|Arbitration enforcement archives|
- 1 184.108.40.206 (talk · contribs)
- 2 Bluemarine / Matt Sanchez
- 3 Martinphi
- 4 TTN
- 5 Giovanni33
- 6 RodentofDeath (talk · contribs)
- 7 Fadix
- 8 Gilabrand
- 9 TTN (talk · contribs)
- 10 JustaHulk (talk · contribs)
- 11 Nickhh (talk · contribs)
- 12 ScienceApologist (talk · contribs)
- 13 Martinphi
- 14 RodentofDeath (talk · contribs)
- 15 Kékrōps (talk · contribs)
- 16 User:220.127.116.11
- 17 Cedar Point
- 18 Radical-Dreamer
- 19 Jewish Neighborhoods versus Israeli Settlements of Jerusalem
- 20 Eleland (talk · contribs) again
- 21 eleland
- 22 Number 57 (talk · contribs)
- 23 Kosovo and Serbia
- 24 Waterboarding
- 25 Waterboarding and Neutral Good
- 26 Extension of remedies on Derek Smart
- 27 ScienceApologist extended discrediting attacks
- 28 Complaint against ScienceApologist
18.104.22.168 (talk · contribs)
Bluemarine / Matt Sanchez
RodentofDeath (talk · contribs)
Related case: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles.
- Note: Nickhh included here - Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Palestine-Israel_articles#Statement_by_Jaakobou. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaakobou (talk • contribs) 08:36, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Between January 29 and February 11 (two weeks) Nickhh (talk · contribs) has made edits to a total of 7 different articles, on 5 of them he made reverts on my work, and 4 of those 5 were articles the editor has never touched before.
- Is this a test to see if I "stalk" you here too? Anyway I suppose I have, by your terminology. You seem to be missing a few crucial points though -
- 1) I was never a party in the arbitration, nor was I even notified it was taking place. Arguably I should have been, but that's a different point. The fact that you mentioned my name in one of your posts during the arbitration means nothing;
- 2) On top of that, you have failed to notify me that you have posted this complaint about me, which seems a bit underhand;
- 3) Only one of the above diffs is a complete revert of a recent edit of yours [oops, sorry, two of them in fact]. You had made that edit unilaterally, without discussing it, when there was a major talk page debate underway about the paragraph in question.
- 4) The other changes were of information that was manifestly incorrect, eg that Napoleon invaded "Israel", or that Mar Saba was "in Israel". You have since acknowledged those errors, so it seems a little rich to now Wikilawyer against me as if I'm the one who did something wrong here.
- 5) Per the above, considering that you seemed to be ranging around various articles trying to change standard terminology relating to Israel & Palestine, I was perfectly entitled to have a look at what articles you were trying to do that in. And then remove any related errors when I found them. As it happens, I had in fact edited on or at least been aware of most of the articles already.
- You've provided no evidence a) that I have deliberately stalked you or followed you to a large number of articles, b) that I have reverted any of your edits for the sake of it or c) that any of the edits I have made were incorrect. So what is the point here? The fact that you've posted this complaint says way more about you than it does about me. --Nickhh (talk) 14:32, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- Interestingly, I've also just noticed that you've posted an edited version of my contributions history here, removing every entry showing I discussed several of the issues on talk pages, and actually refrained from making some edits. You have not made clear that this is what you have done. --Nickhh (talk) 14:57, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- His edits look fine to me. He is only correcting POV edits (i.e. those claiming that East Jerusalem is in Israel  or that the West Bank is part of Israel ), being more factually corrent (e.g. that the area was referred to as Palestine at the time ) and removing OR commentary . What is more worrying is how the facts that he has corrected got in in the first place. пﮟოьεԻ 57 15:03, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- Number 57's comment might be misleading as he makes an incorrect content based assesment and inserts a link to Tomb of Samuel, which is not one of the 4-5 mentioned articles.
