Misplaced Pages

:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Arbitration | Requests Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 22:35, 18 March 2008 editThatcher (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users28,287 edits →A recap from Jaakobou's perspective: this has gone far enough← Previous edit Revision as of 22:36, 18 March 2008 edit undoThatcher (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users28,287 edits →A recap from Jaakobou's perspective: archiveNext edit →
Line 14: Line 14:


==A recap from Jaakobou's perspective== ==A recap from Jaakobou's perspective==
{{report top|THIS ENDS NOW. Comments below. ] 22:36, 18 March 2008 (UTC)}}
* I haven't been at my best this week. Numerically I'm at a disadvantage at this dispute, and I've let things get under my skin, and made a few posts that could be better phrased. If that means a week long topic ban I'll take my lumps. What I'd like to demonstrate here is that, from my viewpoint, a number of other editors were acting provocatively. * I haven't been at my best this week. Numerically I'm at a disadvantage at this dispute, and I've let things get under my skin, and made a few posts that could be better phrased. If that means a week long topic ban I'll take my lumps. What I'd like to demonstrate here is that, from my viewpoint, a number of other editors were acting provocatively.


Line 100: Line 101:
*Arbitration enforcement is, by its nature, and regrettably, somewhat arbitrary. Unlike Arbitration cases, which may have several weeks for the presentation of evidence and the expectation that the voting Arbitrators will read the entire presentation, enforcement is handled on an ad hoc basis by whichever admins happen to take an interest in this page. I certainly do my best to familiarize myself with a situation before making a decision, and I hope other admins do the same. But there is no human way to guarantee perfect fairness. Admins are not ] or even ; we do our best. *Arbitration enforcement is, by its nature, and regrettably, somewhat arbitrary. Unlike Arbitration cases, which may have several weeks for the presentation of evidence and the expectation that the voting Arbitrators will read the entire presentation, enforcement is handled on an ad hoc basis by whichever admins happen to take an interest in this page. I certainly do my best to familiarize myself with a situation before making a decision, and I hope other admins do the same. But there is no human way to guarantee perfect fairness. Admins are not ] or even ; we do our best.
*It's a one-week topic ban. Deal with it. A 10,200 word colloquy on the subject is neither required nor appreciated. Reports made on this page should be '''brief''' and '''concise''' with '''specific diffs''' showing violations of Arbitration rulings. Jaakobou may make such reports as he believes are justified by the evidence. ] 22:35, 18 March 2008 (UTC) *It's a one-week topic ban. Deal with it. A 10,200 word colloquy on the subject is neither required nor appreciated. Reports made on this page should be '''brief''' and '''concise''' with '''specific diffs''' showing violations of Arbitration rulings. Jaakobou may make such reports as he believes are justified by the evidence. ] 22:35, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

{{report bottom}}


==Question== ==Question==

Revision as of 22:36, 18 March 2008

Click here to add a new enforcement request
For appeals: create a new section and use the template {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}}
See also: Logged AE sanctions

Important informationShortcuts

Please use this page only to:

  • request administrative action against editors violating a remedy (not merely a principle) or an injunction in an Arbitration Committee decision, or a contentious topic restriction imposed by an administrator,
  • request contentious topic restrictions against previously alerted editors who engage in misconduct in a topic area designated as a contentious topic,
  • request page restrictions (e.g. revert restrictions) on pages that are being disrupted in topic areas designated as contentious topics, or
  • appeal arbitration enforcement actions (including contentious topic restrictions) to uninvolved administrators.

For all other problems, including content disagreements or the enforcement of community-imposed sanctions, please use the other fora described in the dispute resolution process. To appeal Arbitration Committee decisions, please use the clarification and amendment noticeboard.

Only autoconfirmed users may file enforcement requests here; requests filed by IPs or accounts less than four days old or with less than 10 edits will be removed. All users are welcome to comment on requests except where doing so would violate an active restriction (such as an extended-confirmed restriction). If you make an enforcement request or comment on a request, your own conduct may be examined as well, and you may be sanctioned for it. Enforcement requests and statements in response to them may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. (Word Count Tool) Statements must be made in separate sections. Non-compliant contributions may be removed or shortened by administrators. Disruptive contributions such as personal attacks, or groundless or vexatious complaints, may result in blocks or other sanctions.

To make an enforcement request, click on the link above this box and supply all required information. Incomplete requests may be ignored. Requests reporting diffs older than one week may be declined as stale. To appeal a contentious topic restriction or other enforcement decision, please create a new section and use the template {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}}.

Appeals and administrator modifications of contentious topics restrictions

The Arbitration Committee procedures relating to modifications of contentious topic restrictions state the following:

All contentious topic restrictions (and logged warnings) may be appealed. Only the restricted editor may appeal an editor restriction. Any editor may appeal a page restriction.

The appeal process has three possible stages. An editor appealing a restriction may:

  1. ask the administrator who first made the contentious topic restrictions (the "enforcing administrator") to reconsider their original decision;
  2. request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators' noticeboard ("AN"); and
  3. submit a request for amendment ("ARCA"). If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email.

Appeals submitted at AE or AN must be submitted using the applicable template.

A rough consensus of administrators at AE or editors at AN may specify a period of up to one year during which no appeals (other than an appeal to ARCA) may be submitted.

Changing or revoking a contentious topic restriction

An administrator may only modify or revoke a contentious topic restriction if a formal appeal is successful or if one of the following exceptions applies:

  • The administrator who originally imposed the contentious topic restriction (the "enforcing administrator") affirmatively consents to the change, or is no longer an administrator; or
  • The contentious topic restriction was imposed (or last renewed) more than a year ago and:
    • the restriction was imposed by a single administrator, or
    • the restriction was an indefinite block.

A formal appeal is successful only if one of the following agrees with revoking or changing the contentious topic restriction:

  • a clear consensus of uninvolved administrators at AE,
  • a clear consensus of uninvolved editors at AN,
  • a majority of the Arbitration Committee, acting through a motion at ARCA.

Any administrator who revokes or changes a contentious topic restriction out of process (i.e. without the above conditions being met) may, at the discretion of the Arbitration Committee, be desysopped.

Standard of review
On community review

Uninvolved administrators at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") and uninvolved editors at the administrators' noticeboard ("AN") should revoke or modify a contentious topic restriction on appeal if:

  1. the action was inconsistent with the contentious topics procedure or applicable policy (i.e. the action was out of process),
  2. the action was not reasonably necessary to prevent damage or disruption when first imposed, or
  3. the action is no longer reasonably necessary to prevent damage or disruption.
On Arbitration Committee review

Arbitrators hearing an appeal at a request for amendment ("ARCA") will generally overturn a contentious topic restriction only if:

  1. the action was inconsistent with the contentious topics procedure or applicable policy (i.e. the action was out of process),
  2. the action represents an unreasonable exercise of administrative enforcement discretion, or
  3. compelling circumstances warrant the full Committee's action.
  1. The administrator may indicate consent at any time before, during, or after imposition of the restriction.
  2. This criterion does not apply if the original action was imposed as a result of rough consensus at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, as there would be no single enforcing administrator.
Appeals and administrator modifications of non-contentious topics sanctions

The Arbitration Committee procedures relating to modifications and appeals state:

Appeals by sanctioned editors

Appeals may be made only by the editor under sanction and only for a currently active sanction. Requests for modification of page restrictions may be made by any editor. The process has three possible stages (see "Important notes" below). The editor may:

  1. ask the enforcing administrator to reconsider their original decision;
  2. request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators’ noticeboard ("AN"); and
  3. submit a request for amendment at the amendment requests page ("ARCA"). If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email through Special:EmailUser/Arbitration Committee (or, if email access is revoked, to arbcom-en@wikimedia.org).
Modifications by administrators

No administrator may modify or remove a sanction placed by another administrator without:

  1. the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or
  2. prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" below).

Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped.

Nothing in this section prevents an administrator from replacing an existing sanction issued by another administrator with a new sanction if fresh misconduct has taken place after the existing sanction was applied.

Administrators are free to modify sanctions placed by former administrators – that is, editors who do not have the administrator permission enabled (due to a temporary or permanent relinquishment or desysop) – without regard to the requirements of this section. If an administrator modifies a sanction placed by a former administrator, the administrator who made the modification becomes the "enforcing administrator". If a former administrator regains the tools, the provisions of this section again apply to their unmodified enforcement actions.

Important notes:

  1. For a request to succeed, either
(i) the clear and substantial consensus of (a) uninvolved administrators at AE or (b) uninvolved editors at AN or
(ii) a passing motion of arbitrators at ARCA
is required. If consensus at AE or AN is unclear, the status quo prevails.
  2. While asking the enforcing administrator and seeking reviews at AN or AE are not mandatory prior to seeking a decision from the committee, once the committee has reviewed a request, further substantive review at any forum is barred. The sole exception is editors under an active sanction who may still request an easing or removal of the sanction on the grounds that said sanction is no longer needed, but such requests may only be made once every six months, or whatever longer period the committee may specify.
  3. These provisions apply only to contentious topic restrictions placed by administrators and to blocks placed by administrators to enforce arbitration case decisions. They do not apply to sanctions directly authorized by the committee, and enacted either by arbitrators or by arbitration clerks, or to special functionary blocks of whatever nature.
  4. All actions designated as arbitration enforcement actions, including those alleged to be out of process or against existing policy, must first be appealed following arbitration enforcement procedures to establish if such enforcement is inappropriate before the action may be reversed or formally discussed at another venue.
Information for administrators processing requests

Thank you for participating in this area. AE works best if there are a variety of admins bringing their expertise to each case. There is no expectation to comment on every case, and the Arbitration Committee (ArbCom) thanks all admins for whatever time they can give.

