User talk:Wikifan12345/Archive 4

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Wikifan12345. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Human Rights Watch

Yes, of course your additions are OK; thanks for the clarification and wikilinks. I hope the compromise that I went for wasn't too unsatisfactory. Awickert (talk) 02:45, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Yeah thanks. It looks better now anyways. Wikifan12345 (talk) 04:34, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

OK, good. Awickert (talk) 16:37, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Re: This is absurd

Yes, it's not pretty, and not fair. Everyone who has commented so far has been involved. I do hope that the reviewing admins can see through the crud and seriously examine the situation without jumping to conclusions.

On a side note though, if I may make a friendly suggestion—whether you are sanctioned in the end or not, you should request formal mentorship in order to avoid such problems in the future. Feel free to contact me any time you want (on Wikipedia or off) if you need advice.

Cheers, Ynhockey ^(Talk) 23:08, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

You'll have to acknowledge faults anyway ;) this is the course of action I recommend at this point anyway. I will post it at WP:ANI. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 10:42, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

So far Awickert has made the most sensible comments in the whole ANI. You are really approaching this the wrong way. As Awickert wrote, Wikifan above disqualifies all editors from commenting; those involved are too involved, and those uninvolved are too unaware;. If someone wishes to mentor you, it would better be someone who doesn't know you. That's to insure that they're uninvolved. And if anyone should make serious comments at the ANI, it's best if it's people who haven't been personally involved in the subject matter. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 22:25, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Both you and Factsontheground blocked for 1 week for disruption and personal attacks

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

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

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

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

Discussion on WP:ANI has supported you being topic banned for six-ish months from all Israeli / Palestinean articles.

See: [1] and [2]

If you would like to comment on the proposed topic ban, please note here and we can create a section here to transclude into that discussion. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:07, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Uh? Sorry I was absent for a couple of days and now return to this? Hmm. Where do I go? Wikifan12345 (talk) 02:55, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

It seems rather odd you would 1 week ban me then immediately propose a topic ban in a forum I cannot edit. So if I haven't been clear enough, I would really like to be able to personally comment on my own topic ban. Wikifan12345 (talk) 03:32, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

note on talk page language

Regarding your "ironic"? comments on Talk:List_of_terrorist_incidents,_2009#RfC:_Explicit_source.3F, I don't know if writing "Jew Nazis blowin up Palestinians fetus's" was intended to be humorous, but it is deeply offensive to many editors. Please refrain from using such language, it is not at all constructive. RomaC (talk) 12:57, 4 August 2009 (UTC) >>Was not aware of the ANI regarding this user's behavior, striking my comments, can remove them in a few days if there's no objection? RomaC (talk) 02:38, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Hello? - Cannot access ANI

I can't respond to my on-going ANI/ban-for-6-months trial since I've been blocked for one week. Is this standard procedure?? Wikifan12345 (talk) 03:01, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

use the unblock template and say you will only edit the an/i thread for the duration of the block so that you can respond there. Either that or do what Georgewilliamherbert said to and write what you want here and somebody will move it over for you (you do it soon and I will move it for you). nableezy - 03:49, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

no guarantee an admin would unblock you for that purpose, but I think they should. And we both know I aint exactly your biggest ally. nableezy - 03:54, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Haha yup. I just was rather surprised to receive a 1 week ban and then a proposed topic ban by the same admin. Usually editors should be able to comment on their own trial, right? Why the rush? :D Wikifan12345 (talk) 03:57, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I would assume so. But like I said, you can write what you want here and somebody will post it for you there if you want to do that. nableezy - 04:02, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

The ANI is just so extensive and deep a "transclude" message system seems totally unrealistic. I cannot a find a wikipedia policy that endorses such a transfer under a topic-ban proposal requests. Dare I say George's block/ban-proposal is highly irregular. Wikifan12345 (talk) 04:11, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Wikifan12345 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Per Nableezy's suggestion. Would only edit the ANI thread for the duration for the block. Wikifan12345 (talk) 03:51, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Decline reason:

It appears that the relevant section is now transcluded below, making this unnecessary. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:22, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

ANI

I would prefer to do this... The following section will be transcluded into the ANI discussion (I will set up the other end of the link in a few minutes). You can edit here, in the section below, and it will appear there in a dedicated section. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:03, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

George, I just think this makes the talk unnecessarily difficult and obtrusive. I would really like to be able to directly respond to comments and posts. I do not a see a precedent for this sort of topic-ban discussion. I mean, If were to edit another article - it's not like I can't hide. Considering you made the decision to 1 week ban and then post a 6 month topic ban request (a rather articulate and well-crafted request), it would only be fair of you to allow me to respond at my own ANI. Wikifan12345 (talk) 04:07, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikifan12345 (talk) 04:07, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

It's a little clumsy, but your comments will be visible to all. If your block had not included abusive behavior on ANI discussions this would probably not be necessary, but for now please use this method. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:11, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Uh? George - this is rather silly. I do not see the logic in moving posts here to the article there, it is not only time-consuming but extremely inconsistent with wikipedia operations. You implemented a 1 week ban and then as an individual editor proposed a topic following the block. That level involvement is suspect, so again I would really like to be able to comment directly at my own trial. I've never seen anything like this before. Edit: Also, I'm guessing an uninvolved admin should comment on the unblock request? Wikifan12345 (talk) 04:14, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Ah. You don't understand what transclusion is....

The section below is automatically included in the connected section on ANI. Nobody has to copy anything - when you make an edit here, anyone reading on ANI after the edit here will see what you included. I will put a sample message below to demonstrate - see how it appears on ANI after this edit.

The messages appear in their own subsection of the discussion, right below the main subsection on the topic ban.

See: Transclusion in general and Wikipedia:Transclusion for how it works on Wikipedia, in more detail.

Any other admin can comment on or act on the unblock request - unlikely at the moment, but they can. I'll segment this off into its own main section separate from the unblock.

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:22, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Look George, as I said I think this is very unnecessary if not premature. All I want is to be able to comment on my own topic-ban trial which you specifically proposed. This whole transcluding service - something you also decided on - is highly unfamiliar with me and if I am going to effectively communicate I would feel an ordinary wikipedia-editing style is in order. I want to be able to respond directly to editors, in between sections, etc. I think that's pretty fair considering my character as an editor is on the line. Wikifan12345 (talk) 04:28, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Transclude to ANI

Sample comment for transclusion demonstration Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:22, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Response to Count Iblis alternative proposal - August 6

I posted this at my talkpage, this is just a copy and paste. I really would appreciate if some admin could conditionally release the block so I can actually respond to users directly. It's becoming a joke but a serious hassle and disservice to whatever legitimacy this "trial" might entail.

Straight from talk: Anyways. I posted a response to all this drama yesterday. As stated previously, I'd feel more comfortable responding to editors directly rather en-mass in this silly transcluding business but if that's what George wants. Hopefully the trial can be closed and moved to a more impartial circumstances. It is very distressing to see a user like FOTG waste so much bandwidth, and get away with it. As far as this "alternative proposal" is concerned, I don't have a fixed schedule for wikipedia. From a executioner's perspective, I'd imagine a timed topic ban or a more explicit penalty rather than unorthodox 1-day-a-week sort of deal would be more effective in cementing behavioral changes. The 1 day a week scenario implies the problem is "protecting" edits when you can see that simply not the case. A majority of my edits are in talk for starters, and the rest are hardly controversial. I'm not a massive mover information, just look through my edits. Most of them are sentences or less. I am however very interested in this mentor situation, not as an alternative "punishment" but simply for the experience. Can't be any lamer than adopt-a-user right? : ) For the sake of wikipedia, I suggest you follow FOTG like he has stalked me and clean up the problem. He's only been here since march, odds are he's a sock of some banned user who didn't like me. Source. Wikifan12345 (talk) 01:35, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

August 5

Will hopefully be able to respond to all questions/comments soon. Thanks for waiting. (unsigned - Wikifan12345)

Hello. While I await a conditional-unblock request I hope we can put this topic-ban-issue on hold for now. I'm also not sure how much time I have for this (rather busy at the moment - in an extraordinary amount of pain) so if someone could tell me how long these discussions are allowed to play out it would be greatly appreciated.