- The reason I posted, is that Nickhh, an editor connected with the Arbcom, was following me to 4 new articles and making points on Saeb Erekat. diff JaakobouChalk Talk 15:48, 13 February 2008 (UTC) added wikilink 15:51, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
I would go into more detail explaining each edit you've raised one by one, but a) I don't see why I should have to since they are all fairly obviously legitimate edits, and b) in any event you're undermining your own case every time you open your mouth here to slag me or other editors off. So I'll just leave you to get on with that. Enjoy --Nickhh (talk) 15:48, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- I believe this comment to be in violation of the Decorum principals, specifically it is a user directed personal attack. Regardless, I my complaint was for being followed around and point making. JaakobouChalk Talk 16:01, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- Using the talk page instead of the article page might feel right.
- However, when accompanied by tendentiousness it seems like continuation of following after [an editor] to other multiple articles with activity meant for causing annoyance or distress.:
- "Israel engages in this sort of activity is because it's a vicious, terrorist state" - Nickhh, 18:06, 13 February 2008.
Oh, and for your benefit and the benefit of anyone else who's interested, here is a direct (and complete) quote from the WP:STALK policy that you've rather simplistically accused me of breaching (emphasis added).
Wikistalking refers to the act of following an editor to another article to continue disruption.
The term "wiki-stalking" has been coined to describe following a contributor around the wiki, editing the same articles as the target, with the intent of causing annoyance or distress to another contributor.
Reading another user's contribution log is not in itself harassment; those logs are public for good reason. In particular, proper use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) fixing errors or violations of Wikipedia policy, or correcting related problems on multiple articles (in fact, such practices are recommended both for Recent changes patrol and WikiProject Spam). The important part is the disruption — disruption is considered harmful. If "following another user around" is accompanied by tendentiousness, personal attacks, or other disruptive behavior, it may become a very serious matter.
The only thing you have even the slightest grounds for even being mildly concerned about is the edit summary on Saeb Erekat (the content of the edit itself is easily justified), which I self reverted within one minute. Thanks. --Nickhh (talk) 22:00, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- For starters, I don't believe your attack on my country was a great contribution and I was offended by it. And secondly, you clearly followed me to yet another article you never edited before, despite the AE notice being opened. JaakobouChalk Talk 22:35, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- p.s. using "Unless you are very stupid" in your comments is something you should at least try to avoid. JaakobouChalk Talk 22:36, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes, and we know that my name was only mentioned in the case because you felt moved to attempt to discredit my evidence regarding your long-term POV pushing. If someone finds a POV pusher, they are fully entitled to go and correct them wherever they have edited. With regards to the Tomb of Samuel, why did you bother including it in the evidence above if you don't want to mention it? пﮟოьεԻ 57 15:33, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- I changed my earlier comment, and disagree with "the reason" your name got involved. From my perspective, it got involved since you wanted me banned from Middle East articles.
- "I would suggest a Middle East politics topic ban. пﮟოьεԻ 57 19:18, 6 January 2008 (UTC)".
- Please don't comment in the future on complaints I post on other editors, since you're not a neutral editor.
- -- JaakobouChalk Talk 15:43, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- I'm not a neutral editor? Extremely rich coming from the biggest POV pusher around (which is why I want you banned from Middle East articles). I'd be interested to know what my supposed POV is - am I pro- or anti-Israel? пﮟოьεԻ 57 16:00, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
ScienceApologist (talk · contribs)
Martinphi (talk · contribs) who is under an editing restriction outlined here has stalked me from WTBDWK to Consciousness causes collapse where he made the following provocative edit: . Another user pointed out that the effect of Martin's edit was to reinstate a word to avoid that has scientific implications which is particularly disruptive to an article about pseudoscience. Martin's response was astonishing:  where he states, in part: "That was only meant to reverse the nonconsensus stuff by a blocked user." The reference to "blocked user" refers to my wholly unrelated block for a claimed instance of incivilty in accusing another user of making an edit that looked POV-pushing at cold fusion mediation. The other problem in the reference to "nonconsensus stuff". These attempts by Martin to claim certain edits are "nonconsensus" while others are is a hallmark pattern in the disruptive editing by users of his *ahem* ilk. It appears to me that Martin is now taking it upon himself to wikistalk and revert me. ScienceApologist (talk) 13:06, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Wikistalking- Consciousness causes collapse was posted on the Fringe noticeboard . In addition, I was asked by a friend to look into it. The edit which SA says is disruptive above was merely returning to a version prior to many anti-consensus changes SA had made before his edit warring caused the article to be locked . Here is how I remember it:
Failing to gain consensus on the talk page (this for example), SA made heavy against-consensus edits to the article.
