting Jaakobou comments I don't wish them walking away thinking their actions were appropriate. They contacted Wikiproject France [[100]] due to the recent terrorist attacks in Paris hoping to find editors favorable to their position. In addition they emailed other users [101] to the discussion. These are very clear violations of WP:CANVASS.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 01:33, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
- Jaakobou, you don't have to explain yourself to me. I really don't care. If you didn't know the canvassing policy before that's fine. You've been made aware of it now. It's unacceptable. WP:Canvass. Contacting wikiproject France would never be appropriate for this discussion. You can't target them at all period. Not because you think they will have a favorable opinion. You can not target them because you think will have some special insight because they were attacked by terrorists yesterday. WP:CANVASS explains how to do an appropriate notification. You can get impatient and seek further comment but with the appropriate notification.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 02:31, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
- Jaakobou, that's not a COI. There's nothing to disclose.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 02:25, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
- Honestly I still don't feel should be held under WP:ARBPIA. I feel this is more of a matter for ANI. However this topic area is increasingly becoming the sole focus of the conversation. -Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 12:14, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
- Jaakobou, that's not a COI. There's nothing to disclose.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 02:25, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
- Jaakobou, you don't have to explain yourself to me. I really don't care. If you didn't know the canvassing policy before that's fine. You've been made aware of it now. It's unacceptable. WP:Canvass. Contacting wikiproject France would never be appropriate for this discussion. You can't target them at all period. Not because you think they will have a favorable opinion. You can not target them because you think will have some special insight because they were attacked by terrorists yesterday. WP:CANVASS explains how to do an appropriate notification. You can get impatient and seek further comment but with the appropriate notification.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 02:31, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
- While I agree that this should not fall under WP:ARBPIA or more specifically discretionary sanctions should not be used to handle this. However noting Jaakobou comments I don't wish them walking away thinking their actions were appropriate. They contacted Wikiproject France [[100]] due to the recent terrorist attacks in Paris hoping to find editors favorable to their position. In addition they emailed other users [101] to the discussion. These are very clear violations of WP:CANVASS.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 01:33, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
Jaakobou, Clear bias? That's asinine. Palestine territories are a subjugated population. They have been under military occupation since 1967. They have been under the control of Israel since that time and have not been allowed to practice their right to self determination.
Further I don't have a conflict of interest. You suggesting that I do brings up a real question of competency. Competence is required here.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 13:09, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
- This is actually becoming pure jackassery at this point. This is not a place to discuss the Palestine-Israel conflict, you are barred from doing so, and your passive aggressive attempts at doing so with out violating that are unclear anyway. I'm some how so wrong but it's not clear what I'm wrong on. Am I wrong that they are under military occupation? Am I wrong that they have been unable to practice their right to self determination? Showing that they have limited self government proves neither wrong, nor does it suggest either is wrong. I would respond to your other comments but like the comments I've already responded to they seem purposeless.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 23:06, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
- At this point I just need to walk away. The discussion of issue is about a Wikipedia policy. Even if someone is topic banned from something they need to need to be given enough leeway so to discuss it if it's tangentially related to issues that the wikipedia policy discussion is about. Such leeway should be used with discretion certainly, but per the canvassing issue alone I don't think they violated any reasonable discretion. This is not the first time anyone has violated the canvassing policy with out knowing about it. Seems reasonable that they were not aware of it considering their reactions. Still it is concerning that they don't seem to understand the canvassing policy and their comments related to it after the policy was pointed out. Regarding anything else I can't argue that they used in reasonable discretion in this conversation. And thus I walk away.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 03:24, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
Statement by nableezy
- He's using examples specifically within the topic area. this is a direct reference to Tiamut's user page (the Incitement to "sharpen the weapons" against Jews, albeit masqueraded as a paraphrase on Shakespeare (quoted from an Arab newspaper) and whatnot), a user Jaak has an interaction ban with. That same diff discusses "Arab 'mukawama'" (which despite what the user thinks isnt an Arab doctrine of conflict enhancement whatever that is supposed to mean, it's the Arabic word for resistance). And pretty much every article he links to in for example this, this, and this is about ongoing attacks in Israel and the Palestinian territories. The user is banned from discussing the conflict anywhere on Wikipedia, so I disagree that this falls outside of ARBPIA. He could have worded it so that it did, but he has not. nableezy - 00:21, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
- I really dont think its stretching anything, considering what caused Jaak to be banned indefinitely in the first place was pretty much this exact same discussion. Discussing the actual conflict on Wikipedia is part of his ban, not much need for any construal. nableezy - 07:28, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
Statement by Nishidani
I did mention that there are a lot of stabbing attacks in Israel
Jaakobou. You might rephrase that to read 'there are a lot of stabbing attacks in Jerusalem and the West Bank', which are not in Israel.Nishidani (talk) 14:07, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
- Reading this it appears clear that you wish to return to Wikipedia to edit about 'Arab' stabbings, precisely the kind of 'militant' interest in advancing a POV that got you banned in the first place. We have an abundant number of socks, POV pushers, and IPs already diligently applying themselves to fanning the flames here, as witness the remarkable number of redlinked editors jumping into I/P articles since October. Nishidani (talk) 14:31, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
- Once could consider this evidence of why Jaakobou should not return to Wikipedia. He pings me to reply to the following question: 'Q: Aren't you tired of promotion and legitimization of violence against civilians?. This is a gross distortion of what I do here, and a personal attack on my presence in the I/P area.It is effectively saying that in simply looking after articles on the death tolls of violence in that area, by noting down that there are numerous Palestinian casualties, I am encouraging violence against (Israeli) civilians. How long may Jaakobou be given leave from his sanction to conduct a polite form of character assassination?Nishidani (talk) 15:16, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
Statement by (username)
Result concerning Jaakobou
- This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
- Yes linking to anything related to the Arab-Israeli conflict is a violation of the TBAN (which I didn't know about before) including the offwiki articles however I believe that Jaakobou didn't realise it was a violation. I don't believe that sanctions are warranted, so I wonder if Timotheus Canens would consider an exemption to allow Jaakobou to continue the discussion on WT:UP (or lifting the TBAN completely). In any case, Jaakobou, youplease do not make any further edits which relate to the Arab-Israeli conflict (including discussing or linking to 'poetic militancy' related to the Arab-Israeli) until we hear back from Tim. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:00, 19 November 2015
- I too would oppose lifting Jaakobou's ARBPIA topic ban or granting an exemption. In the early days of Wikipedia there were some userbox crusades. In the ARBPIA area it's enough work for admins just to keep on top of the article edits in hopes of keeping them neutral. On Tiamut's page we have a quote from Shakespeare where the word 'Jew' is replaced by 'Palestinian.' Tiamut's page was cited by Jaakobou in a message to Callanecc. It is hard to view this quotation as an argument for knife attacks on the West Bank. EdJohnston (talk) 05:07, 19 November 2015 (UTC)