Important information Shortcuts WP:AE WP:ARE Please use this page only to: request administrative action against editors violating a remedy (not merely a principle) or an injunction in an Arbitration Committee decision, or a contentious topic restriction imposed by an administrator, request contentious topic restrictions against previously alerted editors who engage in misconduct in a topic area designated as a contentious topic, request page restrictions (e.g. revert restrictions) on pages that are being disrupted in topic areas designated as contentious topics, or appeal arbitration enforcement actions (including contentious topic restrictions) to uninvolved administrators. For all other problems, including content disagreements or the enforcement of community-imposed sanctions, please use the other fora described in the dispute resolution process. To appeal Arbitration Committee decisions, please use the clarification and amendment noticeboard. Only autoconfirmed users may file enforcement requests here; requests filed by IPs or accounts less than four days old or with less than 10 edits will be removed. All users are welcome to comment on requests except where doing so would violate an active restriction (such as an extended-confirmed restriction). If you make an enforcement request or comment on a request, your own conduct may be examined as well, and you may be sanctioned for it. Enforcement requests and statements in response to them may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. (Word Count Tool) Statements must be made in separate sections. Non-compliant contributions may be removed or shortened by administrators. Disruptive contributions such as personal attacks, or groundless or vexatious complaints, may result in blocks or other sanctions. To make an enforcement request, click on the link above this box and supply all required information. Incomplete requests may be ignored. Requests reporting diffs older than one week may be declined as stale. To appeal a contentious topic restriction or other enforcement decision, please create a new section and use the template {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}}. Appeals and administrator modifications of contentious topics restrictions The Arbitration Committee procedures relating to modifications of contentious topic restrictions state the following: All contentious topic restrictions (and logged warnings) may be appealed. Only the restricted editor may appeal an editor restriction. Any editor may appeal a page restriction. The appeal process has three possible stages. An editor appealing a restriction may: ask the administrator who first made the contentious topic restrictions (the "enforcing administrator") to reconsider their original decision; request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators' noticeboard ("AN"); and submit a request for amendment ("ARCA"). If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email. Appeals submitted at AE or AN must be submitted using the applicable template. A rough consensus of administrators at AE or editors at AN may specify a period of up to one year during which no appeals (other than an appeal to ARCA) may be submitted. Changing or revoking a contentious topic restriction An administrator may only modify or revoke a contentious topic restriction if a formal appeal is successful or if one of the following exceptions applies: The administrator who originally imposed the contentious topic restriction (the "enforcing administrator") affirmatively consents to the change,[a] or is no longer an administrator;[b] or The contentious topic restriction was imposed (or last renewed) more than a year ago and: the restriction was imposed by a single administrator, or the restriction was an indefinite block. A formal appeal is successful only if one of the following agrees with revoking or changing the contentious topic restriction: a clear consensus of uninvolved administrators at AE, a clear consensus of uninvolved editors at AN, a majority of the Arbitration Committee, acting through a motion at ARCA. Any administrator who revokes or changes a contentious topic restriction out of process (i.e. without the above conditions being met) may, at the discretion of the Arbitration Committee, be desysopped. Standard of review On community review Uninvolved administrators at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") and uninvolved editors at the administrators' noticeboard ("AN") should revoke or modify a contentious topic restriction on appeal if: the action was inconsistent with the contentious topics procedure or applicable policy (i.e. the action was out of process), the action was not reasonably necessary to prevent damage or disruption when first imposed, or the action is no longer reasonably necessary to prevent damage or disruption. On Arbitration Committee review Arbitrators hearing an appeal at a request for amendment ("ARCA") will generally overturn a contentious topic restriction only if: the action was inconsistent with the contentious topics procedure or applicable policy (i.e. the action was out of process), the action represents an unreasonable exercise of administrative enforcement discretion, or compelling circumstances warrant the full Committee's action. ^ The administrator may indicate consent at any time before, during, or after imposition