Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive17

Waterboarding

• 70.109.223.188 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• Waterboarding (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This IP user seems to be edit warring. [1] Could they be a blocked or banned user returning to cause trouble? Jehochman ^Talk 19:59, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Gets very old very fast, doesn't it? I've blocked the IP user for 24 hours (the second block inside a week, I noticed). -- ChrisO (talk) 20:09, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Where is the 2nd block within a week? --nyc171 (talk) 00:29, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

It seems that they've been unblocked. For what it's worth, categorization disputes are generally kind of a silly thing to edit-war and better worked out on the talk page, but I think the unblock is fine as long as the IP is not edit-warring further. I'm considering semi-protecting the page temporarily given the volume of unconstructive IP editing over the past few days - any thoughts? MastCell ^Talk 21:47, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Seems like a winner. We've got a repeat socker on the loose, recently banned, who will probably be showing up. If we take the wind out of their sails, they might go home and rethink their life. Jehochman ^Talk 21:49, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

The unblock appears to be a mistake. Here are the diffs for edit warring: [2][3][4][5] When a user makes the same edit over and over and over again, that's edit warring. I like the way the user wikilawyers with ChrisO. It reminds me of Neutral Good (talk · contribs) and BryanFromPalatine (talk · contribs). Jehochman ^Talk 21:55, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I agree he was edit-warring. Just not sure how useful replacing the block is going to be vs. semi'ing the target article, which I'm going to do now. MastCell ^Talk 22:52, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about all the drama here. I was not trying to be disruptive and didn't know this was a "problem" article until I was told so on my talk page. I will try not to revert more than once on this article. The differences above are from 2 days ago before I was warned. Also, I was blocked awhile back when I first came here, not twice in one week. Thank you.--70.109.223.188 (talk) 14:21, 6 March 2008 (UTC) Bold text

Macedonia Moldova

Due to growing risk of an edit war (three reverts by each of the two parties yesterday, and claims by one of which that such a risk is high), I have taken the preventative step of restricting Dpotop (talk · contribs) and Xasha (talk · contribs) to one revert per two days for two weeks on all related articles and zero-tolerance for incivility on the talk pages. I bring this measure to discussion before other uninvolved admins, whom I am asking to help enforce this. Note that I am forgoing the warning this time and thus am not logging it in the arbitration page — let this measure serve as a warning, and let's hope it resonates (if enough uninvolved admins feel that position is in error, the restrictions will be revoked). Thx. El_C 11:43, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I think you mixed up Moldova with Macedonia? (But no problem, we can easily extend the Balkans up there. :-) I know what you're going to say now: They both start with M, so I can't tell them apart.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:14, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Exactly! (you remembered the M, to boot: full credits for that!) I copied the wrong template and a comedy of errors ensued. All fixed. El_C 12:20, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

BereTuborg (talk · contribs) added to the restrictions. El_C 18:42, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

User:Vintagekits

Request that he be added to Wikipedia:List of banned users. Reasons: Persistent abusive sockpuppetry, personal attacks (particularly against User:Rockpocket) and incivility. Case link Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles. - Kittybrewster ☎ 23:53, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

VK is blocked indefinitely, which means he is banned unless some admin decides to unblock him. Listing on the banned users page has no significance that I am aware of, it certainly does not prevent an admin from unbanning VK if the admin thinks it is defensible to do so. Is there some reason this would be a contentious listing, or is there some reason to insist on a bookkeeping formality? Thatcher 00:32, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

As I recollect, this was not Arbitration enforcement but instead a decision made at WP:ANI. And indeed, the block log reflects that. Find the ANI discussion; that will show the actual reasons for the indefinite block. I think this was indeed a ban, but the ANI archive will be more accurate than anyone's speculation or recollection. GRBerry 02:43, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I am trying to formalise the uncontentious community ban. I suspect it would take a application by Arbcom to unban him. His block log suggests he is a close relation of Lazarus. I am quite happy to post the request elsewhere. - Kittybrewster ☎ 08:59, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Liftarn (talk · contribs)

Arbcom case:

• Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Palestine-Israel_articles,
• 'Case Final Decisions' .
• Liftarn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Editor Liftarn (talk · contribs) has been making:

• BLP violations - "Samuel Weems, a conspiracy theorist".
• Using Weasel/Point terminology on pro-Israel situations and, in contrast, use of anti-Israel propaganda sites (electronicintifada.net) as source: "claimed", "controversial", "according to", (electronicintifada.net) as source - [48].
• Removal of secondary sources - "promotional clutter" and again [49].

Liftarn (talk · contribs) has been violating Purpose of Wikipedia spirit removing sources and claiming OR on each and every word that might be critical of the article's subject. He also routinely uses the "per talk" reasoning for edits not discussed or at least clearly not agreed upon on talk.

His latest edit [50], explained with "We have been over this already." removed well cited material who's removal was not discussed anywhere, and also the removal of two valid external links which he previously removed under the "promotional clutter" claim.

I've tried resolving issues with him and opened a WP:3O request, but frankly, discussions were going nowhere and I've personally had it with the editor's refusal to get the points raised, follow WP:NPOV and editorial process.

