Misplaced Pages

User talk:Arcticocean: Difference between revisions

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.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 19:32, 3 November 2009 editArcticocean (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Extended confirmed users46,227 editsm →Reconsideration: Four, not six.← Previous edit Revision as of 19:33, 3 November 2009 edit undoNableezy (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Page movers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers56,155 edits →Arbitrary section breakNext edit →
Line 174: Line 174:
::::You raised the point about what an academic might think. I think, as someone academically published, that any academic would say qualitative contributions to a subject is not, as a very general rule, improved by contributions coming in from people who are unfamiliar with the background of that subject, its peer-review material, its textual negotiations over evidence, esp. when much they object to has already been challenged or discounted in the subject's prior literature etc. ::::You raised the point about what an academic might think. I think, as someone academically published, that any academic would say qualitative contributions to a subject is not, as a very general rule, improved by contributions coming in from people who are unfamiliar with the background of that subject, its peer-review material, its textual negotiations over evidence, esp. when much they object to has already been challenged or discounted in the subject's prior literature etc.
::::I'm not justifying Nableezy's reversions, but they are not irrational. It's just that dozens of people accepted that text who are no longer present on the page, and the page is now predominantly edited by a majority that is, once more, trying to get it elided. You are right to sanction Nableezy, but to do so harshly, while saying, of all people, Nableezy whose behaviour for intelligent negotiation is confirmed by many, 'ran wild' in a way that might put off future editing from new, academically grounded wikipedians, is odd. Most academics I know laughed when I told them I worked on I/P articles, for only someone with excessive leisure and a streak of masochism would willingly enter an area that requires extenuating hours, and days of explaining the ABC of composition to every newby or anonymous I/P that drifts in. What you need is encouragement to people who (a) have shown strong commitment (b) have stayed the course (c) have an acknowledged empathy with editors who disagree with their POV and work equably to find compromises. Nableezy has this, and is subject to a severe sanction. The other editor has neither, and his qualifications in this regard are ignored, suggesting that newbies with poor experience are encouraged over practiced editors who make occasional lapses. Still, I'll shut up. I think even my comments here run dangerously close to transgressing my perma-ban. Regards. No need to reply. I have, when active, always told fellow editors to take administrative sanctions on the chin, and not to whinge. Nableezy hasn't. ] (]) 18:42, 3 November 2009 (UTC) ::::I'm not justifying Nableezy's reversions, but they are not irrational. It's just that dozens of people accepted that text who are no longer present on the page, and the page is now predominantly edited by a majority that is, once more, trying to get it elided. You are right to sanction Nableezy, but to do so harshly, while saying, of all people, Nableezy whose behaviour for intelligent negotiation is confirmed by many, 'ran wild' in a way that might put off future editing from new, academically grounded wikipedians, is odd. Most academics I know laughed when I told them I worked on I/P articles, for only someone with excessive leisure and a streak of masochism would willingly enter an area that requires extenuating hours, and days of explaining the ABC of composition to every newby or anonymous I/P that drifts in. What you need is encouragement to people who (a) have shown strong commitment (b) have stayed the course (c) have an acknowledged empathy with editors who disagree with their POV and work equably to find compromises. Nableezy has this, and is subject to a severe sanction. The other editor has neither, and his qualifications in this regard are ignored, suggesting that newbies with poor experience are encouraged over practiced editors who make occasional lapses. Still, I'll shut up. I think even my comments here run dangerously close to transgressing my perma-ban. Regards. No need to reply. I have, when active, always told fellow editors to take administrative sanctions on the chin, and not to whinge. Nableezy hasn't. ] (]) 18:42, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
I havent actually asked for any change for the sanction, but your reasoning is faulty. You say ''the correct response is to open discussion over the edit on the article talk page. The incorrect response is to revert; and an even more incorrect one is to revert twelve times, as Nableezy did.'' I did that, I opened an RfC, I went to the RS/N, I went to the NPOV/N. I tried to get as many people as possible to look at the issue, and if consensus had been against me I would have been fine with that. Also, if you looked at the diffs closely, you can see that not all 12 are reverts. Multiple different sources were added to try to settle the issue, it was not simply reverting the words it was adding or changing sources to meet the objections. Whereas I actually tried to follow ], Stellarkid has done nothing but remove the phrase. If you are strictly looking at the reversions then you should look a bit harder. Here are the removals by Stellarkid:
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
* (the last two in quick succession after he had just seen the sanctions for edit-warring on this issue
These are about 90% of Stellarkid's edits to the page, whereas the 12 you sanctioned me for represent around 2% of my edits to the page. Stellarkid has done almost '''nothing''' on that page but try to remove a name for the conflict, a name for which 10 sources were provided, and 2 sources explicitly saying that it is the name used in the Arab world. Stellarkid repeatedly removed well-sourced text for reasons not consistent with policy, and repeatedly misrepresented both the sources and policy to do so. He has argued that ] disqualifies Arabic sources when it in fact does the exact opposite, he has argued that ] means something other than providing a verifiable reliable source meets that burden when it says exactly that. You judge my presence on the page as ''not a helpful one'' on the basis of less than 2% of my edits to that page, not looking at the history of this issue and the history of Stellarkid's involvement in the topic area (where he has in the past opposed a name used by historians as an article name because it has the word ''Palestine'' in it). I dont really care about this anymore, and whether or not you reduce the sanction does not matter to me, but you need to more closely examine the issues instead of looking at a list of diffs for 10 seconds and making a determination from that. If you do that you can quickly see that I tried to use every DR process available, and that Stellarkid has done nothing but edit-war his favored POV in to, or the opposing POV out of, the article. But I really dont mind the topic ban, I dont have to waste my time removing , or reverting that violate guidelines mandated by an ArbCom case, or dealing with any number of the other wastes of time that editing in the area brings. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - 19:33, 3 November 2009 (UTC)</font></small>


=== Reconsideration === === Reconsideration ===

Revision as of 19:33, 3 November 2009

"For the dancers to appear at once ridiculous – stop up our ears to the sound of music, in a room where people are dancing."

