Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 13:51, 7 March 2010

Thanks

Thanks for removing the comments. I saw your applied-then-deleted one. If you have concerns about edit-warring, you should bring them up on an administrator's noticeboard. I have no reason to assume bad faith from GHcool, and while you are welcome to do what you want, I generally find that assuming bad faith creates more problems than it solves. Awickert (talk) 04:18, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

No problem. Factsontheground (talk) 04:22, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! Awickert (talk) 16:37, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Both you and Wikifan12345 blocked for a week for personal attacks and disruption

The dispute has exceeded reasonable bounds, both in civility of each of you towards the other, and in disruptive activity on WP:ANI.

I am going to ask for review of this on ANI but I expect that both blocks will be upheld by consensus there.

Both of your accounts are behaving like Single-Purpose Accounts - Per Misplaced Pages:Single-purpose account and related policy, accounts which are single purpose and highly disruptive can be indefinitely blocked from editing. That policy is also possibly applicable here.

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:26, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Georgewilliamherbert, I don't understand how you could have read the discussion at WP:ANI and concluded that I was in any way harassing or attacking Wikifan12345. The vast majority of comments there agree that Wikifan12345 has caused disruption on a number of articles. Nobody except for you has proposed that I be blocked. How can you block me with no basis whatsoever in the discussion? How can you possibly think that this is correct?

My edits today were simply in reply to User:Awickert's request for diffs. Remove them if you want. It makes no difference to me.

Can you please provide you reasoning here because I do not understand it whatsoever?

Please, Georgewilliamherbert, can you list the statements that I have made that constitute personal attacks or harassment against Wikifan12345?

Factsontheground (talk) 00:44, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Come on, George. Please show me evidence of personal attacks or harassment. Show me one person other than yourself that wanted me banned. Factsontheground (talk) 00:55, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

It is important to note that User:Georgewilliamherbert was involved in a content dispute with me on Talk:List of terrorist incidents, 2009 so this block represents a clear conflict of interest, in which he supported Wikifan12345's side of the dispute against mine. He should have waited for an uninvolved admin to deal with this. Consensus at WP:ANI was that Wikifan12345 had breached NPA and that I was NOT stalking or harassing him but responding reasonably to abuse. Factsontheground (talk) 01:40, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Email I sent to Georgewilliamherbert, who continues to refuse to substantiate his claims

I have repeatedly ssked you to substantiate your claims that I have been disruptive or am harassing/stalking other users but you refuse to do so or even to respond at all. Just because you have an admin bit does not make you beyond mortal reckoning or basic civility.

The simple fact is that in the discussion on WP:ANI there was an overwhelming consensus that Wikifan12345 needed corrective punishment, not I. The vast majority of the discussion was concerned with Wikifan12345 and his behaviour. There was NO consensus for any of your claims against me. You seem to have produced them from thin air. There is no equality between me and Wikifan12345 in this matter. Not only has he continued to personally attack me even in ANI he has a much longer block log and a much larger history of disruptive behaviour that has reached ANI and Wikiquette alerts on multiple occasions.

I find your behaviour on the "List of terrorist incidents, 2009" article to be very interesting in light of this block. You participated in that discussion only to argue against my edits and to threaten to block me for what you claimed was edit warring. When I left the discussion so did you. You did not take _any_ action against Wikifan12345's many personal attacks against me on that page, nor to his continued edit warring.

So why did you jump in to this dispute when everyone has been specifically waiting for an _uninvolved_ admin, which you definitely are not? There are a number of admins who participated in the discussion who wanted to ban Wikifan12345 alone but did not because they realized that they were too involved and did the correct thing. You should have done the same.

I politely request that you recognize that you are too involved in this dispute, and allow a truly uninvolved admin to determine the appropriate action to be taken.

I can confirm receiving something either that or very similar to that in email.

To respond:

1. I have taken action (multiple warnings) against Wikifan12345 for uncivil comments on the List of terrorist incidents 2009 page.

2. Wikifan12345 is blocked, too. And is far more likely to not come back from that (have it made permanent) at this point.

3. Misplaced Pages policy requires admins to recuse themselves when they have a personal conflict with an editor, or a conflict of interest regarding article content. I have neither in this case, with either editor or the article. Admins becoming involved in a discussion does not disqualify them from administrative intervention, as long as they avoid the two specific conditions.