Respectfully. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 23:51, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Samuel Weems is dead, BLP is scarcely relevant. The description may well be accurate anyway. Most of the diffs presented are from February and January, though I admit this is less than impressive. The current dispute over Carlos Latuff does not seem sufficiently serious to merit administrative attention at this time. Try MedCabal or MedCom if disputes continue. Liftarn's editing is less than perfect but no worse than many others who go unsanctioned. Moreschi (talk) 14:11, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Any suggestions on how to handle the false edit summaries and content removal? I actually submitted this post with hopes for a warning being issued to Liftarn, nothing more. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 14:17, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Warning for what? As regards the paragraph he removed from Latuff's bio, I agree. We don't need to go on about how controversial the contests are that Latuff chooses to enter. In an article on the contest, that fine - how is it relevant to Latuff's bio? The guy's obviously a nutter, no need to overstress the point. Nor is removing sourced content a crime in itself if said content is clearly off-topic. Moreschi (talk) 14:20, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

From my perspective, I figured a warning for the "per talk" and "promotional clutter" false edit summaries was in order. He waited another full week without any talk page comment and removed the external links (and some extra material) again... this is clearly not the right way for an established editor to behave.

p.s. If he wants to narrow down the "how controversial" paragraph, he should at least make note that this is his intention.

p.p.s. (offtopic content note) without winning 2nd place on the Iranian holocaust denial extravaganza, I'm not certain Latuff would have an article on wiki. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 14:34, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

(persisting) Issue seems to be persisting (latest Liftarn diff). I honestly can't deal with the false edit summary issue anymore -- this time it's "It has already been discussed and agreed upon." -- and request assistance. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 20:26, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

A recap from Jaakobou's perspective

The following discussion is an archived report. Please do not modify it. Subsequent reports should be made in a new section.

THIS ENDS NOW. Comments below. Thatcher 22:36, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

---

• I haven't been at my best this week. Numerically I'm at a disadvantage at this dispute, and I've let things get under my skin, and made a few posts that could be better phrased. If that means a week long topic ban I'll take my lumps. What I'd like to demonstrate here is that, from my viewpoint, a number of other editors were acting provocatively.

• I'm also a bit unconvinced that Addhoc, who recently contributed and/or discussed content on Gush Shalom and Daniel Pipes (both extremely political Israel-Palestine related articles); should have been the one to implement administrative decisions on a pre-conceived determination that I'm disruptive, [87] while neglecting Arbcom procedures that editors should be first warned and given the chance to correct problems^** This is not intended to claim that he is purposely biased, but that he was perhaps too quick to reject my good faith step back from my harsh language response to soapboxing on a heated dispute.
  • I believe this perception was increased by (a) not allowing me to post diffs to the not so good faith behavior of other editors and (b) accepting these "repeatedly explained" versions of events at face value.

• I'm not requesting an unblock but believe other editors' activity, specifically Tiamut, Nickhh, Sm8900 and Nishidani, should be given proper examination and possible sanctions should be considered when their activity is placed in comparison with my own.

• ** Palestine-Israel_articles: Final_decision: Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be given a warning with a link to this decision; and, where appropriate, should be counseled on specific steps that he or she can take to improve his or her editing in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines.

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

Summary recap

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

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

• [i] (1) Nishidani: soapboxing about "massive expenditure of ammunition" and "notorious deeds" ; (2) CasualObserver'48: "The ‘occupier’ is Israel, civilian or not, just as the ‘occupied’ are Palestinian... they have few choices left" ; (3) Nishidani: "indescriminate bombings in which on average half the victims are innocent civilians, house demolitions, land theft, property theft" ; (4) Nishidani: Palestinian take on events is "the most neutral" ; (5) Nickhh: English pot shot at fellow editors who disagree ; (6) Tiamut: it would be "misleading the reader" to phrase otherwise. (small fix 21:24, 18 March 2008 (UTC), name clarification 21:32, 18 March 2008 (UTC))

• [ii] Jaakobou: "let me know if there's anything else that needs toning down" 16:26, 17 March 2008

• [iii] (1) Sm8900: "if editors on a particular side never budge, we will get nowhere." ; (2) Sm8900: That's what they believe. i know it's irrational. What do you expect? they're Palestinians. ; (3) Sm8900: there was never a conflict.

• [iv] (1) Nickhh: English pot shot at fellow editors who disagree with him ; (2) Nickhh: claiming to be an "outside observer", and soapboxing also about (Nickhh:) "40 years of military occupation" followed by a personal attack (Nickhh:) warping my words and claiming "Plenty of people more knowledgeable than you disagree" ; (3) Nickhh: Jaakobou, if you want a viewpoint going in which refers to Muslim Arabs being warped, racist genocidalists... it wasn't me who started down this road. And your comment about civility in discourse made me laugh (I never made such racist commentary about Muslim-Arabs, there is clearly not one body of Muslim-Arabs but rather many with many different views and perspectives)

Comments by involved parties

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

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

Nickhh Comment: I really not sure this issue needs any comment from me or anyone else, on this page or any other page, but I will make a couple of general remarks which cover the main thrust of the accusations, as opposed to doing a point by point rebuttal of every complaint - 1) I stand by my assertion that people who understand how English words work (and I mean reliable sources on this, not just some editors rather than others) are better qualified to explain what those words mean. How is this controversial or difficult, even if I will accept I could have phrased the point a little less bluntly? Also Jaakobou, in the link to your rant that you kindly but perhaps oddly keep providing for everyone, you suggested that "your [own] perspective" is that the Arabs/Palestinian "public" are "indoctrinated" and want to "kill as many Jews as possible" and to "clear the Middle East of Jews"; so I don't think for me to say you described Arabs as being "warped" or "genocidal" was an unfair exaggeration of your words. You were even insisting that some of that language actually go into the article. I think there's a genuine lack of thought going on here as to how what you say comes across to others. Thanks --Nickhh (talk) 21:25, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Nickhh and others posting here, for the most part. Jaakobou, this whole issue began with your counter-productive comments, which were completely injurious to Wikipedia, the approach to the topics at hand, and professional and constructive relaations between editors of varying viewpoints and affiliations. I really don't think you're helping your case by casting aspersions on editors like us who attempted to handle things verbally, and to try in vain to get you to be more constructive on the talk page. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 21:30, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Question by Jaakobou to Nickhh: I had not suggested that all Arabs are indoctrinated, but rather suicide bomemrs like Hussam Abdo, and Wafa al-Bis. Clearly, there is a general problem of indoctrination if Palestinian textbooks and Hamas "educational" television programming promote "martyrdom". My phrasing also made sure not to distinguish between Jewish-Israelis and Arab Israelis, and I consider the Palestinian population to also be victims of this mentality.. so, why are you warping my comments and making these personal attacks?^{see [iv] above} Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 21:43, 18 March 2008 (UTC) add citation 21:46, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