Where this user currently is, the time is 04:07, Thursday 26 December 2024.

This is the user talk page for AGK. You can also send this user an internal email.

I have taken 68,260 actions on Misplaced Pages: 54,362 edits, 3,301 deletions, 2,661 blocks, and 7,936 protections. You are welcome to reverse any of them, except if my reason mentioned "checkuser", "arbitration", or "oversight".

Centralized discussion

Feeding the flames

I don't like the way User:Count Iblis is feeding the flames of various disputes. He seems to be encouraging bad behavior. Could you have a look at his recent contributions and let me know if you agree. I am thinking that WP:RFC/U may be in order. Jehochman 01:19, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I've reported both of you for incivil behavior toward me. I should have told you yesterday, but I thought that it would be better not to let anyone know, so as not to bring the whole Arbcom circus over there. I want to let others who know nothing of that case to have a look.
Feeding flames? Isn't Brews now behaving in a positive way now? Aren't it now precisely those few other editors who were excused for their problematic behavior by Arbcom, who are stirring the pot? Count Iblis (talk) 02:08, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
Count: So you raised a WQA complaint without informing the subjects? Aside from being sneaky, that's downright discourteous. (Jehochman: Will respond to you shortly.) AGK 11:43, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
As I understand it, unlike in case of AN/I, in case of WQA it is not compulsory. Also, I'm more interested in hearing the opinion about the statements made toward me, not about the persons who made the statements. Count Iblis (talk) 14:14, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
Courtesy notifications never are compulsory, but they are conducive to a harmonious editing atmosphere. Failing to notify is just, as I say, not proper. AGK 14:26, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Jehochman: I can't help but notice that Count is still involving himself in matters relating to Brews ohare, but in the latest instance, it was to speak out in support of Brews, rather than against him. I maintain that Count's involvement in that particular dispute is of little benefit, but I am afraid that I am not seeing any evidence of a more widespread pattern of disruptive involvement in content or conduct disputes. If you have any disputes you think I should be looking at in more detail, then please do highlight them, but as a preliminary statement, I'm not sure I would concur. AGK 13:26, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

"...but I am afraid that I am not seeing any evidence of a more widespread pattern of disruptive involvement in content or conduct disputes"

ROFLMAO, I'm now afraid that you'll become even more afraid! Note that editors Brews and Likebox are not in the same category as the troublemakers on politics pages. The reason I came out in defense of them (to some extent) is simply because I had worked with them before, so I knew them. I am not saying that they haven't caused any problems at all that one should address. But Brews is still an engineering professor (retired I think) who has made many good edits to physics articles.

He made a mistake when he completely dominated the speed of light page in which he wanted to edit in his POV (and his POV was also wrong). His general editing style was bit problematic, also on other articles. Brews now has to stick to his topic ban, despite it being completely flawed. He cannot contribute to those topics to which he could make good contributions, and the speed of light affair points to the potential danger of him contributing to a topic on which he is not an expert. But then that's 100% the mistake of Arbcom.

My position now is that it would be a bad thing if Brews were to leave Misplaced Pages, so if Brews does get interested in editing in some area otside his topic ban then that's a very good thing. If that happens to be something related to dispute resolution, Misplaced Pages policies, etc. let it be. Just point out to him to be mindful of some of the factors that led to the problems on the speed of light page. Perhaps the fact that there are potentially more problems in that area will make him learn to avoid the typical errors he used to make.

If instead we take a negative attitude and tell him to stay out of those few things he is interested in outside of physics, then its almost a certainty that he will leave. Count Iblis (talk) 23:36, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Have you never came across the usage of "afraid" as a synonym for 'sorry', Count? wikt:afraid#Synonyms.
I would agree with most of your observations about Brews. AGK 23:41, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
I see, I did not know that "afraid" can also mean "sorry". I'm not a native English speaker... Anyway, as you see on your talk page below, I think you and Jehochman have your hands full with policing politics articles such as the one about the Gaza War. Count Iblis (talk) 14:18, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

AE

Thanks for the feedback. Should enforcement be changed to "Cptnono is prohibited for a period of 6 months from making a comment on article talk pages that addresses the conduct of a contributor." It is not acceptable to make comments on an article's talk page about other editors? Or is that period a probationary period and if I do it after 6 months I could (not will) get a reminder instead of a block?

Your decision is also vague. can you clarify a little? Am I not allowed to say "I like so and so's proposal" anything related to an the "act, manner, or process of carrying on" of an editor (ie: "I disagree with so and so's revert") or do you mean commenting on what I see as reasoning behind their actions (which this case was about)? Cptnono (talk) 23:27, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Follow-up: I clarified my question after considering "conduct" more. Any clarification on your decision would be appreciated.Cptnono (talk) 23:54, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

The talk page guideline does not say to not discuss not discussing other contributors. I look communication being a "prime value" (per Misplaced Pages:Talk page guidelines) and think everyone should be aware of certain things. I did fail in "courtesy", though. Should your decision be amended to "No personal attacks" (per WP:TALKO)? I don't think I personally attacked anyone but understand they saw it that way. I also realize from some comments that being overly aggressive isn't the answer ("editors with Palestinian stuff on their user page" was one thing I recanted on since it was a stupid comment).