A couple of reminders:

  • Before commenting, please familiarise yourself with the referenced ArbCom case. Please also read all the evidence (including diffs) presented in the AE request.
  • When a request widens to include editors beyond the initial request, these editors must be notified and the notifications recorded in the same way as for the initial editor against whom sanctions were requested. Where some part of the outcome is clear, a partial close may be implemented and noted as "Result concerning X".
  • Enforcement measures in arbitration cases should be construed liberally to protect Misplaced Pages and keep it running efficiently. Some of the behaviour described in an enforcement request might not be restricted by ArbCom. However, it may violate other Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines; you may use administrative discretion to resolve it.
  • More than one side in a dispute may have ArbCom conduct rulings applicable to them. Please ensure these are investigated.

Closing a thread:

  • Once an issue is resolved, enclose it between {{hat}} and {{hab}} tags. A bot should archive it in 7 days.
  • Please consider referring the case to ARCA if the outcome is a recommendation to do so or the issue regards administrator conduct.
  • You can use the templates {{uw-aeblock}} (for blocks) or {{AE sanction}} (for other contentious topic restrictions) to give notice of sanctions on user talk pages.
  • Please log sanctions in the Arbitration enforcement log.

Thanks again for helping. If you have any questions, please post on the talk page.

Arbitration enforcement archives
1234567891011121314151617181920
2122232425262728293031323334353637383940
4142434445464748495051525354555657585960
6162636465666768697071727374757677787980
81828384858687888990919293949596979899100
101102103104105106107108109110111112113114115116117118119120
121122123124125126127128129130131132133134135136137138139140
141142143144145146147148149150151152153154155156157158159160
161162163164165166167168169170171172173174175176177178179180
181182183184185186187188189190191192193194195196197198199200
201202203204205206207208209210211212213214215216217218219220
221222223224225226227228229230231232233234235236237238239240
241242243244245246247248249250251252253254255256257258259260
261262263264265266267268269270271272273274275276277278279280
281282283284285286287288289290291292293294295296297298299300
301302303304305306307308309310311312313314315316317318319320
321322323324325326327328329330331332333334335336337338339340
341342343344345346


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.

A recap from Jaakobou's perspective

The following discussion is an archived report. Please do not modify it. Subsequent reports should be made in a new section.
THIS ENDS NOW. Comments below. Thatcher 22:36, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
  • I haven't been at my best this week. Numerically I'm at a disadvantage at this dispute, and I've let things get under my skin, and made a few posts that could be better phrased. If that means a week long topic ban I'll take my lumps. What I'd like to demonstrate here is that, from my viewpoint, a number of other editors were acting provocatively.
  • I'm also a bit unconvinced that Addhoc, who recently contributed and/or discussed content on Gush Shalom and Daniel Pipes (both extremely political Israel-Palestine related articles); should have been the one to implement administrative decisions on a pre-conceived determination that I'm disruptive, while neglecting Arbcom procedures that editors should be first warned and given the chance to correct problems This is not intended to claim that he is purposely biased, but that he was perhaps too quick to reject my good faith step back from my harsh language response to soapboxing on a heated dispute.
    • I believe this perception was increased by (a) not allowing me to post diffs to the not so good faith behavior of other editors and (b) accepting these "repeatedly explained" versions of events at face value.
  • I'm not requesting an unblock but believe other editors' activity, specifically Tiamut, Nickhh, Sm8900 and Nishidani, should be given proper examination and possible sanctions should be considered when their activity is placed in comparison with my own.
  • ** Palestine-Israel_articles: Final_decision: Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be given a warning with a link to this decision; and, where appropriate, should be counseled on specific steps that he or she can take to improve his or her editing in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines.

- related comment by Jaakobou: "I apologize for aggressive behavior"..."If there is any comment that catches your attention, I am interested in retracting it and apologizing."

Summary recap

Reminder: this is not an unblock request, but rather a request that behavior of other editors be examined in proper context.

Despite my retraction of harder language a mere one and a half hours after it was made (in response to other editor's soapboxing) and my suggestion that I'd be willing to retract any other possibly offensive statement; Tiamut tries to have me blocked to impose her POV, Sm8900 disrupts discussions by ignoring RfC concerns and Nickhh and Nishidani are both being down right abusive. I'd gladly take this 1 week topic ban; however if Tiamut ignores RfC, commits repeated advocacy soapboxing and uses AE as a weapon (despite my quick attempts to scale things down); Nickhh soapboxes and commits 2 separate NPA violations, Sm8900 blatantly ignores Dispute resolutions and is being disruptive to the RfC process, and Nishidani also soapboxes heavily about "indiscriminate notorious deeds". Personally, being that I've admitted to my one time mishap (I don't make a habit of soapboxing and have contributed to 3 featured materials) and retracted a mere hour and a half after it was made, I believe the proper protocol as suggested by the Arbcom Final Decisions, suggests I deserve a warning but not a full week ban. However, sick and tired of relentless soapboxing on talk pages, I'm more than willing to take on a weekly topic ban if only my fellow editors are sanctioned properly according to their conduct as well. Jaakobou 20:50, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Longer recap of events (a bit boring and cluttered)

Michael made a 7:2 slightly pro-Palestinian POV suggestion and the following occurred:

  • Tiamut rejects the suggested compromise and further soapboxes that it would be "misleading the reader" to phrase otherwise. She continues with WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT attitude, by making a text suggestion that's equal to the very version that was rejected in the starting point of the RfC. Sm8900 notes his approval to this, ignoring the RfC as well and suggesting "if editors on a particular side never budge, we will get nowhere."
  • I got fed up/took the bait with the WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, "can't be described anything other than" mentality and long-going soapboxing; and made a comment to that sense, "If you consider "resistance" and "struggle" to be a "good faith compromise suggestion" than I have a completely different perspective -- I find those suggestions insulting ]." 14:42, 17 March 2008
  • Nickhh responds by ignoring my point, claiming to be an "outside observer", and soapboxing also about "40 years of military occupation" followed by a personal attack warping my words and claiming "Plenty of people more knowledgeable than you disagree" ignoring the RfC as well - I clarify and request he refrain from personal attacks.
  • Sm8900 [warps my text also as if I demanded that the Palestinian perspective be retracted (I never did).
  • Upset at the personal attack by Nickhh and the general "no RfC" responses; I use the poor phrasing, "disillusioned perspective" while noting that I was willing to accept the inclusion of the Palestinian perspective, if only the Israeli perspective is included also. I continue to explain that If 'Palestinian affiliation' editors wish their own "struggle" terminology implemented into articles, then that comes hand in hand with an equal presentations from the 'Israeli affiliation'.
  • Sm8900 responds by insults me (and possibly Palestinians as well) as if I'm claiming Palestinians are irrational and requests me to allow their version because of that irrationality. I respond by reminding him that I did not object to inclusion of Palestinian perspective.
  • I then notice the hight of the flames and in my desire to tone things down I request clarifications from Tiamut and/or Sm8900 why they believe Tiamut's suggested version (which mimics the version that caused for an RfC) fixed the issues raised on the RfC. 16:12, 17 March 2008 and I proceed to also strike out some of the harder language which I've made an hour and a half earlier. 16:19, 17 March 2008
  • I note this to Tiamut and add she can "let me know if there's anything else that needs toning down" 16:26, 17 March 2008; Tiamut, fails to admit that she shares in the WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT/WP:SOAP problem on the page; notes that she is a Palestinian woman, and proceeds to post this thread on 16:30, 17 March 2008, trying to use AE as a weapon.
  • Meantime on the talk page, Sm8900 claims there was never a conflict and insults me again. I remind him of the editors who agreed with me on the RfC leading him to apologize that he was merely "joking".
  • Nickhh once again makes a personal attack starting by claiming I want a version that presents Arab Muslims as warped people and continuing to soapbox about the 'Nile and Euphrates'. He adds a mock apology to laugh at my earlier request that he remain civil.

-- Jaakobou 20:50, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Comments by involved parties

Is there a section here for comments by uninvolved editors? shouldn't there be one? thanks.