p.s. I don't see what's so shocking that many Israelis and Arabs perceive the Palestinian cause as a struggle/war to clear the middle east of the Jewish state... this is a position held by Palestinian Authority TV and their 'moderate' president. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 22:05, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I've said all I'm going to say. This is bordering on trolling now, seriously. User: Durova, come and rescue your mentoree. --Nickhh (talk) 21:49, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Nishidani Comment. User:Jaakobou. Of the many people with whom I dialogue here, you seem, rather singularly, to take exception to me, for my use of the word 'ethical' on occasion, or for my long explanations of why I back this or that edit (soapboxing). I do arguely strongly for the position I adopt. I do also, whenever asked, supply any number of book references to show where in the academic literature my judgements come from. I must admit that this recent altercation, my involvement in it, came simply from observing what I thought was a gross breach of gentlemanly etiquette. I responded most strongly. I do not regard this as a 'clash of civilizations' where one of two worlds must prevail, as you appear to do. I have contributed, I hope substantially to pages on Jewish intellectuals I deeply admire, from Hilberg (a Republican)to Finkelstein (a communist). My purpose here is to make sure, as far as I can, that the realities of Palestinian history are given their due voice. In this I am simply following the lessons I learnt from Jewish mentors, and that trenchant tradition of criticism with which so many Jews have enriched our modernity. I remained somewhat bewildered when I see this extreme nationalist passion, posts that speak of 'my people' (no one has a right to speak in the name of a people, when giving a personal opinion. The point was made by Theodor Adorno in his Minima Moralia. I am disconcerted when a fellow editor, User:Itzse can write on Addhoc's page that, if the ban is not lifted, you, Jaakobou will be 'missing in action'. This language of battle or do or die warfare, of the 'Arab world' as a lethal monolith of racist bent (Arnold Toynbee admired it in the 1950s because it seemed to him the least 'racist' of the three monotheistic worlds, rightly or wrongly I do not know), this puts many of us in a 'redoubt', in defensive lines against salients that will brook no idea that there can be two sides to history, and that in writing history, both sides are owed due representation. When finally you take my documented defense of the word 'uprising' (based on the OED and Ovendale's book, among 10 other academic sources I have examined) as equivalent to supporting a 'Palestinian take on events is "the most neutral",' (see your remarks above) you are twisting by your synthetic headings to the links, the facts, as any neutral eye can see. I was not supporting a 'Palestinian' perspective, I was defending the proper use of the English language. If you cannot see this, then much of what I or others write must perforce assume a minatory aspect, of heartless insinuation. Nishidani (talk) 21:59, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

• I cannot see anything that qualifies as incivility or soapboxing in the comments I have made (nor those of others, though I admittedly did not examine them as closely as my own). I am open to being corrected on that if someone can point me to an actual example of where I could improve.
• I am frankly disappointed that rather than simply accepting a one-week topic editing ban that Jaakobou has instead chosen to respond by casting aspersions upon other editors. If he had such serious concerns, he should have brought them to Durova or here before "responding in kind".
• Since the Arbcomm case, I have not received a warning from an admin indicating that there are problems with my editing behaviour. The only complaints editors raised regarding my editing behaviour then was my block log record for 3RR. I have not been blocked since and have significantly reduced my tendency towards edit-warring by generally disengaging or discussing as required. I do not believe that my behaviour is at issue here. Though I am open to hearing what others have to say regarding the matter.

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

• A little more than a month ago, Jaakobou was warned by Rlseve (the final warning that comes before admins may take discrtionary actions) [90]
• A few days ago, a thread was opened here by El C regarding Jaakobou's mockery of my mourning template and it closed (rather prematurely) on the same day[91]
• Durova was the last to comment in the thread, saying, "Let's chalk this up as one ugly misunderstanding. Sensitive subjects + sleep deprivation are the bane of harmonious editing. Now it's high time I got to those Maori textiles (and some other things). Best regards, DurovaCharge! 18:30, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
• Just hours after Jaakobou and I had concluded our discussion on the previous issue, Jaakobou engaged in soapboxing and thinly veiled personal attacks, which included racist comments, at Talk:Second Intifada [92], [93].
• Jaakobou has not apologized for these latest comments, and has instead sought to blame others for his outburst. This is evidenced in his first response to my post raising the concern on his talk page [94] and in the whole rigamorale of activities that have followed.
• In the original Arbcomm case, evidence presented by Number57 [95] states: "The fact that Jaakobou requests discussing his problematic behaviour off-wiki (in the e-mails he sent he said that he "can probably explain my overall position to you by instant messaging") suggests that he is attempting to sweet-talk editors into overlooking his misdemeanours instead of facing up to his actions." I submit that this has been the case as regards the last two threads discussing his behaviour here.
• Durova spent 12 hours on instant messaging with Jaakobou after the WP:AE report filed by El C. Without Durova's intervention on his behalf, he would likely have been sanctioned, since he had already received a final warning and what he did was widely recognized as wholly inappropriate. After he apologized to me personally, I decided to accept his apology in good faith, thinking it would encourage him to better behaviour and help promote a more collegial atmosphere all around. Jaakobou's actions subsequent therefore leave much to be desired.
• Note too that Jaakobou continued, even as the latest case was ongoing, to single me out on the talk page at Second Intifada, accusing me of soapboxing,[96] for stating my position on how the text should read.[97].
• At this point, I think Jaakobou's behaviour amounts to harassment. The tendentiousness of his edits and commentaries is not subsiding with time, it is getting worse. I believe this is because he has repeatedly managed to escape sanctions for actions that other editors have been blocked and banned for by appealing to higher authorities for special exemptions. Addhoc's decision was the right one, though I think it has perhaps come too late. Had Jaakobou been dealt with more firmly earlier on, I don't believe we would have witnessed the escalation that we have seen in the last week. With respect, Tiamut^talk 22:02, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Regarding Tiamut