More important, do these general sanctions encompass the article, topic, or all of Wikipeida. I don't mind following the rules (or even standard practice if it is not written down) of course but want to make sure everything is clear in case I screw up. I am not familiar with the process (my name isn't even on the list of people who were informed and the link provided a couple of minutes before the AE was filed did not discuss the sanctions) so even more clarification would help. Thanks.Cptnono (talk) 00:03, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

  • Hi there. I am generally not a fan of sanctions of indefinite length, and so I set a 6-month cap on the restriction. If you'd like it to never end, then I'm sure an adjustment can be made :-). The restriction is against commenting on another editor's conduct, and so, whilst "user X has brought his so-and-so bias to this article" is not acceptable, "The proposal by user X seems biased towards viewpoint Y, which I think we would need to remedy" would be fine. The idea is that you are evaluating article content issues, rather than the actions of another editor. You should have been informed of the situation, but I didn't view it as a problem because you participated extensively in the discussions on AE (which demonstrates an awareness on your part).
    I would add that I intend to apply the same sanction to any editor who finds himself unable to comment on content and not on contributors.
    Have I cleared up your worries? AGK 00:39, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
  • In response to your latest addition: Well, the sanctions prohibits you from "comment in contributors instead of on content"—which is the basic message of Misplaced Pages:No personal attacks, so NPA is indeed the underlying guideline. I didn't actually refer to any guideline in my decision, though, so there's nothing to correct. AGK 00:43, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Well I was made aware of it after it was filed certainly so I do think I could try to use it as a loophole to wiggle out of the decision but that would be lame and more than likely won't work. This was the first time I participated in AE (I participated again a week or so later) so I am not clear of all the rules. Is this a subject, topic, or Misplaced Pages encompassing decision?
In regards to personal attacks and commenting on other editors I'll use some common sense. Basically, don't call people out like that, right?Cptnono (talk) 00:46, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
  • The Committee are well known for having little patience for wikilawyers, too, which might be something to bear in mind. With respect to the scope of the sanction: it applies to the talk pages of all articles that are related to the Palestine-Israel articles arbitration case (including, of course, Talk:Gaza War). AGK 00:51, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
  • I don't think it would be wikilawyering at all since I had never participated in the arbitration enforcement process and had never looked into it. You have no way of knowing if that is true (unfortunately for me) and I shouldn't be breaking the rules anyways.
  • Your clarification "user X has brought his so-and-so bias to this article" was perfect. Thanks for all of the feedback and nice work. Even though this is for the specific articles in the case, I'll keep this in mind on other topics since it seems like a much better way to be.Cptnono (talk) 01:01, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
  • No. Thanks again for pointing me in the right direction and the clarification. I actually have someone doing what I did to Nableezy to me so it is a humbling experience! Cptnono (talk) 21:36, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Rjanag arb request

Hi AGK, I noticed you left some other users messages about shortening their statements in the arb request. Mine is also a bit long (although technically under the limit if you don't count the stricken part), so feel free to roll-up the stricken-out part if you think it's appropriate. Thanks, rʨanaɢ /contribs 00:05, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

  • I did consider your statement, but it comes in at around 510 words in total (inclusive of the stricken section), so I think yours is reasonable enough for me to not ask that it be adjusted. Thank you for being so willing to co-operate: to experience such an attitude is most refreshing! Regards, AGK 01:03, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

David Tombe thread at WP:AN/AE

I see that you've just closed the David Tombe thread at AE, probably a good move to prevent further disruption. Nevertheless, could you redact your reasoning a bit to make more of a summary of the action against David Tombe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)? Something along the lines of adding "warning about breach of topic ban and/or general probation" at the start. I don't think we've seen the last of this editor, so it would be helpful to have a quick 'index' guide to the different discussions. Physchim62 (talk) 14:03, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Good point. I've added more specifics at the top of the thread. Could you take a look and then indicate whether that is along the lines of what you were asking for? AGK 14:10, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

topic ban

regarding the topic ban there is a small part of an article I have been working on User:Nableezy/Al-Azhar mosque that mentions the head of the mosque issuing a fatwa calling for war in 1967 against Israeli and another fatwa calling for peace in the late 70s. Id like to finish that article up and those are the only sentences dealing with the I/P area in the article. Can I finish that or not? nableezy - 21:27, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

  • Slightly confused, I am allowed one more edit to that page? Or one more edit to that page regarding the conflict? Would the rest of that page be covered in the topic ban because of the 30 or so words related to it? nableezy - 22:05, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
  • You are allowed to make that edit, which I will count as exempted from the topic ban. (It needs to be exempted because, to answer your second question, yes, it does fall under the topic ban.) Is that more clear? AGK 22:52, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
  • The words are more clear but I cannot understand the judgment. I can't see how an article about a mosque founded in the 900s in Cairo, an article currently at 60kB, would as a whole fall under the topic ban because of two sentences that barely touch on the conflict. If I were to remove those two sentences would I then be free to edit the article? Looking at how topic bans have been enacted, for example the Judea and Samaria case, articles that are for the most part outside of the area but include sections touching on it are outside of the topic ban except for the section of the article related to the conflict. I cant understand how that article would fall under the topic of "I/P conflict broadly interpretation" no matter how broad the interpretation. Are you saying I am not allowed to add anything to the architectural history or the history while Egypt was under the rule of the Ottomans because of two sentences that touch on the conflict? nableezy - 23:16, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
  • I was going on your definition of whether the article was within the scope of the topic ban, but as you're now telling me that the article actually doesn't relate to the topic areas in question, I would consider you free to edit. I think you have to use your own discretion in evaluating whether something is affected by the topic ban; I don't want to be specific or issue case-by-case evaluations (which are conducive to wikilawyering). AGK 23:27, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, that clears it up (thought you might have looked at the article before answering). Also, since I am free to edit, could you please delete Al-Azhar Mosque so I can move my draft over it? nableezy - 23:29, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
Of course I looked at the article; I simply gave up trying to evaluate the scope of every sentence because I'm not familiar with the subject area. And I'd direct you to Misplaced Pages:Proposed mergers in answer to your question. AGK 23:38, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) This was a shockingly bad decision on your part, AGK. Even if one were to accept your claim that Nableezy's presence at Gaza War has been disruptive (which I and many others do not), you might have considered a more circumscribed ban, limiting him from editing that page only for the next four months. As it is, all you have accomplished is to prevent an excellent and informed contributor from contributing to an area which needs more informed editors who have the ability to get along with most editors from all sides of the debate. Perhaps you might reconsider your decision? Tiamut 08:11, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