4. I do not believe that Factsontheground is blameless in this incident, nor do others. If I believed you were blameless you would not be blocked (he still would be). If you believe you have not been editing in a provocative or abusive manner, I commend to you your own edit history and I recommend study thereof. One problem editor is a short walk to a block - it takes two or more butting heads to produce a fiasco of this magnitude.

5. You clearly do have a focused single-purpose pro-Palestinean point of view, starting with your username, your edit history, and comments on talk pages. That does not automatically qualify you for a permanent block from editing - but single purpose accounts which are also disruptive get little leeway. Please take this as notice that WP:SPA, the related single-purpose account aspects of WP:SOCK, WP:DISRUPT, and related policies are relevant here.

6. It would be advisable for you to either find another topic to focus on, or figure out a way to edit in a less disruptive manner.

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 06:17, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

1. Warnings which Wikifan12345 promptly ignored and continued to insult me. At which point, you did nothing leaving me no option but to go to WP:ANI.

2. Wikifan12345 has got the message that other people will be blocked for his misdeeds. If you think that is going to stop his aggressive behaviour, you're dreaming.

3. Wikilawyering. You appeared out of nowhere on Talk:List of terrorist incidents, 2009 to argue against my proposals and then threatened me with being banned for edit warring. You demanded that I stop editing but then ignored other people who edit warred. And now you have defied the consensus on WP:ANI to block me for reasons that you fail to explain. It's clear that you have made this into a personal vendetta against me and you've beeing seeking a reason to ban me for some time. You've accused me of stalking, but why can't you leave ME alone?

4. What "fiasco"? There was a series of personal attacks against me that grossly violated wikipedia policy. That is all that happened. I have done nothing to deserve or warrant those attacks. You are blaming the victim.

5. I am (partly) of Palestinian origin. To demand that I don't write about Palestinian issues is racist and ethnocentric, and yet further evidence that your actions are inappropriate here. Do you go around demanding that Israelis not discuss Israeli topics? How would you feel if someone told you that you couldn't edit about America?

6. Given that nobody has explained to me how my editing is "disruptive" that would be hard to do, wouldn't it?

And after all that talk, you have not provided a single scrap of evidence that I have been editing in a disruptive manner or stalking or harassing Wikifan12345 as you have repeatedly claimed. You have also failed to explain why you chose to ignore the consensus on WP:NPA and chose to block us both equally.

"If you believe you have not been editing in a provocative or abusive manner, I commend to you your own edit history and I recommend study thereof."

Wow. I politely ask you to point out instances in which I have been editing disruptively, and not only do you refuse to bother to give me any examples, you imply that ALL my edits to Misplaced Pages have been disruptive?

As arrogant, unconstructive, insulting replies go that one will be hard to top.

And how is my username pro-Palestinian? It's just a common saying. If anything it's been used by Israelis, not Palestinians. Another odd, untrue accusation.

Anyway, George, if you're right... why hasn't a _single_ administrator backed you up? The only feedback you have gotten is negative. You have even admitted that Wikifan12345 is a much worse offender than me. Yet you don't dare admit you are wrong, will you? Factsontheground (talk) 07:20, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Georgewilliamherbert continues to defy consensus, continues to make allegations against me without provide a signle piece of evidence

When is this going to stop?

{{subst:unblock|I have not made any personal attacks against Wikifan12345. This is not a single purpose account either, I edit on a great deal of articles. I don't see how I am being disruptive. I am simply following the dispute resolution procedure and participating in a discussion involving a large number of people about Wikifan12345's conduct.

Far from being "disruptive at ANI" I have made very few edits in that discussion. The edits I made today were specifically requested by User:Awickert.

I was simply responding to his request. If you are unhappy with the material I added to that page then remove it. It makes no difference to me.

Please read the WP:ANI entry and you will see that the vast majority of people involved in this dispute recognize and agree that Wikifan12345 is the problem, not me. There was a consensus that Wikifan12345's behaviour was the issue, not mine.

Please, Georgewilliamherbert, can you list the statements that I have made that constitute personal attacks or harassment against Wikifan12345?

It frustrates me that from the beginning I have gone out of my way to follow Misplaced Pages policy to the letter and avoid personal attacks, even in the face of extreme provocation, and yet I'm being treated exactly the same as an individual that has been involved in far more disputes than I have with far more people and who has a much larger block log. How is that justice?

If I am unblocked I will gladly correct my behaviour if someone can inform me what it is that I did wrong here.