Also, do the Arbcom editors come in to say which items they wish to look at or comment on? thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 21:06, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Nickhh Comment: I really not sure this issue needs any comment from me or anyone else, on this page or any other page, but I will make a couple of general remarks which cover the main thrust of the accusations, as opposed to doing a point by point rebuttal of every complaint - 1) I stand by my assertion that people who understand how English words work (and I mean reliable sources on this, not just some editors rather than others) are better qualified to explain what those words mean. How is this controversial or difficult, even if I will accept I could have phrased the point a little less bluntly? Also Jaakobou, in the link to your rant that you kindly but perhaps oddly keep providing for everyone, you suggested that "your perspective" is that the Arabs/Palestinian "public" are "indoctrinated" and want to "kill as many Jews as possible" and to "clear the Middle East of Jews"; so I don't think for me to say you described Arabs as being "warped" or "genocidal" was an unfair exaggeration of your words. You were even insisting that some of that language actually go into the article. I think there's a genuine lack of thought going on here as to how what you say comes across to others. Thanks --Nickhh (talk) 21:25, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Nickhh and others posting here, for the most part. Jaakobou, this whole issue began with your counter-productive comments, which were completely injurious to Misplaced Pages, the approach to the topics at hand, and professional and constructive relaations between editors of varying viewpoints and affiliations. I really don't think you're helping your case by casting aspersions on editors like us who attempted to handle things verbally, and to try in vain to get you to be more constructive on the talk page. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 21:30, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Question by Jaakobou to Nickhh: I had not suggested that all Arabs are indoctrinated, but rather suicide bomemrs like Hussam Abdo, and Wafa al-Bis. Clearly, there is a general problem of indoctrination if Palestinian textbooks and Hamas "educational" television programming promote "martyrdom". My phrasing also made sure not to distinguish between Jewish-Israelis and Arab Israelis, and I consider the Palestinian population to also be victims of this mentality.. so, why are you warping my comments and making these personal attacks? Jaakobou 21:43, 18 March 2008 (UTC) add citation 21:46, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
p.s. I don't see what's so shocking that many Israelis and Arabs perceive the Palestinian cause as a struggle/war to clear the middle east of the Jewish state... this is a position held by Palestinian Authority TV and their 'moderate' president. Jaakobou 22:05, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, I've said all I'm going to say. This is bordering on trolling now, seriously. User: Durova, come and rescue your mentoree. --Nickhh (talk) 21:49, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Nishidani Comment. User:Jaakobou. Of the many people with whom I dialogue here, you seem, rather singularly, to take exception to me, for my use of the word 'ethical' on occasion, or for my long explanations of why I back this or that edit (soapboxing). I do arguely strongly for the position I adopt. I do also, whenever asked, supply any number of book references to show where in the academic literature my judgements come from. I must admit that this recent altercation, my involvement in it, came simply from observing what I thought was a gross breach of gentlemanly etiquette. I responded most strongly. I do not regard this as a 'clash of civilizations' where one of two worlds must prevail, as you appear to do. I have contributed, I hope substantially to pages on Jewish intellectuals I deeply admire, from Hilberg (a Republican)to Finkelstein (a communist). My purpose here is to make sure, as far as I can, that the realities of Palestinian history are given their due voice. In this I am simply following the lessons I learnt from Jewish mentors, and that trenchant tradition of criticism with which so many Jews have enriched our modernity. I remained somewhat bewildered when I see this extreme nationalist passion, posts that speak of 'my people' (no one has a right to speak in the name of a people, when giving a personal opinion. The point was made by Theodor Adorno in his Minima Moralia. I am disconcerted when a fellow editor, User:Itzse can write on Addhoc's page that, if the ban is not lifted, you, Jaakobou will be 'missing in action'. This language of battle or do or die warfare, of the 'Arab world' as a lethal monolith of racist bent (Arnold Toynbee admired it in the 1950s because it seemed to him the least 'racist' of the three monotheistic worlds, rightly or wrongly I do not know), this puts many of us in a 'redoubt', in defensive lines against salients that will brook no idea that there can be two sides to history, and that in writing history, both sides are owed due representation. When finally you take my documented defense of the word 'uprising' (based on the OED and Ovendale's book, among 10 other academic sources I have examined) as equivalent to supporting a 'Palestinian take on events is "the most neutral",' (see your remarks above) you are twisting by your synthetic headings to the links, the facts, as any neutral eye can see. I was not supporting a 'Palestinian' perspective, I was defending the proper use of the English language. If you cannot see this, then much of what I or others write must perforce assume a minatory aspect, of heartless insinuation. Nishidani (talk) 21:59, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
  • I cannot see anything that qualifies as incivility or soapboxing in the comments I have made (nor those of others, though I admittedly did not examine them as closely as my own). I am open to being corrected on that if someone can point me to an actual example of where I could improve.
  • I am frankly disappointed that rather than simply accepting a one-week topic editing ban that Jaakobou has instead chosen to respond by casting aspersions upon other editors. If he had such serious concerns, he should have brought them to Durova or here before "responding in kind".
  • Since the Arbcomm case, I have not received a warning from an admin indicating that there are problems with my editing behaviour. The only complaints editors raised regarding my editing behaviour then was my block log record for 3RR. I have not been blocked since and have significantly reduced my tendency towards edit-warring by generally disengaging or discussing as required. I do not believe that my behaviour is at issue here. Though I am open to hearing what others have to say regarding the matter.

As for Jaakobou's complaint that he is being singled out here, I think it is without merit, for the following reasons:

  • A little more than a month ago, Jaakobou was warned by Rlseve (the final warning that comes before admins may take discrtionary actions)
  • A few days ago, a thread was opened here by El C regarding Jaakobou's mockery of my mourning template and it closed (rather prematurely) on the same day
  • Durova was the last to comment in the thread, saying, "Let's chalk this up as one ugly misunderstanding. Sensitive subjects + sleep deprivation are the bane of harmonious editing. Now it's high time I got to those Maori textiles (and some other things). Best regards, DurovaCharge! 18:30, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Just hours after Jaakobou and I had concluded our discussion on the previous issue, Jaakobou engaged in soapboxing and thinly veiled personal attacks, which included racist comments, at Talk:Second Intifada , .
  • Jaakobou has not apologized for these latest comments, and has instead sought to blame others for his outburst. This is evidenced in his first response to my post raising the concern on his talk page and in the whole rigamorale of activities that have followed.
  • In the original Arbcomm case, evidence presented by Number57 states: "The fact that Jaakobou requests discussing his problematic behaviour off-wiki (in the e-mails he sent he said that he "can probably explain my overall position to you by instant messaging") suggests that he is attempting to sweet-talk editors into overlooking his misdemeanours instead of facing up to his actions." I submit that this has been the case as regards the last two threads discussing his behaviour here.
  • Durova spent 12 hours on instant messaging with Jaakobou after the WP:AE report filed by El C. Without Durova's intervention on his behalf, he would likely have been sanctioned, since he had already received a final warning and what he did was widely recognized as wholly inappropriate. After he apologized to me personally, I decided to accept his apology in good faith, thinking it would encourage him to better behaviour and help promote a more collegial atmosphere all around. Jaakobou's actions subsequent therefore leave much to be desired.
  • Note too that Jaakobou continued, even as the latest case was ongoing, to single me out on the talk page at Second Intifada, accusing me of soapboxing, for stating my position on how the text should read..
  • At this point, I think Jaakobou's behaviour amounts to harassment. The tendentiousness of his edits and commentaries is not subsiding with time, it is getting worse. I believe this is because he has repeatedly managed to escape sanctions for actions that other editors have been blocked and banned for by appealing to higher authorities for special exemptions. Addhoc's decision was the right one, though I think it has perhaps come too late. Had Jaakobou been dealt with more firmly earlier on, I don't believe we would have witnessed the escalation that we have seen in the last week. With respect, Tiamut 22:02, 18 March 2008 (UTC)


Regarding Tiamut
Jaakobou writes "Tiamut tries to have me blocked to impose her POV". This is incorrect, as evidenced by Tiamut's statement on the mediation page: "One more thing, User:Jaakobou, a key party in the dispute, is not able to edit I-P related articles for this upcoming week. I propose that we not open the case formally until he can participate fully since his involvement thus far has been extensive and his agreement to whatever compromise is reached, is in my view, important." Although Tiamut's earlier behavior certainly demonstrated a lack of understanding, I think that Tiamut's more recent behavior has demonstrated understanding -- especially given my own conduct --, and I do not think that Tiamut deserves to be banned. ← Michael Safyan 22:18, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Regarding all the editors
I think that none of the editors should be banned. This is not a productive way to solve conflicts, and it only deepens animosity between editors who are already predisposed to hostility due their opposing viewpoints on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Occassional soapboxing -- which is sometimes necessary to alert editors to a POV other than their own -- should not be cause for banning. ← Michael Safyan 22:18, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

STOP!

  • Arbitration enforcement is, by its nature, and regrettably, somewhat arbitrary. Unlike Arbitration cases, which may have several weeks for the presentation of evidence and the expectation that the voting Arbitrators will read the entire presentation, enforcement is handled on an ad hoc basis by whichever admins happen to take an interest in this page. I certainly do my best to familiarize myself with a situation before making a decision, and I hope other admins do the same. But there is no human way to guarantee perfect fairness. Admins are not Solomon or even Daniel; we do our best.
  • It's a one-week topic ban. Deal with it. A 10,200 word colloquy on the subject is neither required nor appreciated. Reports made on this page should be brief and concise with specific diffs showing violations of Arbitration rulings. Jaakobou may make such reports as he believes are justified by the evidence. Thatcher 22:35, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Question

I'd like to ask a question, if i may. Is it possible to request the active mediation and intervention of administrators of this page in discussions here, to prevent them from going too far off track? i feel this might behelpful in the section pertaining to Jaakobou, in which both sides have reasonable concerns, but it seems hard to prevent a whole slew of issues of related issues from getting tossed in as well. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 13:57, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

User:Grandy Grandy

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:
  1. 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.
  2. The editor was put on notice of the case by Stifle in December, as evidenced by his talk page.
  3. 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.
  4. 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)" .
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)
This is long term pattern. I can support indef but could also live with a minimum of one month. I suggest waiting a month and see if other socks appear, then decide. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:15, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I think that the ban should be indefinite (or at least for a year) on any Balkans related articles. This is not a slight transgression but the deliberate actions of someone who has a very specific POV in this area and has been willing to push it using two accounts to make it appear that the user had more support than they actually had. This is not a case of using a sock puppet to occasionally support a particular POV in the odd straw poll, but using it to attempt to force through a particular POV on the page by by using accounts to avoid the 3RR . During late January and early February while this editor was taking a Wiki-break and therefore not editing the Bosnian Genocide page those editors left were able to work out a compromise version which had proved impossible while this editor was involved during which time there had been RfCs and 3 attempts at mediation. However twice since the compromise was agreed, this editor had tried to revert the page to a version they liked although no other editor editing the page agrees. , So it looks as if this editor will revert to a version (s)he prefers even after an absence of a month and even if the consensus among other editors of the page is for a different version. BTW it seems that The Dragon of Bosnia is th the olders account and the oterh two are sock puppets.