And one can't help but noticing that other editors whose conduct on I-P pages was raised recently at AE seem to have gotten off rather more lightly. Eg User:Shuki - who it has to be said has led something of a charmed life when one compares what they get up to with what sanctions have ever hit them - whose section simply lapsed without action. User:Cptnono, whose sins included calling another editor a "dirty liar" on at least one occasion on their talk page and whose case was closed by your good self, was simply given a restriction requiring them not to comment on contributors on talk pages, something you would have thought was covered anyway by existing guidelines that apply to everyone already. As far as I can tell on the Gaza War page, Nableezy was restoring sourced information that several other editors were removing. There were issues on all sides there, but of course he looked worse in that light, as you often do when you're one against a group of like-minded editors who've formed a bloc - especially when that group then descends on WP:AE to really twist the knife in. --Nickhh (talk) 09:42, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Thank you both for your comments. I'm sorry that you feel that the sanction was too harsh, but, having reconsidered it, I don't agree.

    Editors who cannot helpfully contribute (and no, thirteen reversions about the same sentence is not by any definition helpful) to one article typically cannot contribute to most in that subject area. When such an editor is brought to AE, it is quite ordinary for them to simply be told to stay away from that topic area; that is what, in placing this sanction, I have done. Given that there is such a well-founded basis for this sanction, there is no reason why I should allow Nableezy another chance… Comments on this note, rather than along the (in this case, not very valid) lines of "But he didn't do much wrong" and "The others were worse", would be welcome.