Jaakobou writes "Tiamut tries to have me blocked to impose her POV". This is incorrect, as evidenced by Tiamut's statement on the mediation page: "One more thing, User:Jaakobou, a key party in the dispute, is not able to edit I-P related articles for this upcoming week. I propose that we not open the case formally until he can participate fully since his involvement thus far has been extensive and his agreement to whatever compromise is reached, is in my view, important." Although Tiamut's earlier behavior certainly demonstrated a lack of understanding, I think that Tiamut's more recent behavior has demonstrated understanding -- especially given my own conduct --, and I do not think that Tiamut deserves to be banned. ← Michael Safyan ^(talk) 22:18, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Regarding all the editors

I think that none of the editors should be banned. This is not a productive way to solve conflicts, and it only deepens animosity between editors who are already predisposed to hostility due their opposing viewpoints on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Occassional soapboxing -- which is sometimes necessary to alert editors to a POV other than their own -- should not be cause for banning. ← Michael Safyan ^(talk) 22:18, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

STOP!

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

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

Jaakobou (talk · contribs)

The following discussion is an archived report. Please do not modify it. Subsequent reports should be made in a new section.

Jaakobou is banned from all Israel and Palestine related pages for a week. Addhoc (talk) 14:14, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

---

Jaakobou continues to make poor editing choices that have more to do with soapboxing and assumptions of bad faith than with editing to improve articles per WP:NPOV and WP:RS. The latest example is this edit which comes on the heels of this section opened by El C just three days ago. Attempts to get Jaakobou to reflect upon the inappropriateness of such comments on his talk page are going nowhere and it was only two days ago that I asked him to please "reflect upon how your behaviour might be interpreted negatively by others or be coming from a place unrelated to or incompatible with the building of a healthy, collaborative working environment." [98] He seems unable to understand what this means or how to do so.

Considering that Jaakobou is a repeat-offender whose editing at Palestinian fedayeen led to the original WP:ANI complaint which led to the opening of the Arbcomm case on I-P articles, and considering that he is repeatedly before WP:AE for his edits in this domain, I am proposing that he be topic-banned for a period of three months. His repeated ability to escape sanction for multiple, repeat offenses has led him to think such behaviour is okay. It's not. It's corrosive to the general working environment and is often disruptive. Durova (talk · contribs) has indicated that he is doing great work on featured pictures outside of the I-P subject area. He would do well to continue that and other work until he learns how to bring the same spirit of collaboration to I-P related articles. Tiamut^talk 16:30, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Tiamut, is a highly involved editor; upset that I replied to her soapboxing against Israeli civilians which insisted on a Palestinian "liberation struggle" POV disregarding the Israeli POV. I've since toned down my language and suggested to tone down anything else that might be offensive. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 16:45, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

p.s. Tiamut believes I assume bad faith by explaining the subtext of her suggestion, but this is untrue. I assume good faith, but also see that Tiamut misses the problem of her own soapboxing. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 16:50, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

p.p.s. Tiamut's is not alone in missing the issue, as editors seemed to have completely ignored a certain perspective expressed by a sizable number of editors on the article's talk page. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 16:55, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

To all admins and editors, please do review the discussion at Talk:Second Intifada#What is neutral? where you will be able to judge whether there is any validity to Jaakobou's characterization of my comments as "soapboxing" or as "disregarding the Israeli POV". Tiamut^talk 16:58, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Jaakobou's conduct on Talk:Second_Intifada has recently been poor, and has included soap boxing. Also, his user talk page conduct is overly aggressive. I'll wait for Durova to give her opinion, however, I'm inclined to give a 1 week topic ban. Addhoc (talk) 17:02, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Addhoc, I apologize for aggressive behavior, but my people have been soapboxed against on that article repeatedly and vehemently for a prolonged period and I myself stood silent taking repeated personal attacks by three separate involved editors, claiming that there isn't a conflict(?). If there is any comment that catches your attention, I am interested in retracting it and apologizing. However, I believe that more than one of the involved editors (Nickhh in particular) should have their demeanor examined. The recent discussions started here. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 17:13, 17 March 2008 (UTC) small addition. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 17:19, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Based on your response, I'm more confident that a 1 week topic ban should be applied. The arbcom sanctions exist because there has been widespread edit warring and talk page soap boxing on these articles. In this context, it's a statement of the obvious that comments have been made on both sides. Using this to justify or mitigate continuing poor behavior only allows the problem to continue. The entire purpose of the arbcom sanctions was to prevent a continuation of this poor conduct. Addhoc (talk) 17:38, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't really see what the big deal is. I just read the comments on Talk:Second Intifada after following the discussion on Jaakobou's talk page. There basically seem to be two options: 1) Jaakobou is completely alone in his opinions, and alone prevents the article from progressing. If this is true, then he can just be ignored when editing the actual article, and if he edit wars, he will be wrong and there will be justification to ban him. Or 2) Jaakobou is not alone in his views, which means that Tiamut's accusations of bad faith are unfounded, and maybe there is merit to what Jaakobou says. If this is true, then it's clear that Tiamut is pushing to get Jaakobou banned in order to advance her own POV in the article by taking out her prime opposition on the talk page.