  • The Dragon of Bosnia is an older account created at 1:34 on 20 February 2007
  • Grandy Grandy first edit was at 05:38 on 27 September 2007. Almost immediately the account was used to edit war on Bosnian Genocide.
  • Geographer X first edit at 14:34 on 13 October 2007

--Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 21:01, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Rjecina (talk · contribs)

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 . In my thinking he has commited mistake because I have not done for what he has accused me 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 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 during time when he has been banned, using multiple accounts to edit article and edit warring

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 . 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)

Jaakobou (talk · contribs)

The following discussion is an archived report. Please do not modify it. Subsequent reports should be made in a new section.
Jaakobou is banned from all Israel and Palestine related pages for a week. Addhoc (talk) 14:14, 18 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." 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. Tiamut 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. Jaakobou 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. Jaakobou 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. Jaakobou 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". Tiamut 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. Jaakobou 17:13, 17 March 2008 (UTC) small addition. Jaakobou 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 18:09, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

The problem is his disruptive conduct, not his views. Addhoc (talk) 18:38, 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 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 18:35, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
The article and talk page are under arbcom probation, which covers soapboxing. I don't think additional probation restrictions are required. Addhoc (talk) 18:38, 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. Tiamut 18:46, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
It is? Where does it say that it is under arbcom probation? ← Michael Safyan 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. Tiamut 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 Misplaced Pages e-mail and I'll send you an invite. Durova 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)

; 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:
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:)
And here's an exchange that captures what I was getting at above:
Nicknh: 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: 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. <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 ]... makes you look rather desperate"
  • "Jayjg... anyone who opposed his fairly ludicrous interpretation" -
  • "I can't help but wonder if a person or persons is pushing for the POV of the Israeli extreme right" -
  • "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." -
  • "I'm aware that there are far worse Israeli right-wingers than Netanyahu. Some of them edit Misplaced Pages." -
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 (, ), 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 since the editor already knew the nature of the quote which he reinserted.
With respect, Jaakobou 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)
Let's for one moment assume that you are correct and the quote was not made on march 5th after a weekend of terror attacks, how does that justify the rest of your personal attacks and your posting here? Jaakobou 09:21, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Sect Break 2

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. Durova 22:32, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
It's getting late here, I'll post a breakdown in the morning. Jaakobou 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. Durova 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? Tiamut 04:28, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
"Strongly worded"?? As I have said earlier, it was a borderline racist rant, covering about four paragraphs. It's a little unnerving that people can't see that - it was also a blatant breach of the the ArbCom guidelines, let alone of normal civility standards. Editors on I-P pages, myself included, occasionally dig at each other a little when things get heated, but this was something else, and came only days after the previous Tiamut-poking via the spoof userbox and let's-hint-at-upcoming-genocide photo caption. Any hint of anti-Semitism and the involved editor would quite rightly be turfed out. Let's have the same standards for anti-Arab and anti-Palestinian diatribes shall we? --Nickhh (talk) 07:37, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I think Jaakobou's little bit of soapboxing was poorly timed given his recent AE appearance, but in fairness it's not as though this guy soapboxes a lot. Not that I've seen anyhow. And I'm not sure it's such a good idea to totally discourage this sort of thing. It does give one an insight into how one's opponent experiences the issues, and in that sense enables us to understand better where they are coming from and perhaps to tailor our own messages and proposals accordingly.

I mean, it's one thing to constantly harangue and denounce and effectively, troll the other side as we've seen some users do in the past. But it's quite another to passionately state one's POV in relation to a particular issue, as Jaakobou seems to be doing here.

I suppose one could raise the issue of whether someone who is so evidently blind to the POV of the other side, as this diatribe suggests, is ever likely to be a constructive editor. But I think we may be venturing into murky waters if we start disqualifying editors on the basis of allegedly "unacceptable" views. Maybe we should do, but where does one draw the line, and who makes the decision? Gatoclass (talk) 08:19, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi Gatoclass, thanks for your comment. I would point out however that there is ample evidence all over the Talk:Second Intifada page of Jaakobou's soapboxing, which is not confined to the diffs he refactored above. For example, take this RfC comment. Note that he writes: the Second Intifada was a directed propaganda and terror campaign of attacks and offenses aimed almost exclusively at civilians. This is not an 'uprising' but an attempted genocide and direct attack on the Jewish statehood. He provides no source for this rather offensive claim. It's just plain old soapboxing. He also knows what soapboxing is, he cited it to us back in December here.
My question is, how do the comments and actions undertaken by Jaakobou contribute to healthy editing environment? How am I, as a Palestinian editor, who has seen many Arab editors get banned for much less (i.e. repeatedly calling editors "Zionists"), supposed to feel welcome and safe in such an editing environment? Jaakobou can make off-the-cuff accusations about genocide and assume bad faith of an entire ethnic group and religion (i.e. where he blames the "The Arab world, Islam inspired cultural structure" for an "Arab-Palestinian 91 year racist terror campaign against the Jewish-Palestinians" as in the post at the top of this section) make polemical, rambling posts, and this is all viewed as okay? He's just "sincere" but "misguided" and "not malicious" in his intentions, I am assured, over and over. I share Nickhh's thoughts about a double-standard at work here. I am not blaming anyone in particular for that, I just think it's high time we admitted that anti-Arab and anti-Muslim rants at Misplaced Pages (and in the real world) are not viewed with the same seriousness as such rants against others. I haven't even touched here the issue of his misrepresentation of my comments (I have asked for one diff that would support his claim that he only soapboxed because I did - he has not provided one) nor the personal nature of his soapboxing posts, coming on the heels of his mockery of my mourning message. I don't now if a one-week break from I-P articles will make a difference, but I think it's the appropriate next step to take here. It's not draconian and it would send a message that such behaviour across the board is simply not cool with the community. Regards, Tiamut 11:02, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Shortly after I posted the above, it occurred to me that from the POV of a Palestinian or an Arab/Muslim, some of the things that Jaakobou has said must be deeply offensive. So I think you have a very valid point there, I can't deny it. Gatoclass (talk) 11:14, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for acknowledging what it might be like to stand in my/our shoes. Tiamut 11:22, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
I apopreciate the constructivce remarks above. however, this is getting a little crazy. the way to edit articles is not by dancing close to the edge of hugley partisdan statements, then pulling back with apologies if one gets too "offensive." The way to edit is by realizing there are two world-views here, and by trying to present them both fairly in a professional manner. most importantly, the proper thing to do is to recognize that we have credible, articulate reliable editors on both sides, and to work with the many Palestinian-affiliated editors who are capable of working together positively. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 14:03, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Sect break 3

I'm almost done arranging my text (I have a few obligations so I will probably close it later today), but I'd like to point out to you that Israeli-Jews exist and get offended also. I was personally offended both for my own people and also for Palestinian people when events of, militants sending Palestinian youth, strapped with explosives, to make attacks on pizza eating women and children (let me know if you need examples); is portrayed as a 'struggle' and editors soapbox that it can't possibly be presented as anything else (such as 'insurgency' or 'terror campaign') and that other editors need to learn English and bow down to this perspective. Anyways, I will post my breakdown of events later today. Jaakobou 11:40, 18 March 2008 (UTC) rephrase/clarify Jaakobou 11:55, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