    In response to the suggestions that Nableezy is the less damaging of many disruptive influences on the article, I say that that does not in itself excuse his misconduct. If another editor is misbehaving, then bring them to AE, and action will be taken that is appropriate to the disruptiveness of their contributions. Where I handle the complaint, I certainly will have little sympathy. AGK 09:57, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. I'm sorry however that it does not address the main point I raised at AE, which is that Nableezy had already committed himself to not editing the Gaza War article. Clearly, he acknowledged that his actions were not contributing to a resolution of the issues there. That willingness to unilaterally disengage should be commended, and not met with further punishments based on your unproven belief that he will be disruptive elsewhere. Again, sanctions are meant to be preventative, and not punitive. Please think again about what message you are sending to him and other editors. It does come off as a terrible double standard. Especially when others who were brought to the noticeboards just before him failed to admit any wrongdoing and got away scot free. Tiamut 10:22, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
And one more thing AGK, Nableezy was not edit-warring himself. The wrongdoing of the editor who filed the complaint, who was removing the sentence in question (actually that constituting the only edits he made to the page), was not even addressed in your sanction. Whereas Nableezy pursued all dispute resolution options, all Stellarkid did was to remove the sentence over and over again. Please do read over the diffs again particularly those presented by Nableezy. There is a double standard in the decision itself, and not just as compared to other cases. Tiamut 11:03, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I'm here to say that I also think this was a bad decision. It was especially wrong to extend the ban to all IP related articles, for which you gave no reason whatever. What is your justification for that? And why have you taken no action (apologies if I missed it) against the pov-pushers who endlessly insisted that the lead paragraph of Gaza war only contain the Israeli perspective? The lesson you seem to be giving is that perpetual pov-pushing is a good tactic since anyone who patiently opposes it will be banned eventually. Zero 11:21, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi AGK, I know nothing about the circumstances that led to the topic ban, but based on my experience of him, Nableezy is an editor who does his best to edit within the policies and to see things from both perspectives. SlimVirgin 11:48, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
  • I'm only popping in for a few moments to read my talk page messages, so I can't fully deal with this matter at present, but I promise that I'll have fully re-considered the topic ban by tomorrow evening. It may well be the case that I have been too severe here (although that would surprise me, as typically I have more complaints about me being too lenient than too severe!), and I am not at all ruling out the possibility that I misjudged the situation. The disadvantage of working at AE is that, unlike the initial arbitration decision (which can be thought over by the arbitrators for some weeks on the PD and workshop pages), decisions are made almost instantaneously—in part because requests for input from other administrators are rarely answered. Thank you all in advance for your patience. AGK 13:09, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
    • Nableezy is an SPA and, as such, a six month topic ban is equivalent to a six month block. This seems a tad similar to basically telling him that his presence is entirely unwelcome in Misplaced Pages; which I'm sure was not the original intent. In that resepct, there is room to shorten the sanction given, possibly to a 2 week block -- and to enforce some type of long term 1RR/DE warning instead. Nableezy has demostrated a battle approach and a tag-team mentality, but these things can change if he's given a resonable chance at a comeback. I understood your concern, AGK, that a block at this point seems punitive and that it doesn't quite cover the long term extent of the problem discussed, but I think Nableezy would rather have a humble option at returning than the current situation where he's banned from the only subject he edits for a whole 6 months. I would like to see some acknoledgement by Nableezy towards the issues raised. I can't see all the justifications made or the comments by his compatriots (let alone notes left by numerous topic-banned fans on his talkpage) as a great start but he could be given that chance if we see an attempt at change. Jaakobou 22:41, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
AGK, as part of your reappraisal of the evidence, I hope you will consider the following. Your ruling teaches that an editor should be banned for six months for inserting a RS cited phrase that improves NPOV of an article. And that an editor who deletes this RS cited phrase every time it is inserted, making the article more POV, but then runs to the AE page to lodge a complaint, should be rewarded. Is that really your intention? Jaakobou's suggestion to tone down the punishment is completely wrong - this ruling should not be toned down, it should be reversed. I think that will be obvious if you take the time to look at the change Nableezy was making and check the citation he provided - and if you think about which version of the disputed sentence is more NPOV and which one improves the project. Thank you, Jgui (talk) 00:09, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
I have to disagree here with Jgui. Adding hyperbole titles to each and every article about clashes/incidents between Israelis and Arabs does not "improve NPOV of an article". Not all Arabs are following this culture of victim-hood and it is offensive to look at/present them as if they all do. In that sense, several POV pushers would love adding the word "massacre" to each and every battle Israel waged against militants but would never add a title like heroic XXX operation to an incident where an Arab lynched Jewish civilians. Its a case of severe POV pushing and certainly not an issue of improving neutrality. Hyperbole language may be acceptable in fringe medias or even in quotation marks in mainstream ones but it is not befitting of this project as actual titles of articles. In that sense, we have Allahdad incident and not Allahdad extermination even though the latter was used on several instances. The same rule of encyclopedic conservatism should follow for everyone. Also, I find these multiple justifications for continuous edit-warring unbelievable. Jaakobou 12:12, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
Jaakobou, are you talking about the same case? This AE is about a *single* page - the "Gaza war" page. And this complaint is founded on the argument that Nableezy has violated WP policies by inserting the following into the article: "The has been called the Gaza Massacre (Template:Lang-ar) in the Arab world" Notice that the statement is cited to a RS periodical, which contains the sentence: "Known in the Arab world as the Gaza Massacre, Operation Cast Lead ...". So we have a RS periodical that states *exactly* what Nableezy is putting into the article, and you are talking about "Arab victim-hood" and "POV pushing" and "hyperbole language" and "fringe media". Excuse me - are you serious? This lede paragraph is introducing the "Gaza war" to all WP readers, and as such it is highly appropriate that it lists all widely used terms that the war is known by. And since you and Stellarkid think its fine to include the Israeli Defence Force's name for the war, and the Israeli media's name for the war, can you please explain how it is not OK to include the Arab name for the war? And can you explain how including only the Israeli side's name for the war, but excluding the Arab name for the war, is NPOV? Thank you, Jgui (talk) 21:09, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
Jgui,
You've completely missed the point of this project if you think that terms like "massacre" are worthy for inclusion as an article title when the side using this title also declared a "divine victory" (yes, Hamas copied Hezbollah) and has video's of their officials saying "we desire death as you desire life". Hyperbole narrative language doesn't fit this project's purpose and I beg the difference between terms like "operation case lead" and terms like "ethnic cleansing"/"massacre"/"catastrophe"/etc. I can give you multiple examples of this nature where a Jewish term for an event is just as bad and should not be used (see also WP:SOAP).
With respect, Jaakobou 21:29, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
Jaakobou, funny but I thought the point of this project was to be comprehensive, NPOV, uncensored, and thorough - but apparently you think none of those is important in this instance. If I understand you correctly, you are arguing that "terms like massacre" are "hyperbole narrative language" that should be censored out of WP, or at least out of "article titles" (which this actually isn't since its in the body of the article, but no matter). This is truly an extraordinary claim, considering the large number of articles we have that include "massacre" in their titles - there's a partial list of them here. One of the many is 1929 Hebron Massacre. This also concerns a military action in Palestine where many non-combatants were killed - although they were Jewish in this instance. So would you argue that the title of that article should be changed because it includes this "hyperbole narrative language"?. Thank you, Jgui (talk) 22:41, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