It's not immediately clear which of the two is correct, so in either case, as I said before, I don't really see the big deal, and suggest to wait until there's visible disruption to the actual article before instituting any bans, because if #2 is true, then the ban will hurt the balance of the article.

-- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 18:09, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

The problem is his disruptive conduct, not his views. Addhoc (talk) 18:38, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

The discussion on the Second Intifada article has really heated up lately, mostly over a contention between me and Tiamut. The dispute has led to high tensions and the involvement of many editors, and no editor -- myself included -- is free from blame. While Jaakobou's comments may be in poor taste, I think that banning Jaakobou given the conduct of all editors involved on Second Intifada and given that these comments arose directly in connection with a particular article and should not prevent Jaakobou from editing other articles, I recommend that the article be placed under severe anti-soapbox supervision. ← Michael Safyan ^(talk) 18:26, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Also, I would like to personally apologize for my improper conduct on Second Intifada. I should have approached the issue in a less disruptive manner. ← Michael Safyan ^(talk) 18:35, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

The article and talk page are under arbcom probation, which covers soapboxing. I don't think additional probation restrictions are required. Addhoc (talk) 18:38, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

(e/c)I would note further that the latest comments by Jaakobou come after a series of warnings that he simply refuses to heed. If there are other editors who have exercised poor judgement that is a separate matter, and one which in any case should be dealt with by providing diffs, rather than making blanket generalizations. Tiamut^talk 18:46, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

It is? Where does it say that it is under arbcom probation? ← Michael Safyan ^(talk) 18:58, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I recommend that both User:Michael Safyan and User:Ynhockey be sent notices of the Arbcomm decision since both are regular editors at the I-P related articles. Additionally, Michael Safyan recently canvassed a number of users, including Ynhockey and Jaakobou, to participate in the RfC he opened at Second Intifada specifically in order to gather together users who shared in his view that "uprising" is a POV term. Tiamut^talk 19:15, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I was offline for about a day. Thanks very much for the note at my user talk. Jaakobou got me on chat as soon as I fired up the computer. I'm getting up to speed right now and will post a follow-up soon. If anyone else wants to do a gmail chat with me, drop me a line via Wikipedia e-mail and I'll send you an invite. Durova^Charge! 19:01, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

An involved editor I know, but I did want to make a comment, not least because Jaakobou has dragged my name into this. This diff soon brings up the phrase "I have a different perspective ..", suggesting we are about to hear an honest description of Jaakobou's beliefs, and then launches into a borderline-racist diatribe posted on the talk page. The impression given is that he is only refraining from incorporating these views into the article itself verbatim because of his own concerns about balance and not giving offence. There is no qualification here that he doesn't actually believe any of this, or that he is arguing for a mock-extreme viewpoint, simply for the purposes of debate. When called up on it, he then tried to defend what he wrote as mere pretend soapboxing in response to Tiamut's stated preference for the use of the word "struggle" to describe how the Palestinians view the Intifada, which he states is offensive to the victims of suicide bombings and other attacks. Even if this is true, a) this is not how his original words read; and b) he misunderstands Tiamut's clearly expressed point that the word struggle is being used not to refer to suicide and rocket attacks, but to the Intifada as a whole, which includes many examples of non-violent protest as well. The prominent Israeli counter-view is in any event also included in the lead, with clear references to "terrorism" and how Arafat is to blame for the violence of the Intifada. Re-reading the talk page discussion again, all I can see is two or three editors haggling for the most part constructively as to how to reach an agreement on words, and one - who has only just emerged from having to apologise profusely for a recent piece of appalling ill-judgement, involving as it happens Tiamut again - coming in suddenly from left-field to rant about an entire ethnic group, which that editor happens to belong to. Not pleasant. --Nickhh (talk) 19:24, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

This is typical Jaakobou - he regards expression of mainstream, internationally-accepted, majority point-of-view on Israel-Palestine articles as contemptible "soapboxing" and "advocacy" for a Palestinian-terrorist point of view, and he constantly tries to stamp it out with accusations of disruptive editing and counter-rants of his own. One constantly sees conversations in this vein: Somebody: Well, in fairness, the wall does cut off Palestinian farmers from their land, and it's been condemned by the international community. We can't just call it a "security fence against suicide bombers" as if that's the last word on the subject.

Jaakobou: I warn you be careful of WP:SOAP expressions of Arab POV, we wouldnt want "ultra-Zionist" counter-POV coming in would we, lets have a communal editing and less of the justification for terror.

(I apologize for the paraphrasing, I'll go digging for some actual diffs, but this is my general impression of trying to work with Jaakobou on the subject.) <eleland/talkedits> 22:07, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

[99]; uses edit summary to call Nishidani a 'decent and ethical editor who so happens to soapbox against Jewish people "on occassion".' This after Nishidani objected to a message Jaakobou placed on his userpage which seemed to mock User:Tiamat's concern over the bombing of Gaza by likening it to concern over his upcoming exams.