of the restriction. ^ This criterion does not apply if the original action was imposed as a result of rough consensus at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, as there would be no single enforcing administrator. Appeals and administrator modifications of non-contentious topics sanctions The Arbitration Committee procedures relating to modifications and appeals state: Appeals by sanctioned editors Appeals may be made only by the editor under sanction and only for a currently active sanction. Requests for modification of page restrictions may be made by any editor. The process has three possible stages (see "Important notes" below). The editor may: ask the enforcing administrator to reconsider their original decision; request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators’ noticeboard ("AN"); and submit a request for amendment at the amendment requests page ("ARCA"). If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email through Special:EmailUser/Arbitration Committee (or, if email access is revoked, to arbcom-enwikimedia.org). Modifications by administrators No administrator may modify or remove a sanction placed by another administrator without: the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" below). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped. Nothing in this section prevents an administrator from replacing an existing sanction issued by another administrator with a new sanction if fresh misconduct has taken place after the existing sanction was applied. Administrators are free to modify sanctions placed by former administrators – that is, editors who do not have the administrator permission enabled (due to a temporary or permanent relinquishment or desysop) – without regard to the requirements of this section. If an administrator modifies a sanction placed by a former administrator, the administrator who made the modification becomes the "enforcing administrator". If a former administrator regains the tools, the provisions of this section again apply to their unmodified enforcement actions. Important notes: For a request to succeed, either (i) the clear and substantial consensus of (a) uninvolved administrators at AE or (b) uninvolved editors at AN or (ii) a passing motion of arbitrators at ARCA is required. If consensus at AE or AN is unclear, the status quo prevails. While asking the enforcing administrator and seeking reviews at AN or AE are not mandatory prior to seeking a decision from the committee, once the committee has reviewed a request, further substantive review at any forum is barred. The sole exception is editors under an active sanction who may still request an easing or removal of the sanction on the grounds that said sanction is no longer needed, but such requests may only be made once every six months, or whatever longer period the committee may specify. These provisions apply only to contentious topic restrictions placed by administrators and to blocks placed by administrators to enforce arbitration case decisions. They do not apply to sanctions directly authorized by the committee, and enacted either by arbitrators or by arbitration clerks, or to special functionary blocks of whatever nature. All actions designated as arbitration enforcement actions, including those alleged to be out of process or against existing policy, must first be appealed following arbitration enforcement procedures to establish if such enforcement is inappropriate before the action may be reversed or formally discussed at another venue. Information for administrators processing requests Thank you for participating in this area. AE works best if there are a variety of admins bringing their expertise to each case. There is no expectation to comment on every case, and the Arbitration Committee (ArbCom) thanks all admins for whatever time they can give. A couple of reminders: Before commenting, please familiarise yourself with the referenced ArbCom case. Please also read all the evidence (including diffs) presented in the AE request. When a request widens to include editors beyond the initial request, these editors must be notified and the notifications recorded in the same way as for the initial editor against whom sanctions were requested. Where some part of the outcome is clear, a partial close may be implemented and noted as "Result concerning X". Enforcement measures in arbitration cases should be construed liberally to protect Wikipedia and keep it running efficiently. Some of the behaviour described in an enforcement request might not be restricted by ArbCom. However, it may violate other Wikipedia policies and guidelines; you may use administrative discretion to resolve it. More than one side in a dispute may have ArbCom conduct rulings applicable to them. Please ensure these are investigated. Closing a thread: Once an issue is resolved, enclose it between {{hat}} and {{hab}} tags. A bot should archive it in 7 days. Please consider referring the case to ARCA if the outcome is a recommendation to do so or the issue regards administrator conduct. You can use the templates {{uw-aeblock}} (for blocks) or {{AE sanction}} (for other contentious topic restrictions) to give notice of sanctions on user talk pages. Please log sanctions in the Arbitration enforcement log. Thanks again for helping. If you have any questions, please post on the talk page.