Are you really comparing the 1929 Hebron Massacre with the battle between the IDF and rocket launchers in Gaza? As I've noted, there's a dissonance between Hamas narratives and terminology misuse can easily turn into hyperbole if we were to use terms like "massacre" for every time Arabs waged war on Israel and lost. More-so when they also called the events a divine victory in inner circles. There is nothing neutral in giving one dissonance narrative without giving the other, and certainly, neither is an actual official name. This project is indeed supposed to be comprehensive and I fully support noting the massacre narrative in the body of the article but this is also meant to be an encyclopedia and names should be constructed in a conservative manner, per official mainstream naming conventions.
p.s. its getting hard to continue taking the arguments at their face value where at first you compared "Gaza massacre" with a completely neutral naming convention ("operation cast lead"), and now you compare a small percentage of Gaza population finding themselves in harms way (after Hamas declared war on Israel) with the successful extermination of a thousand+ year old community.
p.p.s. I would prefer that we discuss the issue of Nableezy's conduct and how it could be improved upon rather than the controversial content changes.
Regards, Jaakobou 00:53, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
Jaakobou, the point is that we can't name articles according to an Israeli POV. If there are alternative names, we generally list these in the first sentence, and it matters not what the names are, so long as we have reliable sources for them. That was the principle Nableezy was trying to uphold. SlimVirgin 00:56, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
Where is the Israeli POV in the term 'Operation cast lead' exactly? "Divine victory" was also a common Hamas descriptive for the Gaza fighting. I don't suppose you'd think that adding both "Divine Victory" and "Massacre" is a great way for leading into the article. Certainly not in what Nableezy was doing. e.g. repeatedly adding it while ignoring the discussion page and playing dangerously close to 3RR on numerous occasions while reporting others for 3RR violations.
Btw, Hamas also had a military name for their operation. I suggest we look into that one rather than into promoting the hyperbole propaganda-war narratives any of the sides was using into the first sentence.
With respect, Jaakobou 01:17, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
We call it "Gaza War," which implies the POV that it was, indeed, a war, rather than aerial bombardment followed by a ground invasion. Then we say it was called Operation Cast Lead by the IDF, which further militarizes it. Not satisfied, we add more Israeli military POV by saying the Israeli media call it the War in the South. Then someone tries to add the Arab name, and they're reverted, reported, and topic-banned. :) SlimVirgin 01:52, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
SlimVirign,
I guess you missed all the reports on hundreds of rockets that hit southern Israeli cities (and disbanded children's classrooms). Otherwise, why would you describe the war in the south as if Hamas didn't partake in militancy on Israeli civilians and add smilies to your comment(?!). I think you should apologize and re-factor your last comment.
Cordially, Jaakobou 02:16, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
According to the NY Times -- not hundreds but thousands. They give the figure 8000 (rockets and mortars). Stellarkid (talk) 02:30, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
Testimonials don't count of course, particularly from the likes of myself, one of the banned of 4, but evidence of positive appraisels for someone subject to a topic ban from people on the other side of the divide, or from three editors in high standing for their noted fairness and impartiality, should hold some weight. If only because they come from people who have an intimate memory of, and knowledge of, exchanges on difficult pages from which they gained their impressions. This kind of evidence review can't be expected of an outside admin. But I think, when you get Jalapenos do exist,Malik Shabazz, IronDuke,Sean.hoyland,JGGardiner,The Squicks and SlimVirgin expressing their regret at the outcome, and appreciation of Nableezy's moderation, then it does suggest the 4 month topic ban looks harsh. This is one of the most difficult areas in wikipedia, and requires rigourous supervision, but at the same time, one should keep in sight the fact that good, solid content-contributing, responsive and empathetic editors are extremely scarce. Nableezy was one of them. Regards Nishidani (talk) 11:34, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Taking another day to consider this matter, and to digest the numerous talk page messages and e-mails relating to the Nableezy sanction that have been sent to me. AGK 01:05, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
Good heavens! I just stepped into a big pile here. As the complaining editor, I would like to add my 2cents. While it is true I made a few reverts of this "massacre" issue, mostly I did offer alternatives, or revert to someone else's alternatives. I (and others) discussed this copiously on the talk page -- most of it is already archived. I personally did very little other editing on this article, finding the Gaza Massacre a major turn-off since it is so clearly POV. It's not enough that "Gaza Massacre" redirects to the Gaza War article, but we must pretend that it is an "alternative name" as well and stick it in the lede! Perhaps there is some WP precedent for this? It is my honest and considered belief that Nableezy was attempting to war in this term rather than deal with the pages and pages of archived objections in an honest attempt to collaborate. As I said, he is well liked despite the fact that he has a clear POV that he tries to shoehorn into this and other I-P articles. Interestingly, it appears that as soon as he was away from the article, some of the above sympathetic editors have taken up his cudgel with the same tired arguments and with as little effort (so far) to collaborate or read the previous month's discussion. These particular editors were not here over the last month or more when when the discussion was taken. I think it highly unfair that they are suggesting that Gaza Massacre should now be in and should not be removed, something like a monument to Nableezy, it seems. I believe a 4 month "sentence" is not unreasonable under the circumstances. He can still communicate on user-talk pages and there is plenty of material outside of the I-P section that he can work on -- such as the article he was talking about at the beginning of this section. I support your original decision and think it fair. Thank you. Stellarkid (talk) 02:22, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
Stellarkid here admit his intensions to povedit the article. Nableezys response to him in AE prove it . Stellarkids reverts is against the policy based in long discussions on talkpage and without consensus. Its a worser violation than Nableezys. He shows his battlementality here, defend his hipocritical AE request and show no change of mind and even subtly try to round up Cptnono to continue. . He should be indef. topicbanned if anybody. Any administrator can interfere under the sanktions and enforce it (AGK, hello!). That would be good for Misplaced Pages. Mr Unsigned Anon (talk) 04:38, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
Stellarkid has been a princess (not in a weird way) compared to several editors. You know who you are and I am included in that list. He was taking what he saw as not having consensus for inclusion + multiple editors contending the line and making the change. Questionable form but I don't think it reaches the habitual level of disruption needed for a topic ban. He has even made arguments laying out why there is a POV concern with massacre as a title without it being based on it being a really mean word like many others have. And we shouldn't be changing the subject anyways. Cptnono (talk) 07:04, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
Cant understand why you defend him and his way of arguing. Even if your arguing been way to lengthly you have atleast kept your arguing around policy and and shown you read policy befor you refered to it. Not just povpushed and reverted as your main contribution to the article. Dont exspend that cred on those not deserve it. Mr Unsigned Anon (talk) 07:24, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
Length and I have been a jerk. I get what you are saying but I don't think Stellarkid deserves more than a talking to at this time. I can go into detail ( uh-oh :) ) on why I think but it isn't my decision to make and even if it was this case wasn't about him or me or you or anyone else.Cptnono (talk) 07:39, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break