Jaakobou also has a nasty tendency to revert as part of an edit war, while simultaneously condemning reversions and edit warring as disruptive: [100]

Jaakobou claims that because British media outlets were criticized in 2002 for their coverage of Jenin, no British newspaper can ever again be a reliable source for Isr-Pal coverage (and that using them somehow violates BLP:) [101] [102]

And here's an exchange that captures what I was getting at above:

Nicknh:[in part] Jaakobou, if you want a viewpoint going in which refers to Muslim Arabs being warped, racist genocidalists who simply want to murder Jews and drive them into the sea, then the balance to that is the view which sees Jews as bloodsuckers in a conspiracy to take over the world, starting with an area that runs from the Nile to the Euphrates. Both are fringe, extremist viewpoints, and I apologise for having to even refer to them here, but it wasn't me who started down this road. And your comment about civility in discourse made me laugh, especially in the light of recent events. As usual even people more sympathetic to your POV are asking you to tone down your behaviour and act in a more constructive manner.
Jaakobou: [full comment] I'm highly offended by what you suggest and your phrasing. To be frank, I don't see how we can collaborate if you continue to warp my words and make personal attacks. [103] <eleland/talkedits> 22:27, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Eleland (talk · contribs) has persistently attempted to marginalize me by characterizing me (and Jayjg) as an extremist to other editors. I resent that and view the following instances as attempts to burn my bridges ahead of me.

The common pattern is of making numerous "indirect" user directed commentary and uncivil attacks in violation of the Arbcom final decisions.

• "a [[User:Jayjg|time honoured tradition]]... makes you look rather desperate" [104]
• "Jayjg... anyone who opposed his fairly ludicrous interpretation" - [105]
• "I can't help but wonder if a person or persons is pushing for the POV of the Israeli extreme right" - [106]
• "Sidelines about incivility (or whatever) will not distract from the real issue here... Benjamin Netanyahu and Avigdor Lieberman do not hold "veto power" over our presentation of facts in this encyclopedia. Nor do their adherents." - [107]
• "I'm aware that there are far worse Israeli right-wingers than Netanyahu. Some of them edit Wikipedia." - [108]

Eleland's approach suggests he purposefully makes personal attacks that are "vague" and "indirect". It has been the same pattern when he previously had the audacity to "indirectly" suggest I was a war criminal or when he made an old apology that looked more like mockery; and I note that at the time the above comments were made it hasn't even been the pledged 7 days since his first block was lifted.

To be frank, I'm stunned that he had the audacity to join this thread after his recent activity on Israel related articles.

• In response to a basic Arab nationality listing to the Palestinian people, Eleland has first removed the nationality implying that any editor who uses this is automatically denying the existence of a Palestinian people or nation and moved on to replace the State of Israel with Zionist movement. 19:44, 8 March 2008
• A revert on Battle of Jenin 23:37, 9 March 2008, blatently inserted an out of context quote made on March 5th at the end of a paragraph discussing the preludes to the operation in Jenin which followed a month of suicide bombings culminating with a March 27th attack that killed 30. This is a clear case of WP:NPOV and WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT as the issue was already discussed multiple times ([109], [110]), clarifying that it's context with Battle of Jenin and also Operation Defensive Shield was not only synthesis but also out of context propaganda. On this occasion there was no discussion/reply made [111] since the editor already knew the nature of the quote which he reinserted.

With respect, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 23:02, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Jaakobou has simply reposted a tissue of exaggerations and contextomies, which earned him a "Final warning [...] for trying to use WP:AE as a weapon for block-shopping" the last time he tried; see WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement/Archive14#Eleland (talk · contribs) again. Admins who take the time to check the discussions related to those diffs will see that Jaakobou ignored direct reference to reliable sources in favour of his personal interpretations. "Palestinians" is preferred over "Palestinian Arabs" on Google News sources by a margin of over 100:1; the "out of context quote" was cited by TIME magazine and Amnesty International in the same "out of context" fashion, etc. Jaakobou is being manipulative, and he is being deceitful. <eleland/talkedits> 23:18, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Let's for one moment assume that you are correct and the quote was not made on march 5th after a weekend of terror attacks, how does that justify the rest of your personal attacks and your posting here? Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 09:21, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Sect Break 2

Jaakobou is drafting something regarding this thread and it should be ready to go in a little while. In the meantime I'll make a few general comments. In September 2007 he started approaching me to ask for advice. The requests came out of the blue in some regards: I don't edit this topic and don't have strong opinions one way or the other about it, and we'd never been introduced. Nobody had told Jaakobou to look for my advice; he just figured it would be a good idea to seek independent feedback and had seen my name around. We touched bases on a semi-regular basis until arbitration opened. At that time it was my idea to formalize the mentorship: he had already demonstrated a commitment for several months to trying to get things right, and hadn't sought to leverage the relationship in any way. Since arbitration he has branched out and become a featured content contributor. Now I don't mean to imply that he's perfect or to minimize his mistakes. Sometimes I do a facepalm when I see this dispute heating up.

I do think he's sincere, rather than deliberately malicious or Machiavellian. And whether or not other editors agree with his perspective, the Israeli POV is notable in a way that (for instance) the pro-perpetual-motion-machine POV is not. Now per this essay I don't encourage editors to push their own hot buttons. In my experience with disputes generally, flareups tend to bring out heated and hasty actions: people who are already engaged intensify their engagement and the effects of that distract from the shared goal of creating an online encyclopedia.