There is a consensus at WP:ANI that Wikifan12345's personal attacks against me were abusive and that he required either a mentor or to go on 1RR probation. I cannot understand how Georgewilliamherbert decided to block us both equally, and since he is ignoring me, I have nothing to argue against. I simply cannot believe that I am being blocked because someone else chose to make vicious personal attacks against me.}}

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s): See below Request handled by: Daniel Case (talk) 21:07, 5 August 2009 (UTC) Unblocking administrator: Please check for active autoblocks on this user after accepting the unblock request.

• Reviewing admins could be interested in this thread. My initial assessment is the blocks probably shouldn't be of equal duration, however I could be wrong and have asked the blocking admin to provide some more information. PhilKnight (talk) 12:32, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Note that I have proposed Wikifan12345 be topic banned from Israel related topics for the remainder of 2009, which is gaining significant support. I do not feel any further action is needed with regards to Factsontheground, and am planning on reconsidering the block duration tomorrow. There were some other things going on today which got in the way. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:28, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

• Comment from user: I was a participant in the above "discussions" for a short while (came there via RfC), but left it shortly afterwards again, due to the fact that said user Wikifan was quite a pain in the *ss. Though I disagreed with factsontheground, I can say that his manners were always much more factual than wikifan's. Seb az86556 (talk) 15:28, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
• I will second the above comment in that, after I reviewed the article in dispute (List of terrorist incidents, 2009), Factsontheground seemed much more good faith and to the point than did Wikifan; my statement on AN/I for the topic ban should make this more clear. Awickert (talk) 16:09, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Unblocked

I have unblocked your account, reducing the week to time served. I would like to encourage you to review your own participation and reflect on what you were doing in your on-wiki fight with Wikifan12345 - your protestations of innocence are not a good sign, you were clearly engaged in disruptive activity on your side as well. However, balancing what you did do and what he did, I believe that going forwards you can edit in a productive fashion without ongoing disruption or personal attacks.

Note also that Wikifan12345, who will remain full blocked for the week, is about to be topic-banned from Israeli / Palestinean article topic areas, so the chances of you two coming in conflict again is somewhat lessened.

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 19:59, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi Factsonthegound. Its terrible that you were blocked and I think it was a decision that reflects rather poorly on the blocking admin. Don't get too down about it though. I was blocked four times myself over a six-month period when I first started here. True, I was edit-warring, but so were others, who didn't get blocked, and a couple of the admins who blocked me have later said they wouldn't have now.

It's hard being even a part Palestinian editor here. But it can be very rewarding sometimes, especially when you get to share information and learn new things about the places, people and things you love and love writing about. People sometimes misunderstand that kind off passion. Sometimes I have let it cloud my better judgement. Just remember that nothing at Misplaced Pages is ever lost. There is an article and talk page history. I'm not saying you did anything wrong by the way, I'm just saying we can all do better, as hard it is when we feel like our very existence in question. Anyway, excuse the intrusion, I'd just never had the chance to say marhaba before, and thought now would be a good a time as any. Welcome back and happy ediing. Tiamut 23:43, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

hello. I still somewhat disagree with your edit in said conflict but nonetheless found the imposed block too harsh. I believe partial disagreements should not lead to this. Your being accused of being anti-Jewish was totally unfounded. Seb az86556 (talk) 12:40, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Re. your note:

When I tagged that article, it had no references whatsoever on it, unlike now. Those templates are not some sort of indictment but rather a way of alerting the creator and other editors that the references are missing. It looks fine now, but in the future, please don't come onto my talk page with a chip on your shoulder over something this trivial. Thanks. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 07:44, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

The revision you added the template to does in fact have the exact same references that are there now. Factsontheground (talk)

With all due respect, no it did not, at least according to the software and what I saw on the article space without going into edit mode. It was showing the references as pointing to nowhere. I would never have tagged it otherwise. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 07:52, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Given that the article had just been created 2 minutes ago it is hardly surprising that the article space formatting had not been finalized. Edit mode would have shown you all the references. Maybe you should wait longer than 2 minutes before tagging newly created articles, particularly when they are still being actively edited by the creator. Factsontheground (talk) 07:58, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I do a lot of new page patrolling and I have absolutely no idea what you or any user has in mind when posting an article. All I know is what I saw and I would, again with due respect, advise you to keep a civil tone. Thank you. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 08:17, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Tagging just created articles which the creator is still actively editing is a bad idea. And "civil tone"? Far from being uncivil, I am probably being more polite than necessary. How am I being uncivil? You are the one who accused me of having "a chip on my shoulder". Factsontheground (talk) 08:26, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Recreation of articles that have been deleted via consensus is against wikipedia policy

(Later note by Factsontheground: I canvassed a number of admins on rhe CSD talk page () and there was consensus that WP:CSD#G4 did _not_ apply to the article in question)

Hello.