Section break added for readability's sake. AGK 11:33, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Hi AGK. Its been a few days now. Anything to add regarding your review on the situation? Thanks. Tiamut 20:21, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to procrastinate, but, due to IRL busyness, I'll need one more day. I haven't yet read all of the messages that have been sent to me regarding this. As a preliminary comment, though, I am seeing little evidence that the sanction itself was invalid; a more difficult question is whether it was too severe. Final follow-up to come shortly. Regards, AGK 22:49, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
I think taking one's time salutary and proof of diligence. There is no doubt that the I/P area attracts people with strong POVs (b) It requires rigorous monitoring, and little tolerance for making hard and fast rules creak (c) However, in the history of editorial conflict and arbitration, arbitrators tend to look at the evidence regarding one infringer, without assessing context. (d) it was salutary, whatever one's private beliefs about individual justice, to see that in the recent Arbcom ruling, members of both sides were sanctioned. For it takes two to tango, and up to that point, the sanction system was being manipulated by editors who would drive, by individual or tagteam behaviour, their 'adversaries' into a danger zone (3RR), often to see how their POV/NPOV principles held up under pressure, and then leap to AN/1 to get a judgement against the other editor registered, have him or her removed, and thereby take out the opposition stalwarts, picking them off, one by one. (e) in the present instance, Nableezy, a longtime editor of that page, was picked off by a relatiove newcomer who shows no discriminating knowledge of editorial principles, or consensual editing on the basis of what archival debates tell us is generally agreed. (f) the evidence may warrant a sanction against Nableezy applying Arbcom decisions strictly (g) but, I think most longterm editors, on both sides, thought it unbalanced because Nableezy's crime was that of losing patience with a recalcitrant POV. Had his accuser's record been examined, and he/she too been subjected to review and a sanction, then justice would have been done. I cannot help but insist that in this area, outside administrators do well to learn to take a very severe attitude where there is evidence or an air that the system of sanctions may be manipulated. Signs of poor editing, lack of familiarity with the many relevant criteria that should inform redaction, and lack of empathy with all POVs, should be noted, most particularly in plaintiffs who denounce editors of long-standing, with a record of good working relationship with most other editors, from whatever side, in the I/P area. There are many testimonials that Nableezy works well and empathetically with almost everyone. Is there a comparable record for Stellarkid? An unenviable task, sir. Regards Nishidani (talk) 11:11, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
Taking an unsympathetic approach to a newcomer who tattles on an editor of "the other side", whilst not considering the merits of the complaint itself, would be preserving the status quo. That is not what a subject area as contested as this one is in need of. Many of the comments presented to me so far have focussed on Nableezy's good working relationship with the other contributors to this subject area; but that does not excuse the approach that he has been shown to take when faced with edits that he disagrees with. When a change is made (even if it may be said to be pushing a non-neutral POV) with which an editor disagrees, the correct response is to open discussion over the edit on the article talk page. The incorrect response is to revert; and an even more incorrect one is to revert twelve times, as Nableezy did.
I would much sooner topic ban every editor of a contested subject area than allow them all to run wild. Little activity in a subject area is a thousand times preferable to an embarrasingly POV-ridden, poorly sourced article. Think, if you will, of the reaction in both cases of external subject academics reading the article in question. In the first, an academic might be enticed to help us expand what little we have on the I/P conflict. In the latter, they would most probably look in, see the war that we're having behind the scenes, laugh at the mess that we're in, and walk away. The long-term impact of misconduct is equally as important as the perceived severity of it in comparison to the sanctions that are usually handed out. If I need to be hard on some editors to make the life of those who are too scared to edit easier, then so be it. AGK 11:33, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
Sorry to come back on this. I'm just troubled by a pattern, undoubtedly aleatory, that has increasingly seen editors in good standing being taken out by editors who lack any record for patient article building. The I/P area articles are mostly unreadable because committed talent, with a good memory for the difficulties of many texts, is shortening by the month.
I considered the merits of the complaint. I was present over much of the lunatically intensive multi-archived discussions and editing for some 40 days. I read, not only Stellarkid's AN/I report, but much of the relevant archives
Archive 9
Archive 11
Archive 15
Archive 17
Archive 18
Archive 22
Archive 26
Archive 48
Stellarkid's arguments appear to ignore all this material, where the edit Nableezy defended had been endlessly discussed, but had stuck, with consensual support by strong rule-respecting editors. Cerejota, impeccably neutral, with no POV either way, summed it up well when he remarked way back:
'However, to focus in content, the reality is that people want to remove the name (Gaza Massacre), provided by more sources than 99.9999% of the content in wikipedia.'
Sean Hoyland likewise has been in on that article almost from the beginning, and when Cptono reopened the case in archives 48, he remarked:
What's changed since this line with 6 citations with quotes obtained consensus? Sean.hoyland - talk 06:56, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
In the last archive, when, finally, a highly efficient, meticulous and level headed admin came in to clean up the mess, namely Slim Virgin, Nableezy dropped her a note.
'SV, specifically the "Gaza Massacre" references need to be there, it has been challenged and removed too many times in the past for it to be there without any references. Nableezy (talk) 14:14, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
She replied:-
Can you add one, and post the rest on the talk page? I can't see anyone questioning it now. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 23:07, 6 July 2009 (UTC) (archive 51)
At that point, since no one was questioning the phrase it appears SV didn't think it even required a citation. That was 4 months ago.
You raised the point about what an academic might think. I think, as someone academically published, that any academic would say qualitative contributions to a subject is not, as a very general rule, improved by contributions coming in from people who are unfamiliar with the background of that subject, its peer-review material, its textual negotiations over evidence, esp. when much they object to has already been challenged or discounted in the subject's prior literature etc.
I'm not justifying Nableezy's reversions, but they are not irrational. It's just that dozens of people accepted that text who are no longer present on the page, and the page is now predominantly edited by a majority that is, once more, trying to get it elided. You are right to sanction Nableezy, but to do so harshly, while saying, of all people, Nableezy whose behaviour for intelligent negotiation is confirmed by many, 'ran wild' in a way that might put off future editing from new, academically grounded wikipedians, is odd. Most academics I know laughed when I told them I worked on I/P articles, for only someone with excessive leisure and a streak of masochism would willingly enter an area that requires extenuating hours, and days of explaining the ABC of composition to every newby or anonymous I/P that drifts in. What you need is encouragement to people who (a) have shown strong commitment (b) have stayed the course (c) have an acknowledged empathy with editors who disagree with their POV and work equably to find compromises. Nableezy has this, and is subject to a severe sanction. The other editor has neither, and his qualifications in this regard are ignored, suggesting that newbies with poor experience are encouraged over practiced editors who make occasional lapses. Still, I'll shut up. I think even my comments here run dangerously close to transgressing my perma-ban. Regards. No need to reply. I have, when active, always told fellow editors to take administrative sanctions on the chin, and not to whinge. Nableezy hasn't. Nishidani (talk) 18:42, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I havent actually asked for any change for the sanction, but your reasoning is faulty. You say the correct response is to open discussion over the edit on the article talk page. The incorrect response is to revert; and an even more incorrect one is to revert twelve times, as Nableezy did. I did that, I opened an RfC, I went to the RS/N, I went to the NPOV/N. I tried to get as many people as possible to look at the issue, and if consensus had been against me I would have been fine with that. Also, if you looked at the diffs closely, you can see that not all 12 are reverts. Multiple different sources were added to try to settle the issue, it was not simply reverting the words it was adding or changing sources to meet the objections. Whereas I actually tried to follow WP:DR, Stellarkid has done nothing but remove the phrase. If you are strictly looking at the reversions then you should look a bit harder. Here are the removals by Stellarkid:

  • (the last two in quick succession after he had just seen the sanctions for edit-warring on this issue

These are about 90% of Stellarkid's edits to the page, whereas the 12 you sanctioned me for represent around 2% of my edits to the page. Stellarkid has done almost nothing on that page but try to remove a name for the conflict, a name for which 10 sources were provided, and 2 sources explicitly saying that it is the name used in the Arab world. Stellarkid repeatedly removed well-sourced text for reasons not consistent with policy, and repeatedly misrepresented both the sources and policy to do so. He has argued that WP:NONENG disqualifies Arabic sources when it in fact does the exact opposite, he has argued that WP:BURDEN means something other than providing a verifiable reliable source meets that burden when it says exactly that. You judge my presence on the page as not a helpful one on the basis of less than 2% of my edits to that page, not looking at the history of this issue and the history of Stellarkid's involvement in the topic area (where he has in the past opposed a name used by historians as an article name because it has the word Palestine in it). I dont really care about this anymore, and whether or not you reduce the sanction does not matter to me, but you need to more closely examine the issues instead of looking at a list of diffs for 10 seconds and making a determination from that. If you do that you can quickly see that I tried to use every DR process available, and that Stellarkid has done nothing but edit-war his favored POV in to, or the opposing POV out of, the article. But I really dont mind the topic ban, I dont have to waste my time removing straight-forward BLP-violations, or reverting POV-laden edits that violate guidelines mandated by an ArbCom case, or dealing with any number of the other wastes of time that editing in the area brings. nableezy - 19:33, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Reconsideration

Thank you all for your comments. Having considered the initial complaint (again) and all the comments that have been offered in relation to this thread, I find that my decision to topic ban Nableezy was warranted; but I also find that the length of the sanction was excessive. First, I respond to three important points that were, explicitly or in passing, raised:

  • Scope of topic ban. The initial complaint cited diffs of poor conduct in one article; my sanction applied to the wider topic area. This was because in numerous topic areas, and especially in those that are highly contested (eg., ones that have been the focus of one or more arbitration case), the POV wars and the editing community are identical. Removing a disruptive editor from one article simply pushes them into another, where the cycle of arrival-disruption-ban is repeated. On that basis, I have included in the sanction on Nableezy all articles within the subject area in question. Some quiet editing time will do him good.
  • Strict on one side; lenient on the other. Nableezy has been banned for misconduct on an article whilst others who are equally as, if not more, guilty remain at large; this I accept. I consider Nableezy's ban to be the first of a few to come, however. The sanction is a step up in severity, but that does not render it invalid. It simply raises the bar for later actions. I would like for those who disrupt in future to be brought to account on AE, where the disruption is within the scope of an arbitration case, and to ANI, where disruption in other areas is concerned. Where it is me who processes the complaint, they will meet with little sympathy.
  • Wider problems with the subject area. The I/P subject area does, according to some assessments, continue to be plagued with problems in filling a neutral POV. The Gaza War article seems no exception. I am beginning to think that a blanket prohibition on making more than one revert of the same piece of content is in order. Perhaps then everybody would be inclined to discuss their changes: the present conflict involves a clash of approaches between reasonable and unreasonable, in which the former try to discuss disputed content in the face of flat reversion by the latter. That is not an environment that is conducive to good content production.

Second, I am adjusting my initial sanction of Nableezy, after much consideration. The ban on editing article content is reduced from four months to two; and the ban on editing article talk pages is reduced to one. These times are relative to the initial sanction.

Again, thank you all for your input. Further comment is welcome. AGK 19:30, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

AE action

Thank you for your action with regard to my AE report. Is this something that should be logged at WP:ARBSCI's Log of blocks, bans, and restrictions? Thank you for your time, Cirt (talk) 09:43, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Thoughts? I will defer to your judgment on this. :) Cirt (talk) 20:02, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
As it was an ordinary administrative action in response to disruptive conduct, the Committee does not require that my block be recorded in the log. The complaint did relate closely to the Scientology arbitration case, however, and it did result in Kurtilein being placed on discretionary sanctions notification, so a log entry might be beneficial in the event of future arbitration enforcement proceedings having to investigate his actions. Consider this belatedly done. Regards, AGK 01:09, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
Thank you. :) Cirt (talk) 07:30, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

That's what she said

Am i allowed to make a that's what she said page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Superjoesh (talk • contribs) 20:27, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

No. It would probably not be notable enough for inclusion on Misplaced Pages. Perhaps you'd be interested in contributing to an already existing article, in a subject area you are interested in? AGK 20:35, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

The Misplaced Pages Signpost: 2 November 2009

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 04:02, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
  1. Cohen, Lauren. Achmat weighs in on Israeli 'war architect' Sunday Times. Jul 26, 2009