User talk:Factomancer

Thanks

Thanks for removing the comments. I saw your applied-then-deleted one. If you have concerns about edit-warring, you should bring them up on an administrator's noticeboard. I have no reason to assume bad faith from GHcool, and while you are welcome to do what you want, I generally find that assuming bad faith creates more problems than it solves. Awickert (talk) 04:18, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

No problem. Factsontheground (talk) 04:22, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! Awickert (talk) 16:37, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Both you and Wikifan12345 blocked for a week for personal attacks and disruption

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)

Georgewilliamherbert, I don't understand how you could have read the discussion at WP:ANI and concluded that I was in any way harassing or attacking Wikifan12345. The vast majority of comments there agree that Wikifan12345 has caused disruption on a number of articles. Nobody except for you has proposed that I be blocked. How can you block me with no basis whatsoever in the discussion? How can you possibly think that this is correct?

My edits today were simply in reply to User:Awickert's request for diffs. Remove them if you want. It makes no difference to me.

Can you please provide you reasoning here because I do not understand it whatsoever?

Please, Georgewilliamherbert, can you list the statements that I have made that constitute personal attacks or harassment against Wikifan12345?

Factsontheground (talk) 00:44, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Come on, George. Please show me evidence of personal attacks or harassment. Show me one person other than yourself that wanted me banned. Factsontheground (talk) 00:55, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

It is important to note that User:Georgewilliamherbert was involved in a content dispute with me on Talk:List of terrorist incidents, 2009 so this block represents a clear conflict of interest, in which he supported Wikifan12345's side of the dispute against mine. He should have waited for an uninvolved admin to deal with this. Consensus at WP:ANI was that Wikifan12345 had breached NPA and that I was NOT stalking or harassing him but responding reasonably to abuse. Factsontheground (talk) 01:40, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Email I sent to Georgewilliamherbert, who continues to refuse to substantiate his claims

I have repeatedly ssked you to substantiate your claims that I have been disruptive or am harassing/stalking other users but you refuse to do so or even to respond at all. Just because you have an admin bit does not make you beyond mortal reckoning or basic civility.

The simple fact is that in the discussion on WP:ANI there was an overwhelming consensus that Wikifan12345 needed corrective punishment, not I. The vast majority of the discussion was concerned with Wikifan12345 and his behaviour. There was NO consensus for any of your claims against me. You seem to have produced them from thin air. There is no equality between me and Wikifan12345 in this matter. Not only has he continued to personally attack me even in ANI he has a much longer block log and a much larger history of disruptive behaviour that has reached ANI and Wikiquette alerts on multiple occasions.

I find your behaviour on the "List of terrorist incidents, 2009" article to be very interesting in light of this block. You participated in that discussion only to argue against my edits and to threaten to block me for what you claimed was edit warring. When I left the discussion so did you. You did not take _any_ action against Wikifan12345's many personal attacks against me on that page, nor to his continued edit warring.

So why did you jump in to this dispute when everyone has been specifically waiting for an _uninvolved_ admin, which you definitely are not? There are a number of admins who participated in the discussion who wanted to ban Wikifan12345 alone but did not because they realized that they were too involved and did the correct thing. You should have done the same.

I politely request that you recognize that you are too involved in this dispute, and allow a truly uninvolved admin to determine the appropriate action to be taken.

---

I can confirm receiving something either that or very similar to that in email.

To respond:

1. I have taken action (multiple warnings) against Wikifan12345 for uncivil comments on the List of terrorist incidents 2009 page.

2. Wikifan12345 is blocked, too. And is far more likely to not come back from that (have it made permanent) at this point.

3. Wikipedia policy requires admins to recuse themselves when they have a personal conflict with an editor, or a conflict of interest regarding article content. I have neither in this case, with either editor or the article. Admins becoming involved in a discussion does not disqualify them from administrative intervention, as long as they avoid the two specific conditions.

4. I do not believe that Factsontheground is blameless in this incident, nor do others. If I believed you were blameless you would not be blocked (he still would be). If you believe you have not been editing in a provocative or abusive manner, I commend to you your own edit history and I recommend study thereof. One problem editor is a short walk to a block - it takes two or more butting heads to produce a fiasco of this magnitude.

5. You clearly do have a focused single-purpose pro-Palestinean point of view, starting with your username, your edit history, and comments on talk pages. That does not automatically qualify you for a permanent block from editing - but single purpose accounts which are also disruptive get little leeway. Please take this as notice that WP:SPA, the related single-purpose account aspects of WP:SOCK, WP:DISRUPT, and related policies are relevant here.