(Reset) No sane or reasonable human being disputes the horrifying effects of suicide bombings or any other kind of violent attack using bullets, missiles or explosives. And "offended" probably understates it, which you I imagine know better than I do, even though my city has suffered from its share of bombs and violence, both recently and in the past. The issue here is not about the actual violence on the ground or the effects of it, which affects both Palestinians and Israelis in any event, but the comments made by editors - in this case you specifically - in this encyclopedia. To rant and generalise about other groups of people in the way that you did is plain wrong. Nor did you do this - as if this would mitigate the offence - in response to even vaguely similar comments by anyone else. I am not going to repeat here, for the 4th time, the debates about the use of the words "struggle" or "uprising" as value-neutral words to describe the Intifada AS A WHOLE, even though you seem to be claiming that your misunderstanding of this point provides some kind of justification for what you wrote. I first came across your editing when you were trying to re-insert the alleged outcome "Palestinian Propaganda Victory" into the info box on the Battle of Jenin page, to describe events that killed more than 50 Palestinians, many of them civilians. I don't see much change in your attitude since then, ArbCom decisions or not. In fact, looking at events of the past few days your behaviour seems to have deteriorated. It's time, as I've said, that administrators took as firm a stand against this sort of behaviour as they do - 100% correctly - against anti-Semitic rantings on talk pages. --Nickhh (talk) 12:08, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Nickhh,
  1. Are you taking back channel notes about 6-8+ month ago events from Eleland? I've already admitted on the January Arbcom to a few article errors of judgement; however, both you (who's making repeated personal attakcs) and Eleland have not.
  2. Despite utterly uncollegiate infuriating atmosphere (putting it mildly, as being called war criminal by both PalestineRemembered and Eleland is just one event that won't be easy to forget) on that article, I've managed to add/make a number of very nice additions (sample) that survived long after I've taken a break from the article.
  3. I find it offensive that you soapbox with "killed more than 50 Palestinians, many of them civilians" on the Jenin Massacre/Battle issue where 23 Israeli soldiers died fighting militants booby trapped house to booby trapped house in a location that's responsible for 28 suicide bombings on Israeli civilians. Geneva conventions note that civilain loss of life in these instances is 100% responsibility of the insurgents, not to mention that the local militants used a female "civilian" decoy to lure in soldiers into a trap and killing 11.
  4. I find it odd that a person who makes a habit of soapboxing and personal attacks has the audacity to warp my words, accuse me of antisemitism and forcefully try to have an editing leverage by demanding a block for someone holding different views ... and a quickly retracted excessive phrasing. As previously stated, I'll post my breakdown of events, which includes both your personal attacks, a little later today.
-- Jaakobou 12:46, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Oh dear. I can't do this much longer, nor I guess does anyone else want to read it. However ...
1) No, my own memory of events is perfectly good thanks. And my point is precisely that these "errors of judgement" seem to keep on coming, post-ArbCom
2) I had nothing to do with these accusations, as I'm sure you know. And I do accept that it wasn't helpful or appropriate for those editors to raise the possibility that you fought in Jenin, even if I can understand why some people might have been looking for an explanation for your apparent fixation with those events and with Saeb Erekat. I haven't seen anything like it aimed at you since.
3) Um, this is not "soapboxing", I was merely describing part of the background for people who might not be aware of it ahead of highlighting the phrase you wanted at the top of the article. Why are you posting a long (and incorrect as it happens) rant about what the Geneva Conventions say in response, and flinging around accusations about events on the ground in Jenin? Isn't that closer to soapboxing?
4) I'm not aware of my habits of soapboxing and making personal attacks, I guess they're all in the eye of the beholder. A couple of minor digs or forcefully put points from time to time, but I've certainly never accused a whole race of people of being religiously-inspired genocidalists (it's not "warping" your words to say that, it's called paraphrasing - re-read what you posted). And please read what I wrote again as well - I never accused YOU of anti-Semitism, nor have I "demand a block".--Nickhh (talk) 13:02, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Nickhh,
  1. Oh dear, is certainly not a civil way of respond editors raising concerns about soapboxing. Neither is mocking people asking you nicely not to make personal attacks; Btw, I couldn't for the life of me understand who was supposed to be sympathetic or more scholarly.
  2. I'm not following what these is supposed to intend to as I was using the talk page to accentuate that editors, you included, are not noticing their advocacy (soapboxing) to exclude the Israeli perspective from the article.
  3. I do believe that you were being utterly insensitive here, describing a battle between militants, responsible for 28 suicide bombings, and the IDF as if it were a massacre of innocent civilians... and I also suggest you give a second look to the Geneva conventions since my statement was correct.
  4. In retrospect, you did not accuse me of antisemitism; my apology for slight misreading into your text. However, you are utterly warping my comments and accuse me of inherent racism while making soapbox against Israeli right to self defense and demanding "administrators took as firm a stand against..." your warped interpretation of my comments. Translation: personal attack, soapboxing, and demanding a block for leverage on the article.
...I'll post my breakdown of events, which includes both your personal attacks, a little later today. Jaakobou 13:37, 18 March 2008 (UTC) small addition of nickhh personally directed commentary. Jaakobou 13:53, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Jaakobou, I appreciate your positive attention to my comments elsewhere. However, i'm distrubed by the contentious tone emerging here. why are your esponding to people's allegations with counter-allegations of your own? Many of their points and concerns happen to be correct. I really don't feel that you should be trying to counteract them or refute them so vehemently. i think you really need to listen to them, and to actually absorb them. I'm sorry, but I repeat, many of the concerns raised by Nickhh, Eleland, and others above happen to have much accuracy, or at least validity. So I really would ask you to simply hear them, and absorb them, and not allow this discussion here to become one of a litigous or adversarial nature. If you want a collegiate atmosphere here, you must help to allow such an atmosphere to occur.--Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 14:13, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

collegiate atmosphere

I don't wish to see punitive sanctions here against anyone, including Jaakobou. However, he and I do have slightly different approaches. I gave him some friendly suggestions recently. My suggestion to Arbcom is to read Talk:Second Intifada.
Jaakobou, my suggestion to you is to find more multilateral ways to pursue discussion. My concern in making these comments is I'm not sure what the context is for discussions here. Do discussions here automatically lead to sanctions? Or may I consider this a useful forum to take up some issues which need to be addressed, and which need a neutral constructive place to be discussed?
I would ask that people's concerns here be heard. Jaakobou,. as you know, you and I have different ideas on how these issues should be discussed and how these articles should be edited. I'm disturbed by the tone of allegation and counter-allegation here. However, I did find some issues with Jaakobou's approach, which I have already expressed to him personally in a cooperative way. My suggestion to Jakkobou were basically to not attempt to make overtly partisan statements, but to work more constructively with editors from other viewpoints. it is not helpful to recite the grievances of the Israeli side, then defend them by saying that they are really true. both sides feel that way.
My goal here is not to inflict sanctions on anyone, but to make sure that all concerns are heard, and to try to direct discussion to a level where people can feel that issues can be heard here, and somewhat definitively addressed; and also, that this might result in some constructive feedback and advice, which might help to resolve some of the open issues here. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 13:55, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Sm8900, I don't won't hold a grudge over this, but you've certainly ignored the point raised on the RfC and suggested it be ignored rather than help it being heard. This would be a good time to apologize for uncivil responses made on the discussion (suggestions to ignore RfC and editor directed commentaries 'sample').
I'll do my share and start by apologizing to you for possibly making you uncomfortable with my response to soapboxing of other editors and objecting to a version which you thoughts was reasonable (despite the RfC showing clear disagreement). Jaakobou 14:07, 18 March 2008 (UTC) add RfC wikilink. Jaakobou 14:09, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

This discussion is being pushed off course - the intent wasn't to hold a general discussion of all involved users' conduct. Jaakobou's conduct has been disruptive, and so he is banned from all Israel and Palestine related pages for a week. Addhoc (talk) 14:11, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

a few new comments

Jaakobou, you are incorrect. I have not been uncivil. I feel my comments were basically appropriate. I hope you will try to listen to them. I do appreciate your positive comments to me, and I'm sure we will have a positive relationship going forward. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 14:15, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
User:Tiamut. You are quite correct. This is another example of systemic bias. To have someone intimate to you that you are like the Red Indians of the Wild West, doomed to extinction except in quaint photos that memorialize the life your tribe once had. Then see that it required extensive and extenuating negotiations by third parties to have User:Jaakobou retract that insinuation. Then see, within a few days, the person who, if only formally, apologized, take to your suggestions with a slash and burn approach to the world and culture you were raised in, by asserting that it, 'the Arab world' has a cultural structure which, informed by Islam, is responsible for racism and terrorism against Jews for a century, that those who occupy your land are there as the result of being victimized by Arab terrorists, only to find that the best Wiki administrators can do is to hum and haa over the issue, all this is proof at least User:Jaakobou lives a privileged editorial life in here, and nothing can be done about it. He has rights no one else has. I know this from my own case. In an unfortunate exchange that looked like an edit war, I reported both him and myself for violating 3RR. It turned out I had calculated badly. He had violated the rule, I hadn't. Result? He privately contacted User:Swatjester of Iraqi fame, and had the ban cancelled. Swatjester then intervened to have a ban that had been improperly placed on me confirmed, though I hadn't engaged, as the administrator and other colleagues showed, in anything like a violation of the 3RR rule. The only suggestion I can make to you is to ask that on pages where you edit, administrators allow you to ignore User:Jaakobou's harassing time-wasting tactics, as not conducive to serious dialogue with yourself as a responsible editor. He can personally pester you with queries, but ignoring them should not be taken as a refusal of dialogue, but simply as a refusal to get dragged into edit-wars with an edit-warrior who has openly declared your culture is so shaped that it is ontologically racist and terrorist. My advice to User:Jaakobou is to move on from Wiki where his talents are underused. If he can so consistently manage to prevail on administrators in off-the-page email and phone chats, as often before, to repeal administrative penalties he has incurred, and hold off from imposing the kind of sanctions the rest of us must, rightly, wear if we infringe policy, clearly he has charismatic persuasive powers, and they would surely ensure him a great career in politics, in Israel or anywhere else.
Had, I repeat, had anyone on the 'other' side written, to slightly modify User:Jaakobou's complaint about the Arab world, something along the lines of:-

'I find those suggestions insulting advocacy. The Jewish world, Judaism-inspired cultural structure, is the main cause of the Jewish/Israeli 91 year racist terror campaign against the Palestinians.'