Perhaps you are unaware, but per WP:CSD#G4, the recreation of articles that have been deleted via consensus is against policy and the resulting articles may be speedily deleted. Please see Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Israeli art students, where a substantially identical article was deemed inappropriate for the project. Thank you for understanding and for your adherence to our policies. -- Avi (talk) 14:50, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi there. I asked Avi to provide copies of both your article and the one from 2006 that was deleted and he obliged, placing them in User:Tiamut/IAS. I have also asked him, after reviewing both articles, if he would consider restoring your article, since it seems to me to be sufficiently different from the article written more than years ago on the same subject. I'm still waiting for his response. In the meantime, if you would like to expand the article, you can on that page in my user space. Perhaps there are articles linked in the old version that may be useful (though your sources seem to be much better actually). Perhaps though, you mgiht wish to wait until we hear more from Avi. Cheers. Tiamut 20:28, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Hey there. Avi is in the process of guiding me on where to go next. If you could just hold off on taking any action for a moment, until he confirms how he thinks we should proceed, that would be good. Tiamut 21:24, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, Avi doesn't want to restore the article as he believes it is sufficiently similar in tone and topic to the one deleted in 2006. I disagree with that. However, he has suggested that instead of going to deletion review, we work on the article you wrote in user space to make it more NPOV before restoring it. I'm not sure that the article you wrote does have POV problems (I haven't looked at it that closely, but it seemed upon the reading I made, to stick rather closely to the facts of the case as I remember it). In any case, its really up to you right now. Do you want to work on the article in user space and then repost it with improvements? Or do you want to file the deletion review (that you did but then removed after my note to you above)? I'd support either course of action. Tiamut 21:47, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

One more thing: there are some book sources that could be used to further improve the article in user space before reposting (if that's the route you want to take). See The politics of anti-Semitism By Alexander Cockburn, Jeffrey St. Clair, for example. Tiamut 21:51, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Also, Crossing the Rubicon: the decline of the American empire at the end of the age of oil by Michael C. Ruppert Tiamut 21:54, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

For now, I'm happy to work on the article in user space to make it more NPOV.

The one legitimate POV issue is the lack of representation of the negative case against the spying scandal, which I was hoping that editors with Avi's point of view could contribute since the article was just created. But I am happy to add it myself.

Also, those book references are very useful. Thanks.

I'll repost the new version in a week, if Avi is okay with it. Factsontheground (talk) 21:59, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Cool. Here are a couple of news articles you may have missed, the latter of which may provide an as yet unrepresented POV in the article: 'Israeli art scam' hits Calgary, Espionage Ruled Out in Case of Bad Art. Tiamut 22:02, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

• Improving an article, whether in user space or main articel space, is always good. Frankly i think the article should not have been subject to WP:CSD#G4 and would be prepared to bring it to deletion review today. But if you are happy to work on it in user space a bit first, fine. You might want to consider placing the {{Userspace draft}} tag on the article while it is in userspace. DES 16:45, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you DES, I intend to make major improvements to the article in user space to address some of the POV concerns before I attempt to repost it. I could go to deletion review, but I would like to avoid wikidrama if possible :). Hopefully Avi will be reasonable about an improved version and bring it to AFD instead of speedying it, so it may be unnecessary. And thanks for the heads up about the userspace draft tag. Factsontheground (talk) 19:49, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Notification of the existence of editing restrictions

As a result of an arbitration case, the Arbitration Committee has acknowledged long-term and persistent problems in the editing of articles related to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, broadly understood. As a result, the Committee has enacted broad editing restrictions, described here and below.

• Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process.
• The sanctions imposed may include blocks of up to one year in length; bans from editing any page or set of pages within the area of conflict; bans on any editing related to the topic or its closely related topics; restrictions on reverts or other specified behaviors; or any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project.
• 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.
• Discretionary sanctions imposed under the provisions of this decision may be appealed to the imposing administrator, the appropriate administrators' noticeboard (currently WP:AE), or the Committee.