Long qualifying response, read at your own discretion!

Hello!

I've been absent for a little awhile and was surprised to see all of this rack up so quickly.

Okay, so I'll try to keep my perspective brief.

Not that important

First - I find it rather odd for User:Georgewilliamherbert to implement a 1 block week block then initiate a 6 month topic ban request. Perhaps I am the only one who thinks this is quite irregular, but I thought I should at least make my opinion known anyways.

Second - What is this topic ban revolving? George has enumerated a series of diff's demonstrating a supposed-agenda fitting the criteria for banishment, and claims "Wikifan12345 is behaviorally a worse offender here and at least marginally worse on the article page. Both sides are clearly harrassing each other way in excess of policy." Some clarification would be appreciated.

Pretty important

Third, I think there is some obvious misrepresentations as to what is going on.

A) This whole situation began after User:Factsontheground accused me of harassing him, personal attacks, "vilifying" (his own words).

There is some slight truth to this. I acknowledging accused FOTG of being "manically" obsessed with Jews and Israel several times. As shown by George's awfully fact-picked diff's, I reiterated this sentiment more than once.. At this point, I don't see anything particularly wrong about this character assessment. He prematurely removed almost every incident about Israel/Jews from the article. Then he embarked on a nice long dispute ensuring the incidents would stay out of the article for the time being: I was the first to respond - notice lack of "manically obsessed with Jews."

The conflict continues, with FOTG maliciously reverting anyone who dared undos his edits:

1

2

3

etc..

I left a somewhat polite but appropriate message asking him to stop removing cited information under blanket "original research" summaries. He dismissed it as a "personal attack." This became an established-pattern for what FOTG considered to be "personal attacks."

It became clear from my perspective that FOTG goal was to simply weed out any remote mention of Israel, which is seems fitting considering his prior history as an editor. In the dispute, I explicitly listed FOTG's edits to demonstrate abnormal behavior in hopes of rectification: here.

This was a futile attempt, and ultimately, I filed an ANI regarding my concern for his "obsession".

It was promptly categorized as a content-dispute and not behavioral.

Meanwhile I complained many times about FOTG following me around to articles I regularly edit and warring out all my additions: BBC 1, BBC2, HRW 1, 2, Anthony Cordesman 1. This was stated somewhere in the ANI above but I cannot find the diff and I'm pretty certain it was ignored.

Not surprisingly, FOTG filed an RFC demanding more attention to my "attacks.".

There is no doubt my frustration towards FOTG might perceived to be above CIVIL standards, but his hounding, stalking, whatever you call has been grossly understated if not all but ignored. Not only do I find his claims of being "attacked" ironic, but laughable.

Is it not so unreasoned to think an obviously troubled user is seeking to distract his edits (i.e, save face), by lawyering up ANIs, etc. at an individual he has been targeting mercilessly from the get-go? Perhaps it's just me. :D

A little less important

For those who would like to look beyond George's diff, If you could take a quick glance through my contributions at List of terrorist incidents, 2009 you will see I was one of the principal editors of the article and spent many hours contributing to its current status and was readily involved in the talk discussion. I even exposed a bothersome sock who also had a tenacity for deleting everything Jewish and merging all-things about Somalia. It's a long story.

Point is, I've been very active in the article and was present well-before FOTG showed up and started edit-warring.

I also thoroughly resent the accusation of being SPA. Virtually every wikipedian tends to edit a certain encyclopedic genre, but the SPA accusation (which is a claim admin George is riding on) in my opinion is a very hard sell. I've edited topics revolving media, wars, politics, and biographies - all in the general Middle Eastern-background. This isn't a crime. It's not like many of the user's here rallying for my banishment can claim to be any less, Pellesmith Factsontheground, and many others here.