He would have had the whole Wiki house come down on him like a ton of blocks for antisemitic prejudices, rightly so, and would have been declared persona non grata because that order of prejudice cannot conduce to editing, if strongly, to the equanimity required, an equanimity which is absent because, by the premise in such words, all those from that world who edit here to achieve equal representation of POVs are tacitly or otherwise either 'racists' and 'terrorists' or supporters of the same, given their cultural background. Nishidani (talk) 14:16, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
p.s.I apologize for commenting when an administrative decision had already been made, while I was still writing, unawares, my post above. I wrote it on evidence of a certain administrative neglect in the past, which has obviously been remedied here, and apologize therefore for what I wrote concerning systemic bias against User:Tiamut. Regards Nishidani (talk) 14:24, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Resolved notices

Wikimachine (talk · contribs)
The following discussion is an archived report. Please do not modify it. Subsequent reports should be made in a new section.
block extended 1 year by FutPer


Case Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Liancourt Rocks.

The user banned (Wikimachine) has continued to edit with very obvious and sarcastic comments, attempting in my opinion to continue disrupting the same pages as he did before.

He has edited from various anonymous IP's making essentially the same arguments as he did before on the same pages, some which are edited by very few other editors. Some example IP's he has used are 69.245.41.113, 69.180.210.99, 69.180.193.52, etc.

Aside from these comments being essential copy and pastes of his old arguments, and him signing with "A former Wikipedian," and referring to how he will "continue the fight when is allowed back in a few months" they are from the same geographic area as the original user (see ]). If you would like further information please let me know. If this should be put somewhere else and not here also please let me know and I will follow up. Thank you very much.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.205.165.177 (talk) 2008-03-15T23:46:29 (UTC)

Block evasion is inexcusably bad enough for Misplaced Pages if the ip saying is really right. However, I just bring something for your information. This IP user, 128.205.165.177 (talk · contribs) or 128.205.33.79 (talk · contribs) whose dns is designated to SUNY Buffalo is either Komdori (talk · contribs) or LactoseTI (talk · contribs) who suddenly disappeared around the last early November.. In addition, this user seems to be associated with the Japanese bulletin board, 2channel because I saw the same comment as this at the board. We need to have a stronger enforcement to Japan-Korean articles at this point for editors can safely edit and discuss without stalking or being watched by other off-wiki board like 2channel has done . Japanese editors from the board has done something at Talk:Sea of Japan. If you need more information or translation, I will follow up it as well. Thanks.--Appletrees (talk) 14:15, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Both findings (Wikimachine and LactoseTI/Komdori) are certainly correct. Wikimachine's block extended to another year from today. Appletrees, can you give us a link to the corresponding posting on 2ch please? These days, I'm certainly inclined to take no crap from people who use anon IPs and post to 2ch. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:05, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

My computer is getting out of order, so I can't provide translation from Japanese text right now, so leave the link which shows their talking about Wikimachine's block evasion on Jan. 19th. 2008. See No.133 ~136 Here is presumably Wikimachine's ip addres, so take a look at the contribution on the same date. See this ip address, one of which the Buffalo anon mentioned. 69.245.41.113 (talk · contribs). In addition, according to 2channel, more than two editors currently reside in east coast of US. I will add the relevant link later. One is assumed as this user per his engagement in Pyrus pyrifolia and Yakiniku.
Original text
:133 どうみてもウィキ機械丸出しのIPも登場したなｗ>りゃんこ
134
確かに機会っぽいね。
元気そうだ。
135
ウィキ機械っぽいIPに対する管理者の返信もエスプリが効いてて
グッドジョブ！ｗｗｗｗ
< #｀д´>＜だ、だからWikiもｳﾘの主張するNPOVにするﾆﾀﾞ!!!!!
しかし、だんだんと管理者もコリアンの偏り具合に気付きつつあるのかな？
136
機械っぽい、っていうか完全に機械ですな、あれは。
主張内容といい、表現のクセといい・・・
< #｀д´>＜ｳﾘﾅﾗのｸﾚｰﾑの方が強いﾆﾀﾞ!!!　ｳﾘの主張に
従わないﾔﾂはﾅｼｮﾅﾘｽﾄﾆﾀﾞ!!!!
They seem to move their forum regarding English Misplaced Pages and me. I would see my name on some "worst bulletin board" (it really exist in 2channel) They talk about you a lot as well on the same link (see No. 637, 645, 661~670) --Appletrees (talk) 15:59, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Lol. I love it when they talk about me as "superman". Especially the way it comes across in Google translator. "Now is the perfect superhuman stopped shooting death sentence mode I kill you immediately declared, is perfect superhuman Gil's left to settle down (Especially now that superhumanはあっPURUTO perfect honeymoon relationship, very dangerous)". Yeahhrrr. I feel like a ninja. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:29, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Astrotrain
The following discussion is an archived report. Please do not modify it. Subsequent reports should be made in a new section.
Astrotrain placed on probation; limited to one revert per week on pages related to The Troubles (including articles, templates and other project pages). Thatcher 01:39, 17 March 2008 (UTC)


Current issue moved from Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles/Enforcement requests. Case link Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles. Thatcher 22:43, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Why is nothing being done to stop this editor continuing to edit war and POV pushing, he was named in the arbcom but instead of answering his case there he decided to disappear until the arbcom was ended, he was also involved in mediation on the same issue, and dispite being unable to provide WP:RS to support his edits he continued to edit war throughout the mediation which resulted in the mediation process being abandoned.

He has recently started to edit war again on the issue in breach of principles#2 and principles#3 of the arbcom ruling. I have reported him in the past couple of days to two admins, to date neither have done anything about it. Some of the articles and templates he has been disruptive on include:

Astrotrain has a been blocked numerous times for both edit warring on this issue and making personal attacks on other editors and myself, he also came back as a possible for using anon IPs to continue evade 3RR in edit wars.--Padraig (talk) 21:29, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

The integrity of an article's stability? must be preserved. Thus 'two' options - 1) Page protections or 2) Blockings. GoodDay (talk) 21:35, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Astrotrain seems to be going back into SPA mode, starting edit wars by adding the Ulster Banner without consensus, making no attempt to discuss things, adding flags in needless provocative ways - eg 1801 in Ireland. This disruption should be nipped in the bud really. One Night In Hackney303 23:18, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Well, I'm not overly familiar with the (apparently) lengthy debate that has been had about this issue, but there does appear to be a number of different editors reverting Astrotrain's additions of the Ulster Banner. Given the fact that it isn't currently an official flag, its difficult to see why its additions to these articles is particularly germane. In addition, the addition of flags to pages is over-used generally. I have already asked Astrotrain to stop edit-warring over the addition of the Union Flag to 1801 in Ireland. I extend that request to include these other articles too. If he continues then I guess we can look at other options. As other editors have found out, there is a rapidly decreasing tolerance for this sort of behaviour though, I'm hopeful he will appreciate that. Rockpocket 23:35, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
I have also noticed that Black Kite has also warned him that he will be put on probation should this continue. So, I guess we wait and see. If there are further flag related reversions without prior discussion, please note it here. Rockpocket 23:48, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I'd be delighted to see 99% of the flags removed from wikipedia, but however tedious the little national emblems are in list entries, Astrotrain has been busy adding huge flags to articles where they are barely relevant and — as he well knows — highly provocative. As well as the addition of the Union Flag to 1801 in Ireland, he also added the Ulster Banner to 1953 in Ireland (in this edit), which seems to me to be nothing gratuitous mischief-making. There is a separate 1953 in Northern Ireland article where it might have some relevance (though it seems pretty marginal to me), but I can't see any useful purpose its addition to 1953 in Ireland. The whole Ulster flag debate is a minefield, and it took a lot of effort by many folks to achieve some stability there, and trying to reopen it like this is disruptive (his comment here of "how can a flag be POV?" is thorougly unpersuasive faux-naivety). I'd support a crackdown on this, and I am glad that Astrotrain has been warned of possible probation. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)

I note that you didn't mention cases where I added the Tricolour, or are you ok with that one as you are Irish? Is this just another case of a set of articles that no one can edit in case one of the Irish editors is offended? Misplaced Pages is not censored for images of prophets or the human body, so why are flags different? In each case, there was a good reason for adding flag images. Astrotrain (talk) 09:51, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
As I said, flags a ridiculously overused on wikipedia, and there is for example guidance against the use of {{flagicon}} beside place of birth. This isn't a matter of censorship, it is matter of not going around looking for opportunities to splat a huge flag on pages where it is at best marginally relevant, and you would be in similar trouble if you were going around adding huge pictures of Jesus in articles making a brief mention of him. In the cases where the flag is relevant, such as the first use of the tricolour, a small icon will do fine, with a link to the article on the flag explaining its design and history. You are trying to use wikipedia as a device for nationalist flag-waving, and I deplore that whatever flag is being waved. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:06, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Astrotrain in this edit here you inserted the Ulster Banner saying it was the unofficial flag of Northern Ireland, it was never the official flag of Northern Ireland not even during the period 1953-72, so can you explain why you feel its necessary to include a image of a governmental banner that has been defunct for thirty-five years in the portal for Northern Ireland today.--Padraig (talk) 11:35, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

As normal, you bring nationality of editors into it. Is that the be all and end all of your arguement? Your looking to edit war, simple as and if things quiten down too much you can be counted on to start thing up again. --Domer48 (talk) 10:06, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