Add new requests to the top of the page. Old requests will be automatically archived off the bottom three days after the last time stamp.

RodentofDeath (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

74.220.203.56 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))

74.220.203.56 adds an RFC similar to the one added a few days ago by 202.69.172.48 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)), which was blocked for being banned user RodentofDeath. Incidentally, RodentofDeath self-identifies as a traveler who can post from geographically varying IP addresses. / edg ☺ ☭ 21:08, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kékrōps (talk · contribs) was recently placed under an 1r/d revert parole under WP:ARBMAC by Moreschi, and promptly blocked for a breach of it a few days after. Now, two days after his coming back from that block, I see him revert-warring on talk pages [1], [2]. He was also continuing various slow revert wars across several articles yesterday, while sticking with 1r/d, yet ignoring the requirement of accompanying talk page discussion here [3], [4], [5]. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:57, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me, but I was not aware that restoring a comment of mine, removed by another user on a third party's talk page, constituted a violation of any revert parole. To me, having my comments deleted is a simple case of obvious vandalism. Regarding my other reversions, they were either clearly explained in my edit summaries as a straightforward enforcement of WP:MOSMAC, thus not requiring further explanation on the talk pages, or a restoration of an administrator's version that had been vandalised. As for my recent block, I believe it was unjustified. It was not a content dispute; I was simply reverting the obviously misleading claim that consensus had been achieved on the use of "Macedonia" in country templates, when in fact the matter was still being debated by several editors on the relevant talk page. ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 07:15, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Being "an administrator's version" is nothing that confers a version any special degree of authority, and makes reverting to it any less a part of revert warring. I suppose you are referring to this one [6] - that didn't even have an edit summary, and the edit you reverted was most certainly not vandalism. You've been here long enough to know all these things. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:39, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I guess we must have different interpretations of "vandalism", then. If removing a long-standing note that specifically restricts the scope of a template, in order to facilitate a POV edit, is not vandalism, what is it? I remind you that this was a note established by consensus. ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 07:49, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The disputed user talk page comments ([7], [8]) strike me as being both provocative and unnecessary. Fut. Perf. had asked for a translation, not a political commentary, and the comments aren't a good idea as far as Wikipedia:Civility is concerned. I note that WP:CIV authorises the removal of uncivil comments so it seems rather unwise to twice revert such a removal, particularly in the light of the clearly expressed reason for removing it prior to the second revert. Concerning this reversion [9], Kekrops has a point although it was arguably a clumsily done reversion (it certainly should have had an edit summary). The version that he reverted to is essentially one that's been in place since October 2006 ([10]) and there's a long-standing convention that "countries" templates don't list unrecognised territories (compare Template:Countries of Europe with Template:Countries and territories of the Middle East, which has a wider scope). We may need to change the scope of Template:Countries of Europe and its subordinate templates to encompass territories, but that's a discussion that needs to take place elsewhere before European territories start getting listed in templates. Personally, I would have reverted that edit as well. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:16, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is using racist epithets against other ethnic groups, albeit in another language, acceptable according to Wikipedia:Civility? Why haven't these editors been sanctioned for calling Bulgarians "Tatars" and Greeks "sub-saharans"? Another editor has even tried to defend them by denying that they implied inferiority and instead accused me of racism for suggesting that they did, as well as telling me to "shut up" in Spanish in the edit summary. I'm finding it very hard to assume good faith here. ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 08:18, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I have now been accused of "baiting" the editor who made the racist remarks in the first place. Is this acceptable? ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 10:39, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, using racial epithets in any language isn't acceptable. If we can have a proper translation of that discussion (which I assume is in Macedonian?) let's review what it actually says so that action can be taken if needed. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:27, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Translation is on Fut. Perf's talk page. And Kékrōps seems to have a history of racism, see user talk:Kékrōps#Racist! and User talk:Kékrōps#Marcos Baghdatis. Both times his response to accusations was "Piss off". BalkanFever 11:13, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I request that disciplinary action be taken against the above user for persistently calling me a racist, a clear violation of WP:NPA. I have repeatedly asked him to stop, to no avail. Enough is enough. ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 11:27, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The behaviour towards Kekrops, especially by admin Fut.Perf. is a blatant case of double standards, if you see Fut.Perf.'s behaviour towards BalkanFever. In one case he's quick to ban (or rather refer the ban to Moreschi), in the other case he's the first to stand in support and just offer friendly advice Now I might be biased and consider that BalkanFever is much more provocative than Kekrops, but let's for a moment consider that they are both equally provocative and then monitor the admins behaviour towards them. I invite any third party to do exactly that.--   Avg    18:40, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing me to that talk page discussion. From my reading of it, Raso mk and MacedonianBoy had called Bulgarians and Greeks "Tatars" and "sub-saharans" respectively; you were advising MacedonianBoy to avoid using such language because it was racist and would give other users the chance to complain. In response, Kekrops posted the comments that you twice removed and he twice reverted ([11]). Is that correct? If so, my take on it is as follows: Kekrops was factually correct to criticize MacedonianBoy's language as basically racist, but he was unwise to cause unnecessary aggravation by posting inflammatory comments, and doubly unwise to abuse reversion to restore his comments after your objections. You were right to caution MacedonianBoy against using language that could give offence, but it wasn't the best idea in the circumstances for you to remove Kekrops' comments (leave that to MacedonianBoy, it's his talk page). I think the two of you need to be more careful about the way you deal with each other - don't remove each others' comments, don't abuse reversion and think before you post. If it's not necessary to post something, don't post it. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:17, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User has violated the Decorum principals, specifically 'personal attack', 'incivility', and 'assumption of bad faith' with the following edit summary and diff:

• "Mr POV pusher himself"
• "the biggest POV pusher around" - пﮟოьεԻ 57, 16:00, 13 February 2008.

Requesting a retraction and apology or administrative action. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 16:07, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm certainly not going to apologise. I might have WP:AGF a year ago, but your contributions make it quite clear that you are a POV pusher; as evidenced here. пﮟოьεԻ 57 16:11, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Arbcom ended a month ago with no action taken against either of us. I believe that bad faith assumptions and personal attacks are detrimental to the Israeli-Palestiian articles and to the project in general. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 16:24, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There was no action taken against me because I wasn't an involved party, and I have no idea why there was no action taken against you given the weight of evidence provided my myself and several other editors. пﮟოьεԻ 57 16:20, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your link is misleading as you were certainly mentioned in the presented evidence but this is entirely germane to the reason I posted this complaint. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 16:27, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Only by yourself in an attempt to discredit my evidence against you, and in passing by two editors, one of whom noted my response to an RfC, and another who noted that pro-Israeli editors attempted to bring down my RfA. пﮟოьεԻ 57 16:31, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea on how your comment relates to this complaint about a personal attack, but I'd be interested in resolving the old disputes and avoiding future similar attacks in the future. I think the best solution would be a retraction (and maybe even an apology) so that we can move forward, but I don't see that you're interested in leaving the past in the past. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 16:36, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be willing to forgive and forget, but whilst you have reduced your bias in the article space, the fact that you're complaining about Nickhh's perfectly legitimate NPOVing of several articles suggests that there is still an underlying issue. пﮟოьεԻ 57 16:41, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nickhh is not the person making the "Mr POV pusher himself" comment.

I'm requesting a retraction. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 16:50, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Links should always be to the final decision in a case, not the proposed decision. The final decision is at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles#Final decision. I, who read the enforcement definition of "Uninvolved administrators" very stringently, defer evaluation of the situation to other administrators here. Frankly, though, I think the complainant deserves close scrutiny and am certain they are not an uninvolved bystander. GRBerry 17:31, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• I also will not consider myself an "uninvolved administrator" by a stringent definition, since I am currently working with Jaakobou on a different Palestine-related article. However, it would seem to me that the operative part of remedy 1 of that case is "despite being warned, repeatedly or seriously fails". 1) Is there evidence that the user has been warned that his behavior is inappropriate? 2) Is there evidence that his behavior entails serious failings after said warning? If so, let's see it, please. - Revolving Bugbear 21:50, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I can live with a retraction (and hopefully an apology), but Number 57 just repeats the same "he's POV!!!" vindication of the insulting comment. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 23:01, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are only quotes and case decision links here. Both sides please provide pertinent DIFFS. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:14, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would say that Jaakobou's repeated reinsertion of a huge criticism section to the article on left-wing journalist Gideon Levy ([12][13][14][15][16] - at one stage the criticism section amounted to more than two thirds of the article's length) was a clear violation of WP:NPOV#Undue weight, and thus a good basis for pointing out that he is a POV pusher. пﮟოьεԻ 57 11:31, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My complaint here

• per '"Mr POV pusher himself... the biggest POV pusher around (which is why I want you banned from Middle East articles)"'

Has nothing to do with a months old argument from October that Number 57 has etched to his memory (similar opposite examples exist but are germane). Number 57's old notes only show that he is an involved admin, who refuses to let go of very old disputes, and therefore should not pertain to be neutral.