I'd argue I've been rather productive editor for the most part and this dispute severely undercuts previous accomplishments and creates a false representation of my user. I've had some difficulties before (as demonstrated by my block-log), and like many users continue to struggle in this area of wikipedia but I think I've made some worthwhile improvements and contributions. Feel free to look at my edits in-full or articles I frequent.

As some of you may recognize many of the editors here can either claim to be a member of a certain POV persuasion in the hotly-contested I/P arena, editors who I am currently in an on-going dispute with (Pelle, R2), editors who were involved in previous disputes (I see several editors involved in former ANI disputes, edit-warring reports, etc...) or editors who are already active in the originating article where this somewhat trivial dispute birthed. To those very few who aren't, your opinion is most definitely appreciated.

Final summary, slightly more important

I accept responsibility for whatever misgivings some users might misconstrue, and if anyone actually takes FOTG drama seriously then I guess I'm sorry for that too. I would be very open to a mentor or less-punishing topic ban if that were on the table. I probably need a break from wikipedia anyways.

But let's not forget - this whole situation revolves around a user who stalked me, harassed me, followed me to many articles I edit, and then orchestrate a supremely-gaming-the-system campaign to ban me from wikipedia altogether. Before any rulings, are made I hope this lack, and complete total omitance of FOTG's MO is at least remotely acknowledged. Simply as a warning to other editors who might get in his cross-hairs.

Eh, I guess this wasn't that brief. I believe a solid response was necessary, especially when George insists I am more of a problematic user than FOTG. If that is truly the case I seriously need to be permabanned from the internet. : )

Cheers. Wikifan12345 ([[User talk:Wikifan12345#top|talk]]) 05:38, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Before I go

edit: Oh, forgot to mention. In spite of my rather non-nonchalant approach, I consider FOTG's hounding to be extreme harassment, and his recent submission of an RFC lodged against me (which revolves around him, of course) demonstrates a strong fixation on my user. He seemed adamant at removing me from this website and even rifles through my edits to paint a false picture. FOTG is a relatively new editor and seems to edit from a very combat-heavy mentality. I haven't stalked through his contribs just yet but I noticed this and it was one of his first edits: "The ball's in your court, Jaakabou." User:Jaakobou is a very accomplished editor and widely-respected by many, for those who don't know. : )

This is turning out to be a tattle-tale-no-my-fault sort of thread so I'll stop right now. If anyone has further questions or criticisms I'll be happy to respond, but I'm sick at the moment so responses may be infrequent.

Cheers again. :D Wikifan12345 (talk) 05:53, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Couple questions

It seems some admins and users (User:Philknight, a few others) are pretty certain the ban-conditions set by George are a done deal. I'm never been a target of such a trial but this seems awfully fast and highly partial for something so punishing to be done so easily. Are there not more appropriate and honest boards of these sorts of measures? I do find it extremely odd how a user like FOTG who has hounded me, stalked me, harassed me, and then claimed I'm "attacking him" by simply recognizing his clearly hateful agenda is allowed such privileges. Even if we were to level the playing field, the only thing that separates FOTG from myself is I simply did not demand blood. Wikipedia is not a kindergarten classroom and users should not allowed to put "enemies" in a corner because they cry louder. It's very immature and borderline infantile. Coming from someone my age that should say a lot. :D

As I said previously, what is this topic-ban revolving? All the diff's point to a general accusation of FOTG being manically obsessed with Jews and Israel, with a few puns and shady humor. Assuming FOTG is a victim (lolz), to what degree can my statements letter-for-letter be applied to Wikipedia:CIVIL? Yes, policy applies everywhere, especially in the I/P arena so you can't really hide from that. But honestly, is this really a "personal attack?" He has a major POV issue and guns his way through articles, then relies on ANI/trolling talk discussions to get the right response. How this has been totally, and completely denied outright is not only suspect but epically hilarious. Hopefully other editors other than those who demand blood can answer this for me. Maybe I'm just imagining all of this.

How long is this going to take? Like, seriously? Is there a time-limit or something?