The fact that there is different nationalities is a good thing. However, it seems to me that people are being too sensitive. We should not be a situation that we cannot use images in case it offends one nationality. Describing the national flag as "POV" is one example of this sensitivity. Astrotrain (talk) 10:21, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Images are supposed to be relevent to the content of the article, adding the Ulster Banner as you are doing is POV pushing and you have continously refused to provide RS to support your claims it a national flag, numerous sources have been provided to prove it isn't and never was a national flag. This is also the same claim you failed to support in the flag mediation when your idea of compromise is that you could add the Ulster Banner to any article or template in wikipedia, dispite failing to support its use with RS.--Padraig (talk) 11:35, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
To Astrotrain: By continously re-adding these flags, you (rightly or wrongly) create the impression of having a political agenda behind your edits. The impression may hurt your chances of making your edits stick. GoodDay (talk) 17:01, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

And if they persist?--Domer48 (talk) 00:04, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

If Wiki has done one thing it has put me off flags! Look at the article Irish Sea - every bleeping town has its "national" bleeping flag attached (and NI had the Teddy Bear's head). Daftness. Should Isle of Man, Wales and England not have the Union Jack as well? I mean that layout makes it appear as if Ireland is just another part of the UK? And so on......SCRAP the damn things. Sarah777 (talk) 02:39, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
relisting with new timestamp pending resolution. Thatcher 12:58, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Can a decision be made on this issue.--Padraig (talk) 14:44, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Padraig, unless Gino gets involved you will not have an Admin doing anything at all. See this is an issue that can be resolved by Administrative action, simplys lacks the will. --Domer48 (talk) 12:23, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Jaakobou (talk · contribs)
The following discussion is an archived report. Please do not modify it. Subsequent reports should be made in a new section.
Since there are no objections, archive without further comment. El_C 18:34, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
See also WP:ANI#Jaakobou; Tiamut's mourning box – Jaakobou's exams box, Jaakobou's exams box (ammended)

Note that I am a breath away from censuring Jaakobou for his mockery; of User:Tiamut's notice. This intentional bad blood will not be tolerated. El_C 19:54, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Durova (Jaakobou's mentor) seems to mistake her role for a defense attorney (I'd appreciate informed comments, instead ) . El_C 02:18, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Please refactor, El C. I have serious concerns that this aggressive approach is escalating the conflict. El C threatened Jaakobou with a block after Jaakobou had already taken steps to remedy the proboem and apologized, and then El C opened two noticeboard threads. If Jaakobou needed to do more to set things right he would have cooperated. Additional eyes would be very welcome here. Durova 09:55, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
OK additional eyes - Jaakobou's notice and the photo caption were among one of the more offensive things I've seen on a user page. Yes you get people posting stupid Nazi references and pictures etc, but this was in effect a personal attack on another user, using the recent deaths of 100s of people as a vehicle to do that. And I'm sorry Durova but you are letting him off the hook here and not discharging your duties as a mentor. You have suggested that he apologised, when all he did was make a brief grudging apology on his own talk page after being challenged by other editors, and after initially refusing to, and saying he would keep the notice up until Tiamut complained personally; and have claimed that he had "taken steps to remedy the problem" when he had merely tweaked the wording of the notice and continued to reinsert it on his user page, despite it being removed. The point you make about all the hard work Jaakobou did in restoring the photo, and the fact that it was started before Tiamut's notice went up, is entirely irrelevant - it's the "in better days" caption that is at issue, as it also brazenly parodies Tiamut's user page and makes a direct linkage between the fate of Palestinians and American Indians, the significance of which Nishidani has explained elsewhere. Given that point, I was also a little disturbed by your eulogising of the work that was done on the photo with the words "something special" and "brilliant". What makes this all the more farcical is the fact that Jaakobou is making a string of vexatious and frivolous complaints about other editors, myself included, here at WP:AE. His behaviour needs to be sorted out once and for all I'm afraid, and if his mentor won't help with that, then another administrator needs to. --Nickhh (talk) 11:19, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Dear Nickhh,
(1) I'd never make an intentional mockery of the death of 107 people (militants or non-militants) in Gaza or elsewhere regardless of the Israel-Hamas war circumstances.
(2) This is the first time, and shocking also, I've heard about Israelis supposedly comparing Palestinians to Indians to make fun of Palestinians... Both Israeli culture and I have utmost respect to Native Americans and their history. My favorite song is 'Indian Sunset' by Elton John and Northern Exposure was a favorite watch, but I'm afraid that anything I say will be portrayed with bad faith; On This occasion, I probably brought it upon myself by not taking possible undertones into more serious consideration... I've already made a second apology to my blunder.
(3) I had good reason to open an WP:AE post after you followed and reverted me on 6 separate articles which you've never edited.
Cordially, Jaakobou 12:20, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
I did not open two noticeboard threads. I archived the one on ANI which East718 initially handled, and started the thread here, instead.
The modified box, too, was unacceptable. It still looked identical in key respects (colour, text size, text lengh, image size/placement).
Jaakobou was issued one warning, ignored it, then a second one. Durova, however, has been acting in a highly problematic manner.
She immediately offered to write Jaakobou's unblock request (he wasn't blocked), without even informing herself of the fact that he was mimicking the death of people by comparing it to his upcoming exams (!) .
Then when she found out it wasn't an innocent notice, she offered no apology for disrupting my efforts to keep the peace. She continued with long-winded, unhelpful notes about pictures, and so on, which had very little to do with anything .
Then, she resorted to questioning my neutrality, involvement, and by extension, fairness and evenhanded, for no apparent reason, while citing some rather shoddy, poorly-linked "evidence." Now that digging dirt on me didn't succeed, I wonder what's next. I don't think the mentorship is working; she's too emotionally involved, opining before looking at the facts (see 1st sentence & 4th paragraph). El_C 11:59, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
I can't excuse the offense much, but I've made a second apology to my blunder.
Consulting with Durova, I removed what we both thought was the offending part of the box... this change not being accepted by you, an involved admin, is something I can't quite control but I accepted that this edit did not fully address your concerns and accepted responsibly for it. I can't spare anymore time to this issue since I do have exams to attend to.
With respect, Jaakobou 12:39, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
About this "change": it's an understatement that I still find it difficult to comprehend how both of you failed to see that an amended box, which still looks much the same, would be in any way acceptable, and that, somehow, "involved" moi curtailed that peaceful gesture. You and Durova can continue with the argumentum ad nauseam of calling me an involved admin. It is false, of course. And, regardless, any admin would have done what I did: East18 warned you once, you reverted, I warned you a second time, you reverted, I warned you a third time, sternly, then, finally, you stopped. Now I seem to have become (both of) your target. That's fine, I'm more than willing to step forward and give others some relief. El_C 16:38, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
I notice that Jaakobou has now offered what appears to be a sincere, albeit somewhat belated, apology to Tiamut on his talk page.
While I know Jaakobou has acquired something of a reputation for tendentiousness (the accuracy of which I am not in a position to judge), he has not previously AFAIK been known to act maliciously toward other users. Although I doubt he was quite as blissfully unaware of the connotations of his notice as he claims, it may be that he failed to realize the full implications of it. I think I can accept, therefore, that this may amount to an isolated lapse of judgement on his part rather than a wilfully malicious attempt to humiliate another user. I can't speak for Tiamut of course, but in light of this latest act of contrition from Jaakobou I personally am satisfied that he now understands the gravity of his error and will therefore be unlikely to repeat it. Gatoclass (talk) 12:29, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
I agree, generally, though I have to say I'm not fully convinced by Jaakobou's comments above and I'm not impressed by his initial response to El C's complaints. I note that blocking, topic banning etc. isn't meant to be punitive. Do we have cause to believe that Jaakobou is likely to repeat this or similar actions? If not, I suggest that we close this with a caution to Jaakobou and move on. (Note that this shouldn't give Jaakobou licence to do something like this again. If he does, I would fully support taking an enforcement action against him.) -- ChrisO (talk) 14:41, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) El C is mistaken when he supposes how much I understood when I intervened. In fact the first thing I did was advise Jaakobou to withdraw the offending reference and post an apology; it was imperative that he do so promptly. On the heels of those corrective steps El C's block warning was counterproductive. A direct result of that warning was several hours' delay in the follow-up apology that Tiamut deserved. It is by no means easy to show an editor the seriousness of a thoughtless gaffe when he thinks he is being singled out for punitive reasons. The consistently sharp edged tone of El C's subsequent posts both here and at my user talk fed Jaakobou's worries, and it does little good for the overall dispute to make barbs about my credibility (especially undeserved ones). I repeat my request that he refactor.