He edit warred to keep those edits in- I did not participate in that edit war.
The article was then unprotected because consensus on talk page indicated the need for an AfD tag.
SA was then blocked for 96 hours for unrelated disruption and incivility.
The article was unprotected, and rather than leave the anti-consensus changes in place for days, I reverted the article to about where I thought the last stable version was, and kept an edit I thought was non-controversial. However, I missed one edit at least which should have been retained, as explained on the talk page .
Please note my edit stayed in place- it was a consensus edit.
SA also does not show that I attempted to keep consensus edits by restoring WAS's edit .
I would also request that SA stop doing stuff like this. There seems to be a perception that any consensus with which SA doesn't agree is disruption- see this. —— ☎ Ψ Φ—— 01:00, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
User:Martinphi wikistalking and harrassment
It has been suggested that this case be brought here.. Martinphi has engaged in disruptive editing at Yi Ching, has falsely accused me of many things including trolling which I find very offensive , has reverted me on Reiki and attempted to assuage this by saying he knows my edit was in good faith , has wikistalked me to Yi Ching and reverted me with the rude edit statement "egad"  and has removed the POV tag despite the wishes of at least two editors and falsely claiming consensus. He has also removed from his talkpage my efforts to try to solve these problems . He also wikistalked me to the project Wikipedia:Words_to_avoid and made this revert despite my comments on the takpage standing for a few days. Mccready (talk) 01:19, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
RodentofDeath (talk · contribs)
Well, User:22.214.171.124 was already about to be placed on probation on Israel-Palestinian related articles and subsequently blocked for POV pushing (see talk). Well, he's back. One only has to look at this diff to get an idea of the problem presented here. I would also like to put forth the possibility that this is the same person as User:Adnanmuf, who returned to edit war with exactly the same text not just once but twice (even if it's not the same person, he clearly should be on probation as well). The Evil Spartan (talk) 18:56, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
- Blocked Adnanmuf (who took over edit-warring from the IP) for blatant edit-warring. Wagging my finger at The Evil Spartan. We sometimes do need to take quality of edits into account when judging the disruptiveness of revert warring. I'm absolutely aware that in doing this I've broken the formal rule of treating both sides equally. Well, I stand by that. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:30, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
- we have been having a problem in the cedar point artical wits a IP address removing a certain Fan Websight called pointbuzz from the links at the bottom of the page his address has changed once if i do recall but it currently is 126.96.36.199
- I dont know how this dispute thing works but it would in my opinion be best to change this to a registered user only attical
- sorry if i braught this up in the wrong place but its the best think i could find please respond to me in my talk page thank you --Cmedinger (talk) 19:21, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Jewish Neighborhoods versus Israeli Settlements of Jerusalem
The 2008 Kosovo declaration of independence a few days ago touched off (or reignited) a ferocious edit war on Kosovo that spilled over to Serbia, the reason being that some asserted that Kosovo was an independent state, while others said it wasn't. It is my understanding that Kosovo was already under Arbcom probation at the time (whatever that means), and that Serbia was likely under the same probation, because of earlier assertations along the same lines. Currently, both pages are protected for a week. I'm not at all sure that this was the right thing to do (I am NOT an admin, so don't ask me), and I'm not at all sure that a week's protection is enough (or too much, for that matter). What says Arbcom? — Rickyrab | Talk 06:44, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
- I'm pretty sure you are thinking of WP:ARBMAC, which is the ruling for Balkan issues. BalkanFever 08:20, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
- Plus, Kosovo and all related articles have been under permanent Arbitration-imposed article probation anyway, since before ARBMAC. The only thing we can do is to try to use these tools quickly, decisively and judiciously, on whatever article the edit wars spill over to. A useful rule of thumb might be a quick short block for incipient edit warring, and then a medium-length topic ban (like two or three months until the dispute has hopefully abated) for repeat edit-warring offenders, especially those whose talkpage behaviour is either non-existent or openly tendentious. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:38, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Waterboarding and Neutral Good
Extension of remedies on Derek Smart
ScienceApologist extended discrediting attacks