Misplaced Pages

User talk:Arcticocean

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.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Mr Unsigned Anon (talk | contribs) at 04:38, 1 November 2009 (→topic ban). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 04:38, 1 November 2009 by Mr Unsigned Anon (talk | contribs) (→topic ban)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

"First, you know, a new theory is attacked as absurd. Then it is admitted to be true, but obvious and insignificant. Finally it is seen to be so important that its adversaries claim they themselves discovered it."

Where this user currently is, the time is 22:55, Friday 27 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

Your advice to Brews ohare

AGK: please explain to me why entering a discussion of guidelines and their possible uses puts me in jeopardy of having your topic ban upgraded to something a lot less pleasant. I don't understand why general discussions of this nature should have any bearing whatsoever upon my situation, which in my mind has nothing to do with it all. Further, I do not see why such general conversations constitute getting yourself into bad situations. Aren't such conversations part and parcel of WP and its evolution? These do not seem to me "bad situations", but simple discussions of what can be done to improve openness to contributions without inviting craziness. Brews ohare (talk) 23:42, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Long story short Brews, you got yourself banned for pushing views and not accepting they were in the minority. Couple that with the fact that several of the participants in WP:ESCA were also involved in the speed of light ARBCOM, and you have a recipe for trouble brewing. You want to lay low and do uncontroversial stuff (like expanding stubs or do some cleanup) for the next few months, not write or influence proposed policies that are related to your own ban.
I hope this clarifies. Headbomb {κοντριβς – WP Physics} 07:55, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
I echo what Headbomb said. A user who has been topic-banned would be expected to be on his very best behaviour and to make zero trouble for himself for the duration of the sanction. Your recent contributions to the meta discussions that have been cited on your talk page and elsewhere are certainly not the most effective way of fulfilling those two expectations. My basic point is that you are doing yourself a disservice by making a point to get involved in the discussions you have been contributing to, and especially in discussions relating to the policies that are related to your topic ban.
The tl;dr version: you are exhibiting an extraordinary lack of clue, and I implore you to adjust your ways. If you don't, then fine; but don't be surprised when you land yourself in more trouble. AGK 12:00, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Apparently, Headbomb, the participation by some involved in the Case against me suggests to you that no civil discussion can take place., right? Of course, nothing uncivil has happened so far, and during the Case against me it was not I who was uncivil, so the danger here is really that the other participants might become uncivil. That presumably would reflect upon them.

As for WP:Clue, AGK, inasmuch as there is no development of any logical argument here, the discussions of guidelines are of the nature of "What if we did this or that?" so WP:Clue seems irrelevant. As for the guidelines relating to my topic ban, I do not understand how any modification of guidelines undertaken by the WP community could be taken to have retroactive effect upon my ban. If you see some such possible implications of specific guidelines that could change the remedies against me, please point them out to me. If there are no retroactive implications, it would seem I am as free as any other editor to discuss guidelines; don't you agree? Brews ohare (talk) 15:31, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

You're rambling, Brews. If you want to interact with me, please keep your points succinct. I suffer enough verbosity IRL to have little tolerance for it on wikipedia.
I did not say that your participation in the discussions in question was in violation of your topic ban. What I did say is that those discussions are prone to be controversial and/or heated, and are therefore likely to bring trouble your way.
Acting without clue is one of the primary reasons that a sanctioned editor finds himself in yet more hot water. Whereas you are, by making a point to involve yourself in heated conflicts, acting without clue, I would say that WP:Clue is very much relevant. Take my advice or don't. Dixi. AGK 16:07, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
Guess I misunderstand WP:Clue: I read disputes generally are, and should be, resolved in favor of whoever has the best reasoning – not in terms of rhetoric , which seems to relate to quality of argument, not to being "clueless" about how hostility develops in WP environment. Brews ohare (talk) 18:02, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
I used the word "clue" in the sense that it is synonymous with "common sense," rather than as a reference to the essay WP:Clue. I linked to the essay page more out of habit than as part of the reasoning for the point I was making; but I may have mislead you, or otherwise made my meaning unclear. If that was the case, then I apologise; the point I was making, if it hasn't yet been made understandable, is what I have said above—and not the contents of any essay or guideline. In short, I'm talking about just using your common sense, Brews—and not getting yourself involved in heated discussions that aren't going to help you. Regards, AGK 18:13, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

The Misplaced Pages Signpost: 26 October 2009

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 00:44, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

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)

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. Nableesys 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)

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)
  1. Cohen, Lauren. Achmat weighs in on Israeli 'war architect' Sunday Times. Jul 26, 2009