If there are further steps that I can take to set things back on track I will gladly do so. Bear in mind, please, that I've had very lengthy chats with Jaakobou during the last 24 hours and have put off other commitments to give this immediate attention. Durova 17:38, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Such steps would be to avoid back-room communication and instead strive toward open-ness, especially at the critical operative junction. Had we been consulted about the amended box, instead of seeing it implemented without discussion, we could have explained how offensive it is, by virtue of the exams box still very closely resembling the mourning box. But inertia breeds inertia, we knew that already. El_C 17:59, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
El C, in a mentoring relationship back channel communication can be a very healthy thing. Often it takes the form of let-me-get-this-off-my-chest or should I post this? (and the answer is occasionally goodness no). This particular instance unfolded in real time and I was composing a post that would have followed up on Jaakobou's apology and refactor; you warned him with a block before I could complete it. Durova 18:15, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
I, for my part, am ready to archive this in the interests of moving on (although I do remain distinctly displeased). Any objections? El_C 18:21, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
El_C, I have made two apologies and done my best to correct the problem. It's high time I get back to my studies. Those upcoming exams were my main reason for posting in the first place but if there are other positive steps I can take to resolve your displeasure, please let me know. Jaakobou 18:25, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Let's chalk this up as one ugly misunderstanding. Sensitive subjects + sleep deprivation are the bane of harmonious editing. Now it's high time I got to those Maori textiles (and some other things). Best regards, Durova 18:30, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archived report. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

User:Grandy Grandy
The following discussion is an archived report. Please do not modify it. Subsequent reports should be made in a new section.
Grandy Grandy and Osli73 both banned from editing Bosnian mujahideen and Mujahideen for one month. Thatcher 00:31, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Macedonia sets high standards for Decorum and Editorial process for all Balkan related articles. I believe that Grandy Grandy is breaking these by repeatedly making controversial and WP:POV edits on a number of Balkan related articles without any discussion on the relevant Talk pages and, sometimes, despite notices by administrators to respect the editorial process. A number of examples:

  • Bosnian mujahideen: Despite a specific request by the involved Mediation coordinator (User:Vassyana) to all editors "to stop reverting and/or making significant changes. As Osli73 has done below, please propose any significant changes here on the talk page. If any changes you make are reverted, please do not escalate the matter into a revert war. Instead, raise the issue on the talk page for discussion" Grandy Grandy has made a number of major reverts/controversial edits without attempting to discuss these (see , and ). It should be noted that this is an article which GG on several occasions has tried to delete alltogether (, and ).
  • Mujahideen: here GG has repeatedly reverted or extensively edited (, and ) the section on Bosnia in line with his POV edits of the Bosnian mujahideen article, again, without seeking any consulation or discussion on the Talk page (despite being encouraged to do so).
  • Naser Oric: a number of controversial edits/reverts (, and ) without any attempt to motivate or discuss these on the Talk page, despite encouragement to do so.
  • Alija Izetbegovic: again, a number of controversial edits/reverts (, and ) without any attempt to motivate or discuss these on the Talk page.
  • Bosnian War: again, a number of controversial edits/reverts ( and ) without any real attempt to motivate or discuss these on the Talk page despite encouragement to do so.
  • Finally, based on this reply and the fact that the reverts by GG are the same as those by Dragon of Bosnia, currently on one weeks block for similar transgression, I believe that these edits are being done in collusion.

RegardsOsli73 (talk) 13:10, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment
First of all, I don't agree with @OSLI73. He is the one who started to vandalize articles, I am the one among the others (Dragon, HarisM, Dchall1, Live Forever etc) who repaired the damage. And here is the proof:
@OSLI73's log of vandalism:
  • 12:23, 5 December 2007, Stifle blocked Osli73 (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 24 hours ‎ (Three-revert rule violation: Bosnian Mujahideen)
  • 07:45, 24 July 2007 WikiLeon blocked Osli73 (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 1 month.
  • 07:37, 24 July 2007 WikiLeon blocked Osli73 (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 3 months.
  • 02:26, 23 March 2007 Thatcher131 blocked Osli73 (anon. only, account creation blocked, autoblock disabled) with an expiry time of 2 weeks ‎ (violating revert limit on Srebrenica massacre see Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Kosovo)
  • 01:48, 1 March 2007 Jayjg blocked Osli73 (anon. only, account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 2 weeks ‎ (violation of arbcom revert parole on Srebrenica massacre again)
  • 09:48, 18 December 2006 Srikeit blocked Osli73 with an expiry time of 1 week ‎ (Sockpuppeteering and directly violating his arbcom probation and revert parole)
  • 00:49, 5 September 2006 Blnguyen blocked Osli73 with an expiry time of 96 hours ‎ (did about 10 reverts on Srebrenica massacre in about 2 hours)
Second of all, @OSLI73 is blanking articles (removing sourced parts he doesn't like).
For example @OSLI73 deleted a part from Bosnian War which is clear example of vandalism - blanking WP:Vandalism: "Removing all or significant parts of pages' content without any reason."
He deleted this part:
According to numerous ICTY judgments the conflict involved Bosnia and the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (later Serbia and Montenegro) as well as Croatia.
Soureces:
I asked him why, for a few times, got no answer. He just repeats the same old story he wrote above which is not related to his deletions in order to get Arbitration enforcement cause he doesn't like Radio Free Europe source, doens't like ICTY source, doesn't like this and that...I am not willing to support his idea about arbitration cause there are a lof of other users who worked hard to write smth, and now @OSLI73 is trying to undo that cause he doesn't like some sources. Grandy Grandy (talk) 13:57, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

In reply to Grandy Grandy comments above:

  1. It would be good if he answered the issues that I raised above, instead of bringing other issues
  2. I don't see what old transgressions of WP:3RR have to do with the issue at hand
  3. Grandy Grandy has not made any attempt to discuss the edits/reverts he has made (at least not prior to me making this complaint) despite encouragement to do so. Please see the relevant talk pages.
  4. Grandy Grandy has made major edits to the Bosnian mujahideen article despite being specifically asked by the admin involved not to do so.
  5. Grandy Grandy seems to be arguing that as long as information is sourced it is not POV or inappropriate and should never be removed. My belief is that appropriate sources is only one condition for inclusion in an article. Sourced information can still be POV.

In conclusion, I would encourage Grandy Grandy to reply to the specific issues I raised above. RegardsOsli73 (talk) 15:20, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

In reply to Osli73 comments above:

  1. I answered all the issues on the appropriate talk pages.
  2. Well "old transgressions of WP:3RR" is all but old transgressions of WP:3RR. Sockpuppeteering and directly violating your arbcom probation and revert parole, violating revert limit on Srebrenica massacre, rule violation on Bosnian Mujahidee isn't just the matter of WP:3RR, it's much more.
  3. Grandy Grandy has not made any attempt to discuss the edits... Well, isn't true:,,,the real problem is you never answered my questions about blanking. You just skip it and continue to revert which is obvious vandalism.
  4. Regarding Bosnian Mujahideen, I just improved the article per comments in AfD, cause other users agreed that the name must be changed as you fabricated it (the title isn't present in any of your sources). Most of the users also voted for the deletion of that article: as it's cloned, POV fork or collection of unreliable source (WP:RS).
  5. Please read WP:RS and WP:Vandalism. Persistent removal and blanking of the high-quality and neutral international sources in very sensitive Bosnian War article (Summary of ICTY verdicts I,Summary of ICTY verdicts II) is probably in appliance with ur belief that appropriate sources is only one condition for inclusion in an article and that sourced information can still be POV, but it isn't in appliance with Misplaced Pages rules, cause the sentence started with According to that source. It wasn't just included as a pure fact, it designated the source (International Tribunal), unlike your edits when you included many other speculation about Al Qaeda etc. without relevant source. Grandy Grandy (talk) 20:57, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

PHG (talk · contribs) civility problems
The following discussion is an archived report. Please do not modify it. Subsequent reports should be made in a new section.
Blocked by FT2. Thatcher 01:06, 17 March 2008 (UTC)


Per the decision at Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Franco-Mongol alliance, PHG is permitted to make suggestions on talk pages of articles relating to medieval or ancient history, provided that he interacts with other editors in a civil fashion. He has been unable to remain civil and refrain from attacking other editors: , , , ,

Since PHG seems unwilling to take to heart the various reminders about civility and collaborative editing, and since his recent actions on article talkpages are continuing to be disruptive and keep other editors away from more productive work, I recommend that PHG be blocked for a short time, perhaps 48 hours, to allow other editors to get back to work. Hopefully this block will be a wake-up call, and avoid further restrictions on his ability to contribute to talk pages. Shell 19:56, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Ah, it seems that FT2 has already blocked PHG . Shell 20:10, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Coming here to post a note following blocking. See his talk page for the full note. By chance, we seem to have concurred on duration - I blocked for 48 hours. FT2  20:14, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Vintagekits
The following discussion is an archived report. Please do not modify it. Subsequent reports should be made in a new section.
Misplaced Pages:List of banned users has been updated by Moreschi. John Vandenberg (talk) 00:08, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Request that he be added to Misplaced Pages:List of banned users. Reasons: Persistent abusive sockpuppetry, personal attacks (particularly against User:Rockpocket) and incivility. Case link Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles. - Kittybrewster ☎ 23:53, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
VK is blocked indefinitely, which means he is banned unless some admin decides to unblock him. Listing on the banned users page has no significance that I am aware of, it certainly does not prevent an admin from unbanning VK if the admin thinks it is defensible to do so. Is there some reason this would be a contentious listing, or is there some reason to insist on a bookkeeping formality? Thatcher 00:32, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
As I recollect, this was not Arbitration enforcement but instead a decision made at WP:ANI. And indeed, the block log reflects that. Find the ANI discussion; that will show the actual reasons for the indefinite block. I think this was indeed a ban, but the ANI archive will be more accurate than anyone's speculation or recollection. GRBerry 02:43, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
I am trying to formalise the uncontentious community ban. I suspect it would take a application by Arbcom to unban him. His block log suggests he is a close relation of Lazarus. I am quite happy to post the request elsewhere. - Kittybrewster ☎ 08:59, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok, done. Not that hard, surely? Moreschi (talk) 21:20, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.