Shortly before this week's flareup I had been encouraging Jaakobou to take an eventualist approach and walk away from the Israeli-Palestinian dispute for a while (6 weeks? something like that). The reasoning was this: if he's right and the articles would lose neutral balance without him, then after a month or two the result would be obvious to any uninvolved observer. So if there's a problem a content RFC would get useful input then (and if there isn't a problem he'd be off the hook). The average encyclopedia reader is pretty smart. They can sniff the aroma of a soapbox. My general approach has been to encourage de-escalation; I don't have a specific solution to the problems now. Yet anyone from either side of the fence is welcome to come to me with concerns. Jaakobou will be posting shortly, I hope, and you'll see what he has to say. Durova^Charge! 22:32, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

It's getting late here, I'll post a breakdown in the morning. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 23:11, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Stating the obvious somewhat, however I think a week ban should be applied because he is sincere and causing disruption. If he was insincere, I would be proposing a site ban. Addhoc (talk) 01:38, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

How is he being disruptive? He posted a strongly worded comment on the Talk page. So have his ideological opponents. You yourself have stated, above that "It's a statement of the obvious that comments have been made on both sides." - so why is he being singled out for these comments? What , exactly is the disruptive behavior? I don't see it. I am Dr. Drakken (talk) 03:14, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I have no specific recommendation as to how to remedy this incident. Durova^Charge! 03:08, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

May I ask a couple of questions, Durova? Do you think that the "several (very) long chats" you held "with him over the last twelve hours" on 15 March had the desired effect? As you wrote to Nishidani, "He's going to do his best to make amends and ensure that this doesn't happen again." Well, here we are (again) as there has not been any change in the behaviour. He's still making unconstructive edits that amount to poking other editors with sticks. So why are you witholding comment this time around? Is Addhoc's proposal really so unreasonable? Tiamut^talk 04:28, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Hi Gatoclass, thanks for your comment. I would point out however that there is ample evidence all over the Talk:Second Intifada page of Jaakobou's soapboxing, which is not confined to the diffs he refactored above. For example, take this RfC comment. Note that he writes: the Second Intifada was a directed propaganda and terror campaign of attacks and offenses aimed almost exclusively at civilians. This is not an 'uprising' but an attempted genocide and direct attack on the Jewish statehood. He provides no source for this rather offensive claim. It's just plain old soapboxing. He also knows what soapboxing is, he cited it to us back in December here.

My question is, how do the comments and actions undertaken by Jaakobou contribute to healthy editing environment? How am I, as a Palestinian editor, who has seen many Arab editors get banned for much less (i.e. repeatedly calling editors "Zionists"), supposed to feel welcome and safe in such an editing environment? Jaakobou can make off-the-cuff accusations about genocide and assume bad faith of an entire ethnic group and religion (i.e. where he blames the "The Arab world, Islam inspired cultural structure" for an "Arab-Palestinian 91 year racist terror campaign against the Jewish-Palestinians" as in the post at the top of this section) make polemical, rambling posts, and this is all viewed as okay? He's just "sincere" but "misguided" and "not malicious" in his intentions, I am assured, over and over. I share Nickhh's thoughts about a double-standard at work here. I am not blaming anyone in particular for that, I just think it's high time we admitted that anti-Arab and anti-Muslim rants at Wikipedia (and in the real world) are not viewed with the same seriousness as such rants against others. I haven't even touched here the issue of his misrepresentation of my comments (I have asked for one diff that would support his claim that he only soapboxed because I did - he has not provided one) nor the personal nature of his soapboxing posts, coming on the heels of his mockery of my mourning message. I don't now if a one-week break from I-P articles will make a difference, but I think it's the appropriate next step to take here. It's not draconian and it would send a message that such behaviour across the board is simply not cool with the community. Regards, Tiamut^talk 11:02, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Shortly after I posted the above, it occurred to me that from the POV of a Palestinian or an Arab/Muslim, some of the things that Jaakobou has said must be deeply offensive. So I think you have a very valid point there, I can't deny it. Gatoclass (talk) 11:14, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for acknowledging what it might be like to stand in my/our shoes. Tiamut^talk 11:22, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I apopreciate the constructivce remarks above. however, this is getting a little crazy. the way to edit articles is not by dancing close to the edge of hugley partisdan statements, then pulling back with apologies if one gets too "offensive." The way to edit is by realizing there are two world-views here, and by trying to present them both fairly in a professional manner. most importantly, the proper thing to do is to recognize that we have credible, articulate reliable editors on both sides, and to work with the many Palestinian-affiliated editors who are capable of working together positively. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 14:03, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Sect break 3

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

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

Nickhh,

1. Are you taking back channel notes about 6-8+ month ago events from Eleland? I've already admitted on the January Arbcom to a few article errors of judgement; however, both you (who's making repeated personal attakcs) and Eleland have not.
2. Despite utterly uncollegiate infuriating atmosphere (putting it mildly, as being called war criminal by both PalestineRemembered and Eleland is just one event that won't be easy to forget) on that article, I've managed to add/make a number of very nice additions (sample) that survived long after I've taken a break from the article.
3. I find it offensive that you soapbox with "killed more than 50 Palestinians, many of them civilians" on the Jenin Massacre/Battle issue where 23 Israeli soldiers died fighting militants booby trapped house to booby trapped house in a location that's responsible for 28 suicide bombings on Israeli civilians. Geneva conventions note that civilain loss of life in these instances is 100% responsibility of the insurgents, not to mention that the local militants used a female "civilian" decoy to lure in soldiers into a trap and killing 11.
4. I find it odd that a person who makes a habit of soapboxing and personal attacks has the audacity to warp my words, accuse me of antisemitism and forcefully try to have an editing leverage by demanding a block for someone holding different views ... and a quickly retracted excessive phrasing. As previously stated, I'll post my breakdown of events, which includes both your personal attacks, a little later today.

-- Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 12:46, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh dear. I can't do this much longer, nor I guess does anyone else want to read it. However ...

1) No, my own memory of events is perfectly good thanks. And my point is precisely that these "errors of judgement" seem to keep on coming, post-ArbCom

2) I had nothing to do with these accusations, as I'm sure you know. And I do accept that it wasn't helpful or appropriate for those editors to raise the possibility that you fought in Jenin, even if I can understand why some people might have been looking for an explanation for your apparent fixation with those events and with Saeb Erekat. I haven't seen anything like it aimed at you since.