Alternatives - mentor, combining editing restrictions with topic-ban, basic block, etc...are these realistic options outside of totally nullifying this hunt to a more appropriate board?

Re-cap:

A) What am I being banned for? Uncivil? To what degree? 1-10? Mean? Swearing? Hounding? Civility laws stretch over the rainbow, there is a fine line between "I know where you live, and I'm going to....etc.." and "You are an ardent troll and POV warrior." Unless I'm mistaken.

B) FOTG? His week ban has been reduced and George has clearly taken favor to his persona. Is his involvement, which has for the most part remained invisibile following the topic-ban proposal, no longer an issue?

C) Alternatives - realistic ones. How many, are there really an option, etc.

D) How long is this supposed to be? Typically speaking, weeks...months...hours? I'm not in a rush to be locked away I'm just genuinely curious.

Again, it would truly be awesome if I could respond directly to editors instead of this silly transcluding limitation. Posts could be far more concise and to the point if I could simply respond to each user or thought-above. Thanks. Wikifan12345 (talk) 01:17, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Response to R2

I tried my best and assumed good faith, but its very clear this whole "trial" is nothing short of a bandwagon. It was very convenient for George to block me for "attacking FOTG" so I could not respond to editors directly, then force me to do these transcluding edits which makes it practically impossible for interested users to reply. Noticing George's convey's with FOTG at his talk, he seems very adamant in ensuring I'm banned and FOTG is pleased.

Well, it's all good I guess. It's not like this hasn't happened before.

I would of course appreciate a more cordial, fair, and apolitical discussion but I'm not sure if any admins would endorse that.

Edit: So is someone going to close this or do we wait for more people? Is an admin supposed review what I have written, compare it with everything else and make a final assessment? Or just go with the "consensus"?

If anyone would like to refer to my other questions R2 didn't touch on that would be cool. thanks Wikifan12345 (talk) 19:14, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikifan12345 (talk) 18:19, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Alternative proposal

Why not let Wikifan edit the articles on Israel/Palestine on one day of the week only? This will cause him to make edits that he thinks will stick without him being around to "protect" his edits. So, edit warring, being uncivil etc. etc. would be pointless and counterproductive. Count Iblis (talk) 23:35, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

This should be made on ANI. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:53, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Anyways. I posted a response to all this drama yesterday. As stated previously, I'd feel more comfortable responding to editors directly rather en-mass in this silly transcluding business but if that's what George wants. Hopefully the trial can be closed and moved to a more impartial circumstances. It is very distressing to see a user like FOTG waste so much bandwidth, and get away with it. As far as this "alternative proposal" is concerned, I don't have a fixed schedule for wikipedia. From a executioner's perspective, I'd imagine a timed topic ban or a more explicit penalty rather than unorthodox 1-day-a-week sort of deal would be more effective in cementing behavioral changes. The 1 day a week scenario implies the problem is "protecting" edits when you can see that simply not the case. A majority of my edits are in talk for starters, and the rest are hardly controversial. I'm not a massive mover information, just look through my edits. Most of them are sentences or less. I am however very interested in this mentor situation, not as an alternative "punishment" but simply for the experience. Can't be any lamer than adopt-a-user right? : ) For the sake of wikipedia, I suggest you follow FOTG like he has stalked me and clean up the problem. He's only been here since march, odds are he's a sock of some banned user who didn't like me. Wikifan12345 (talk) 00:54, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Email

I've replied to your email with an email, if you need to check a special account for that. --Gimme danger (talk) 01:11, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Responded. Wikifan12345 (talk) 20:57, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Mentorship

I'm glad that we were able to have our initial discussion. It would be beneficial if we could chat about your contributions over the last few days while they are fresh in your mind. Do you have any time tomorrow (Friday) afternoon? --Gimme danger (talk) 06:12, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Maybe. I'll message you if I can. Wikifan12345 (talk) 07:24, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

It was a typo. Thanks for letting me know. Tiamut^talk 20:56, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

No problem. Wikifan12345 (talk) 20:58, 16 August 2009 (UTC)