These editing restrictions may be applied to any editor for cause, provided the editor has been previously informed of the case. This message is to so inform you. This message does not necessarily mean that your current editing has been deemed a problem; this is a template message crafted to make it easier to notify any user who has edited the topic of the existence of these sanctions.

Generally, the next step, if an administrator feels your conduct on pages in this topic area is disruptive, would be a warning, to be followed by the imposition of sanctions (although in cases of serious disruption, the warning may be omitted). Hopefully no such action will be necessary.

This notice is only effective if given by an administrator and logged here. PhilKnight (talk) 21:37, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Read and understood :) Factsontheground (talk) 07:19, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Re: Avi Dichter

Hi Factsontheground! Please review Misplaced Pages:Biographies of living persons, which requires all Wikipedians to immediately remove contentious information about living persons that is not properly sourced. Wikipedians are under no obligation to do their own research in cases of BLP violations. —Ynhockey 01:54, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Factsontheground, I do not believe you quite understand Misplaced Pages's BLP policy. The person seeking to insert controversial content must properly source it. The fact that you did not care to check if the link worked before posting it, and also did this despite an earlier edit summary (equivalent of talk page comment) contesting the edit, does not help your argument. Please be much more careful next time when inserting controversial information about living persons. —Ynhockey 02:12, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Removing the comments of others

Why did you remove the comments of AMuseo from the article deletion page? You just left me a note to the effect that such actions are not allowed. Are you saying that you have special powers? Are you saying that you can do whatever you like?? Are you saying that you have special privileges around here? Are you manipulating Misplaced Pages for your own ends? -Gilabrand (talk) 11:15, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

The comment was misleading, it suggested that an unrelated article, which happens to be extremely poor, was a previous version of the current article. The comment you tried to delete was accurate and truthful. Factsontheground (talk) 11:20, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Please don't do that. Feel free to ask if you would like more of an explanation. Continuing to remove it will result in all sorts of bureaucratic stuff that no one should want to deal with. There is a project page and a talk page at your disposal.Cptnono (talk) 11:20, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I am not prepared to leave a misleading comment like that in the discussion, because editors will see that official-sounding comment at the top and follow it to the unrelated, inferior article and use it to judge the article in discussion. I am already concerned about how many delete votes were given on the basis of that article and not the real one. Factsontheground (talk) 11:23, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

No, you don't get to edit the discussion. Only the original editor can do that. Ditto regarding my vote.--Gilabrand (talk) 11:32, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I have stricken out the comment instead of deleting it to make it absolutely clear. I hope that satsifies both of your concerns. Factsontheground (talk) 11:27, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately that is not our call to make. Striking out someone else comments is considered "refactoring" and could also imply that the other editor has striked out their previous comment for whatever reason. This is very clear in the talk page guidelines but is touched on much less on other pages (this is technically a project page I believe). So I will ask you to undue your strike before doing it myself. It will be good form on your part if you do so and your comment made below should suffice for what you are striving to achieve. Cptnono (talk) 11:32, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually, there are many exceptions that allow the editing of other people's comments. Posting a purposefully deceptive comment that appears official in order to skew an AFD debate is an abuse of Misplaced Pages processes. As such it falls under the trolling exemption as explained by misuse of process. Please do not edit war about this; if I am wrong you should let an admin know and they will block me for my actions. Factsontheground (talk) 11:43, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Done: Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Refactoring of another user's comments on a project page Related: Please do not delete my comments ever again. That is a definite no no.Cptnono (talk) 12:08, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

You're the one who started edit warring and reverting other people's edits to the talk page. Factsontheground (talk) 12:14, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I didn't say you were edit warring. Don't get bent out of shape on this. I think you are wrong and you think you are right. We'll see.Cptnono (talk) 12:15, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the : . We obviously have a difference of opinion on if you are allowed to remove or strike out another editor's comments on a project page. I hope you are found to be in the wrong simply for the principle. Regardless, it is about the article in question. If it does not survive AfD (which I still believe it shouldn't) it doesn't hurt my feelings getting it worked into Misplaced Pages somewhere.Cptnono (talk) 12:23, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

• Further to the discussion at ANI, I would point out that removing or refactoring other peoples comments is a violation of WP:TPOC. As you are apparently unaware of this guideline I will restrict myself to warning you not to do so again, outside of the exceptions noted on the page. I would further comment that possible policy transgressions by other parties do not enable you to transgress policy in return. Please regard the above as an official warning. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:51, 7 March 2010 (UTC)