6. It would be advisable for you to either find another topic to focus on, or figure out a way to edit in a less disruptive manner.

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 06:17, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

1. Warnings which Wikifan12345 promptly ignored and continued to insult me. At which point, you did nothing leaving me no option but to go to WP:ANI.

2. Wikifan12345 has got the message that other people will be blocked for his misdeeds. If you think that is going to stop his aggressive behaviour, you're dreaming.

3. Wikilawyering. You appeared out of nowhere on Talk:List of terrorist incidents, 2009 to argue against my proposals and then threatened me with being banned for edit warring. You demanded that I stop editing but then ignored other people who edit warred. And now you have defied the consensus on WP:ANI to block me for reasons that you fail to explain. It's clear that you have made this into a personal vendetta against me and you've beeing seeking a reason to ban me for some time. You've accused me of stalking, but why can't you leave ME alone?

4. What "fiasco"? There was a series of personal attacks against me that grossly violated wikipedia policy. That is all that happened. I have done nothing to deserve or warrant those attacks. You are blaming the victim.

5. I am (partly) of Palestinian origin. To demand that I don't write about Palestinian issues is racist and ethnocentric, and yet further evidence that your actions are inappropriate here. Do you go around demanding that Israelis not discuss Israeli topics? How would you feel if someone told you that you couldn't edit about America?

6. Given that nobody has explained to me how my editing is "disruptive" that would be hard to do, wouldn't it?

And after all that talk, you have not provided a single scrap of evidence that I have been editing in a disruptive manner or stalking or harassing Wikifan12345 as you have repeatedly claimed. You have also failed to explain why you chose to ignore the consensus on WP:NPA and chose to block us both equally.

"If you believe you have not been editing in a provocative or abusive manner, I commend to you your own edit history and I recommend study thereof."

Wow. I politely ask you to point out instances in which I have been editing disruptively, and not only do you refuse to bother to give me any examples, you imply that ALL my edits to Wikipedia have been disruptive?

As arrogant, unconstructive, insulting replies go that one will be hard to top.

And how is my username pro-Palestinian? It's just a common saying. If anything it's been used by Israelis, not Palestinians. Another odd, untrue accusation.

Anyway, George, if you're right... why hasn't a _single_ administrator backed you up? The only feedback you have gotten is negative. You have even admitted that Wikifan12345 is a much worse offender than me. Yet you don't dare admit you are wrong, will you? Factsontheground (talk) 07:20, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Georgewilliamherbert continues to defy consensus, continues to make allegations against me without provide a signle piece of evidence

When is this going to stop?

{{subst:unblock|I have not made any personal attacks against Wikifan12345. This is not a single purpose account either, I edit on a great deal of articles. I don't see how I am being disruptive. I am simply following the dispute resolution procedure and participating in a discussion involving a large number of people about Wikifan12345's conduct.

Far from being "disruptive at ANI" I have made very few edits in that discussion. The edits I made today were specifically requested by User:Awickert.

I was simply responding to his request. If you are unhappy with the material I added to that page then remove it. It makes no difference to me.

Please read the WP:ANI entry [1] and you will see that the vast majority of people involved in this dispute recognize and agree that Wikifan12345 is the problem, not me. There was a consensus that Wikifan12345's behaviour was the issue, not mine.

Please, Georgewilliamherbert, can you list the statements that I have made that constitute personal attacks or harassment against Wikifan12345?

It frustrates me that from the beginning I have gone out of my way to follow Wikipedia policy to the letter and avoid personal attacks, even in the face of extreme provocation, and yet I'm being treated exactly the same as an individual that has been involved in far more disputes than I have with far more people and who has a much larger block log. How is that justice?

If I am unblocked I will gladly correct my behaviour if someone can inform me what it is that I did wrong here.