3) Um, this is not "soapboxing", I was merely describing part of the background for people who might not be aware of it ahead of highlighting the phrase you wanted at the top of the article. Why are you posting a long (and incorrect as it happens) rant about what the Geneva Conventions say in response, and flinging around accusations about events on the ground in Jenin? Isn't that closer to soapboxing?

4) I'm not aware of my habits of soapboxing and making personal attacks, I guess they're all in the eye of the beholder. A couple of minor digs or forcefully put points from time to time, but I've certainly never accused a whole race of people of being religiously-inspired genocidalists (it's not "warping" your words to say that, it's called paraphrasing - re-read what you posted). And please read what I wrote again as well - I never accused YOU of anti-Semitism, nor have I "demand[ed] a block".--Nickhh (talk) 13:02, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Nickhh,

1. Oh dear, is certainly not a civil way of respond editors raising concerns about soapboxing. Neither is mocking people asking you nicely not to make personal attacks; Btw, I couldn't for the life of me understand who was supposed to be sympathetic or more scholarly.
2. I'm not following what these is supposed to intend to as I was using the talk page to accentuate that editors, you included, are not noticing their advocacy (soapboxing) to exclude the Israeli perspective from the article.
3. I do believe that you were being utterly insensitive here, describing a battle between militants, responsible for 28 suicide bombings, and the IDF as if it were a massacre of innocent civilians... and I also suggest you give a second look to the Geneva conventions since my statement was correct.
4. In retrospect, you did not accuse me of antisemitism; my apology for slight misreading into your text. However, you are utterly warping my comments and accuse me of inherent racism while making soapbox against Israeli right to self defense and demanding "administrators took as firm a stand against..." your warped interpretation of my comments. Translation: personal attack, soapboxing, and demanding a block for leverage on the article.

...I'll post my breakdown of events, which includes both your personal attacks, a little later today. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 13:37, 18 March 2008 (UTC) small addition of nickhh personally directed commentary. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 13:53, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Jaakobou, I appreciate your positive attention to my comments elsewhere. However, i'm distrubed by the contentious tone emerging here. why are your esponding to people's allegations with counter-allegations of your own? Many of their points and concerns happen to be correct. I really don't feel that you should be trying to counteract them or refute them so vehemently. i think you really need to listen to them, and to actually absorb them. I'm sorry, but I repeat, many of the concerns raised by Nickhh, Eleland, and others above happen to have much accuracy, or at least validity. So I really would ask you to simply hear them, and absorb them, and not allow this discussion here to become one of a litigous or adversarial nature. If you want a collegiate atmosphere here, you must help to allow such an atmosphere to occur.--Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 14:13, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

collegiate atmosphere

I don't wish to see punitive sanctions here against anyone, including Jaakobou. However, he and I do have slightly different approaches. I gave him some friendly suggestions recently. My suggestion to Arbcom is to read Talk:Second Intifada.

Jaakobou, my suggestion to you is to find more multilateral ways to pursue discussion. My concern in making these comments is I'm not sure what the context is for discussions here. Do discussions here automatically lead to sanctions? Or may I consider this a useful forum to take up some issues which need to be addressed, and which need a neutral constructive place to be discussed?

I would ask that people's concerns here be heard. Jaakobou,. as you know, you and I have different ideas on how these issues should be discussed and how these articles should be edited. I'm disturbed by the tone of allegation and counter-allegation here. However, I did find some issues with Jaakobou's approach, which I have already expressed to him personally in a cooperative way. My suggestion to Jakkobou were basically to not attempt to make overtly partisan statements, but to work more constructively with editors from other viewpoints. it is not helpful to recite the grievances of the Israeli side, then defend them by saying that they are really true. both sides feel that way.

My goal here is not to inflict sanctions on anyone, but to make sure that all concerns are heard, and to try to direct discussion to a level where people can feel that issues can be heard here, and somewhat definitively addressed; and also, that this might result in some constructive feedback and advice, which might help to resolve some of the open issues here. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 13:55, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Sm8900, I don't won't hold a grudge over this, but you've certainly ignored the point raised on the RfC and suggested it be ignored rather than help it being heard. This would be a good time to apologize for uncivil responses made on the discussion (suggestions to ignore RfC and editor directed commentaries 'sample').

I'll do my share and start by apologizing to you for possibly making you uncomfortable with my response to soapboxing of other editors and objecting to a version which you thoughts was reasonable (despite the RfC showing clear disagreement). Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 14:07, 18 March 2008 (UTC) add RfC wikilink. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 14:09, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

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

a few new comments

Jaakobou, you are incorrect. I have not been uncivil. I feel my comments were basically appropriate. I hope you will try to listen to them. I do appreciate your positive comments to me, and I'm sure we will have a positive relationship going forward. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 14:15, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

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

Had, I repeat, had anyone on the 'other' side written, to slightly modify User:Jaakobou's complaint about the Arab world, something along the lines of:-

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

He would have had the whole Wiki house come down on him like a ton of blocks for antisemitic prejudices, rightly so, and would have been declared persona non grata because that order of prejudice cannot conduce to editing, if strongly, to the equanimity required, an equanimity which is absent because, by the premise in such words, all those from that world who edit here to achieve equal representation of POVs are tacitly or otherwise either 'racists' and 'terrorists' or supporters of the same, given their cultural background. Nishidani (talk) 14:16, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

p.s.I apologize for commenting when an administrative decision had already been made, while I was still writing, unawares, my post above. I wrote it on evidence of a certain administrative neglect in the past, which has obviously been remedied here, and apologize therefore for what I wrote concerning systemic bias against User:Tiamut. Regards Nishidani (talk) 14:24, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

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