On point, Personal attacks and assumptions of bad faith are a violation of the Arbcom final decision and as long as he does not post an ANI or AE notice about recent activity; Number 57 should avoid making comments while reminiscing about conflicts we had months ago.

My request is a retraction (and hopefully an apology) or administrative action.

-- Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 12:28, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Number57-that's from 5 months ago. Anything more recent?
• Jaakobou-you have not provided diffs of your allegations of 57's incivility and personal attacks. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:16, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I may be able to help. How about this whole section, written by Jaakobou more or less in its entirety, and last amended only a couple of days ago? Or this factual error which happily meets a POV that suits. Or this, in total breach of a recent RfC? Can I also refer to several trivial and vexatious posts complaining about the actions of other editors on this very page, including this one and the one below? --Nickhh (talk) 22:46, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was about to provide this diff of Jaakobou changing an article to state that something in the West Bank is in Israel (obviously breaching WP:NPOV), but Nick beat me to it. пﮟოьεԻ 57 22:54, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Related case: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles.

• Note: Nickhh included here - Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Palestine-Israel_articles#Statement_by_Jaakobou. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaakobou (talk • contribs) 08:36, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Between January 29 and February 11 (two weeks) Nickhh (talk · contribs) has made edits to a total of 7 different articles, on 5 of them he made reverts on my work, and 4 of those 5 were articles the editor has never touched before.

Following established editors to articles you've never worked on and reverting them is a violation of the Decorum principals, specifically, WP:STALK and WP:POINT (Saeb Erekat).

With respect, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 08:27, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is this a test to see if I "stalk" you here too? Anyway I suppose I have, by your terminology. You seem to be missing a few crucial points though -

1) I was never a party in the arbitration, nor was I even notified it was taking place. Arguably I should have been, but that's a different point. The fact that you mentioned my name in one of your posts during the arbitration means nothing;

2) On top of that, you have failed to notify me that you have posted this complaint about me, which seems a bit underhand;

3) Only one of the above diffs is a complete revert of a recent edit of yours [oops, sorry, two of them in fact]. You had made that edit unilaterally, without discussing it, when there was a major talk page debate underway about the paragraph in question.

4) The other changes were of information that was manifestly incorrect, eg that Napoleon invaded "Israel", or that Mar Saba was "in Israel". You have since acknowledged those errors, so it seems a little rich to now Wikilawyer against me as if I'm the one who did something wrong here.

5) Per the above, considering that you seemed to be ranging around various articles trying to change standard terminology relating to Israel & Palestine, I was perfectly entitled to have a look at what articles you were trying to do that in. And then remove any related errors when I found them. As it happens, I had in fact edited on or at least been aware of most of the articles already.

You've provided no evidence a) that I have deliberately stalked you or followed you to a large number of articles, b) that I have reverted any of your edits for the sake of it or c) that any of the edits I have made were incorrect. So what is the point here? The fact that you've posted this complaint says way more about you than it does about me. --Nickhh (talk) 14:32, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Interestingly, I've also just noticed that you've posted an edited version of my contributions history here, removing every entry showing I discussed several of the issues on talk pages, and actually refrained from making some edits. You have not made clear that this is what you have done. --Nickhh (talk) 14:57, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

His edits look fine to me. He is only correcting POV edits (i.e. those claiming that East Jerusalem is in Israel [17] or that the West Bank is part of Israel [18]), being more factually corrent (e.g. that the area was referred to as Palestine at the time [19]) and removing OR commentary [20]. What is more worrying is how the facts that he has corrected got in in the first place. пﮟოьεԻ 57 15:03, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Number 57's comment might be misleading as he makes an incorrect content based assesment and inserts a link to Tomb of Samuel, which is not one of the 4-5 mentioned articles.