There is a consensus at WP:ANI that Wikifan12345's personal attacks against me were abusive and that he required either a mentor or to go on 1RR probation. I cannot understand how Georgewilliamherbert decided to block us both equally, and since he is ignoring me, I have nothing to argue against. I simply cannot believe that I am being blocked because someone else chose to make vicious personal attacks against me.}}

• Reviewing admins could be interested in this thread. My initial assessment is the blocks probably shouldn't be of equal duration, however I could be wrong and have asked the blocking admin to provide some more information. PhilKnight (talk) 12:32, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Note that I have proposed Wikifan12345 be topic banned from Israel related topics for the remainder of 2009, which is gaining significant support. I do not feel any further action is needed with regards to Factsontheground, and am planning on reconsidering the block duration tomorrow. There were some other things going on today which got in the way. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:28, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

• Comment from user: I was a participant in the above "discussions" for a short while (came there via RfC), but left it shortly afterwards again, due to the fact that said user Wikifan was quite a pain in the *ss. Though I disagreed with factsontheground, I can say that his manners were always much more factual than wikifan's. Seb az86556 (talk) 15:28, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
• I will second the above comment in that, after I reviewed the article in dispute (List of terrorist incidents, 2009), Factsontheground seemed much more good faith and to the point than did Wikifan; my statement on AN/I for the topic ban should make this more clear. Awickert (talk) 16:09, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Unblocked

I have unblocked your account, reducing the week to time served. I would like to encourage you to review your own participation and reflect on what you were doing in your on-wiki fight with Wikifan12345 - your protestations of innocence are not a good sign, you were clearly engaged in disruptive activity on your side as well. However, balancing what you did do and what he did, I believe that going forwards you can edit in a productive fashion without ongoing disruption or personal attacks.

Note also that Wikifan12345, who will remain full blocked for the week, is about to be topic-banned from Israeli / Palestinean article topic areas, so the chances of you two coming in conflict again is somewhat lessened.

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 19:59, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi Factsonthegound. Its terrible that you were blocked and I think it was a decision that reflects rather poorly on the blocking admin. Don't get too down about it though. I was blocked four times myself over a six-month period when I first started here. True, I was edit-warring, but so were others, who didn't get blocked, and a couple of the admins who blocked me have later said they wouldn't have now.

It's hard being even a part Palestinian editor here. But it can be very rewarding sometimes, especially when you get to share information and learn new things about the places, people and things you love and love writing about. People sometimes misunderstand that kind off passion. Sometimes I have let it cloud my better judgement. Just remember that nothing at Wikipedia is ever lost. There is an article and talk page history. I'm not saying you did anything wrong by the way, I'm just saying we can all do better, as hard it is when we feel like our very existence in question. Anyway, excuse the intrusion, I'd just never had the chance to say marhaba before, and thought now would be a good a time as any. Welcome back and happy ediing. Tiamut^talk 23:43, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

hello. I still somewhat disagree with your edit in said conflict but nonetheless found the imposed block too harsh. I believe partial disagreements should not lead to this. Your being accused of being anti-Jewish was totally unfounded. Seb az86556 (talk) 12:40, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Re. your note:

When I tagged that article, it had no references whatsoever on it, unlike now. Those templates are not some sort of indictment but rather a way of alerting the creator and other editors that the references are missing. It looks fine now, but in the future, please don't come onto my talk page with a chip on your shoulder over something this trivial. Thanks. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 07:44, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

The revision you added the template to [2] does in fact have the exact same references that are there now. Factsontheground (talk)

With all due respect, no it did not, at least according to the software and what I saw on the article space without going into edit mode. It was showing the references as pointing to nowhere. I would never have tagged it otherwise. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 07:52, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Given that the article had just been created 2 minutes ago it is hardly surprising that the article space formatting had not been finalized. Edit mode would have shown you all the references. Maybe you should wait longer than 2 minutes before tagging newly created articles, particularly when they are still being actively edited by the creator. Factsontheground (talk) 07:58, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I do a lot of new page patrolling and I have absolutely no idea what you or any user has in mind when posting an article. All I know is what I saw and I would, again with due respect, advise you to keep a civil tone. Thank you. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 08:17, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Tagging just created articles which the creator is still actively editing is a bad idea. And "civil tone"? Far from being uncivil, I am probably being more polite than necessary. How am I being uncivil? You are the one who accused me of having "a chip on my shoulder". Factsontheground (talk) 08:26, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Recreation of articles that have been deleted via consensus is against wikipedia policy

Hello.

Perhaps you are unaware, but per WP:CSD#G4, the recreation of articles that have been deleted via consensus is against policy and the resulting articles may be speedily deleted. Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Israeli art students, where a substantially identical article was deemed inappropriate for the project. Thank you for understanding and for your adherence to our policies. -- Avi (talk) 14:50, 1 March 2010 (UTC)