The reason I posted, is that Nickhh, an editor connected with the Arbcom, was following me to 4 new articles and making points on Saeb Erekat. diff Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 15:48, 13 February 2008 (UTC) added wikilink 15:51, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have already replied to this comment once, but it was moved by Jaakobou. Anyway, I did not insert a link to the Tomb of Samuel - Jaakobou includes it in his "evidence" above. пﮟოьεԻ 57 16:04, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would go into more detail explaining each edit you've raised one by one, but a) I don't see why I should have to since they are all fairly obviously legitimate edits, and b) in any event you're undermining your own case every time you open your mouth here to slag me or other editors off. So I'll just leave you to get on with that. Enjoy --Nickhh (talk) 15:48, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe this comment to be in violation of the Decorum principals, specifically it is a user directed personal attack. Regardless, I my complaint was for being followed around and point making. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 16:01, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nickhh, Why are you still persisting to follow me, now to a 5th article you never touched before, despite the AE submission? (See: Nickhh User Contributions-List of Israeli assassinations)

• Using the talk page instead of the article page might feel right.

• However, when accompanied by tendentiousness it seems like continuation of following after [an editor] to other multiple articles with activity meant for causing annoyance or distress.:

"Israel engages in this sort of activity is because it's a vicious, terrorist state" - Nickhh, 18:06, 13 February 2008.

-- Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 20:10, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do not quote what I said out of context. Unless you are very stupid, you know exactly the point I was trying to make there. --Nickhh (talk) 21:16, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and for your benefit and the benefit of anyone else who's interested, here is a direct (and complete) quote from the WP:STALK policy that you've rather simplistically accused me of breaching (emphasis added).

Wikistalking refers to the act of following an editor to another article to continue disruption.

The term "wiki-stalking" has been coined to describe following a contributor around the wiki, editing the same articles as the target, with the intent of causing annoyance or distress to another contributor.

Reading another user's contribution log is not in itself harassment; those logs are public for good reason. In particular, proper use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) fixing errors or violations of Wikipedia policy, or correcting related problems on multiple articles (in fact, such practices are recommended both for Recent changes patrol and WikiProject Spam). The important part is the disruption — disruption is considered harmful. If "following another user around" is accompanied by tendentiousness, personal attacks, or other disruptive behavior, it may become a very serious matter.

The only thing you have even the slightest grounds for even being mildly concerned about is the edit summary on Saeb Erekat (the content of the edit itself is easily justified), which I self reverted within one minute. Thanks. --Nickhh (talk) 22:00, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For starters, I don't believe your attack on my country was a great contribution and I was offended by it. And secondly, you clearly followed me to yet another article you never edited before, despite the AE notice being opened. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 22:35, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

p.s. using "Unless you are very stupid" in your comments is something you should at least try to avoid. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 22:36, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Get over yourself. It's like dealing with a sexually frustrated and incontinent adolescent. --Nickhh (talk) 23:18, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and we know that my name was only mentioned in the case because you felt moved to attempt to discredit my evidence regarding your long-term POV pushing. If someone finds a POV pusher, they are fully entitled to go and correct them wherever they have edited. With regards to the Tomb of Samuel, why did you bother including it in the evidence above if you don't want to mention it? пﮟოьεԻ 57 15:33, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I changed my earlier comment, and disagree with "the reason" your name got involved. From my perspective, it got involved since you wanted me banned from Middle East articles.

• "I would suggest a Middle East politics topic ban. пﮟოьεԻ 57 19:18, 6 January 2008 (UTC)".

Please don't comment in the future on complaints I post on other editors, since you're not a neutral editor.

-- Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 15:43, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not a neutral editor? Extremely rich coming from the biggest POV pusher around (which is why I want you banned from Middle East articles). I'd be interested to know what my supposed POV is - am I pro- or anti-Israel? пﮟოьεԻ 57 16:00, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And don't move my comments away from the discussion next time. пﮟოьεԻ 57 16:04, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your position on Israeli matters is unrelated to the note that you are non neutral when I'm involved. I figured you'd understand the conflict of interests and stay away from making user directed insults. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 16:33, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]