Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-07-24 Tewfik harrassment of Cerejota

Wikipedia Mediation Cabal
Status	closed
Request date	Unknown

[[Category:Wikipedia Medcab closed cases|]][[Category:Wikipedia medcab maintenance|]]

Request made by: Cerejota 01:51, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the issue taking place?

The talk pages of Cerejota and Tewfik, talk pages of 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict

Who's involved?

Cerejota and Tewfik

What's going on?

User Tewfik disgareed with edits made by user Cerejota (me), and said so in Cerejota's talk page. Cerejota explained that he felt that edit conflicts were better discussed in the talk page of the article, rather than personal talk page. User Tewfik then proceed to constantly raise issues in the personal talk pages, while also engaging in debates where they should happen. Why the tone of the exchanges has been civil, user Tewfik constantly provides unsubstantiated or out of context comments to support threats against Cerejota. User Cerejota has constantly invited user Tewfik to join him in achieving better quality of the article by discussing in the Talk page of the article instead of continuing the harrasment, which user Cerejota in the interest of civiliy refrained from using as per what he felt was a request by Tewfik to refrain to do so. The last message from Tewfik in Cerejota's talk page indicates that user still won't respect wishes to direct all talk to the talk pages, and raised the issue of Cerejota's claim of harrasment again, in spite of user Cerejota not raising it again after the original request by Tewfik.

In the mean time, user has tried to recruit two administrators to try to oppose me, the initial one, Cyde, without trying to talk to me first about any issues. This demonstrates an attempt to use the adminsitrative power of wiki to try to stop an editing dispute. Thankfully both administrators have remained civil and so far resisted any temptation to misuse their powers.

Adding to this concern, I too feel I have been harassed by this user on my personal Talk page. Even though I had posted my arguments in the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict article's Talk page, this user insisted on using my personal Talk page even after I asked him to use the Talk page. FightCancer 16:12, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What would you like to change about that?

I would like user to refrain from constantly posting harrasing remarks, or threats in my Talk page, and to limits his comments to the talk page of the article in question. I also request an apology to me be placed in his talk and user page, and the talk page of the article, for his uncivil behaivior against me.

Would you prefer we work discreetly? If so, how can we reach you?

No problem with openess. I just want this situation to stop. Reach me via personal talk page.

I'll take this one. Gonna review all the talk pages involved and then ask both users to come to this page for discussion. GofG _|^|_| Contribs 06:55, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I suggest Tewfik and Cerejota both apologise for any wrongs that the other feels were done to him, and start anew, no hard feelings. Also, since this seems to be bothering people, Tewfik will from now on stop responding to people in their own Talk pages about subjects related to an article, when it is possible to respond in the article's talk page instead. Tamuz ^(Talk) 23:23, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am willing to accept this compromise.--Cerejota 13:03, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I ammend, I will also like that Tewfik make an apology in the talk page of the article regarding talking on peoples talk pages.

One of the resons I want debates to happen there is so others join them, and I think Tewfik is disrespecting the rest of the editors by focusing on User's talk pages.--Cerejota 13:44, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Again I note, I have accounted for my edits on your Talk on this page. If you believe my explanations to be incorrect, please explain why. Tewfik^Talk 22:00, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't contest this, and we have a difference in that I view them as harrasment and you don't.

--Cerejota 02:46, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That makes two of us who differ from Tewfik's view of harassment. Such a difference should be expected when cooperating with a fellow who justifies this revert and this second revert as "reversions of vandalism". When one makes such justifications, as Tewfik did below, it is a sign that one is "for preserving my ego at all costs". Therefore, we cannot expect civility--even when civilly asking the user to leave comments on the article's talk page instead of our own--unless the mediator is watching. FightCancer 21:52, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FightCancer, this is a discussion about Tewfik's alleged harassment of Cerejota. As I've already said, you're welcome to join in if you believe you were harassed by Tewfik in a similar way, or if you just want to help to resolve this; but your claims about Tewfik's violations of WP:3RR have nothing to do with this. Please, just report that to here and let the admins decide whether he did or did not violate policy. I'm not gonna even argue whether I agree or disagree with you, because it has absolutely nothing to do with this discussion, and it only diverts it and heats it up. Please, either stop interfering with this discussion, or better yet, write only things that have to do with this case. Thanks, Tamuz ^(Talk) 20:55, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tamuz, when someone makes false claims--in mediation no less--it is a reflection of personal character. I believe it is pertinent to consider personal character in this medation. Furthermore, as I have stated repeatedly, I feel harassed when users continue to use my personal page after I have civilly asked them to use the article's talk page. For this reason, Cerejota and I are both of the opinion that Tewfik is guilty of harassment. FightCancer 21:28, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are, once again, missing the point of my words. I have just said that you are welcome to this discussion if you feel you were harassed by Tewfik in a similar fashion to Cerejota. But please, don't bring that bloody 3RR issue as your main complaint after you have yourself agreed it was'nt the issue here (btw I'm cool, I just like to use the word "bloody" ;-). While only Tewfik knows why he made those "false claims", I assume he simply thought you were referring to other revisions made by him, and didn't even look at the diffs you presented. Yes, that may have been a wrong decision on his behalf, but I must admit, I didn't look at those diffs either, simply because the entire thing seemed irrelevant to me (and again I say, you have said yourself that 3RR isn't the issue here).

So, I've said it before and I'll say it again - you are more than welcome to join the discussion, if you have other relevant claims to make. And I really don't have anything against you and would really be glad for another person in this mediation. Thank you, Tamuz ^(Talk) 20:14, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

hmmm... so I think the problem here is that we (the mediators) were expected to take evidence given and hammer out a verdict, unfortunately we're not here to say who is wrong or right. Sure, maybe Tewfik is harrassing, maybe he's not... it's not our job to tell you. We just help you reach a calm state of sorts. Since this isn't a conflict over articles, the best advice I can give at this point is to forgive and forget, and to Not Give A Fuck^TM. There's no initial article to dispute over, we're just pointing fingers here, which gets us nowhere but this giant mess of a case page. --The Prophet Wizard of the Crayon Cake 20:44, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree, except that Cerejota has continued to characterise my actions in the context of these claims. I don't see another way of ending this other than showing that the claims are unfounded, or alternatively showng that he is correct, in which case I will take away whatever necessary lessons. If you have another idea, please let us know. Cheers, Tewfik^Talk 20:51, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Indifference is the ultimate neutrality... let's go work on that encyclopedia-ish thing that I've heard about before. :P --The Prophet Wizard of the Crayon Cake 20:53, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You now what might win me over, the ^tm. Still since Tewfik follows me around, even voting for deletion in a page I created and where he hasn't been an active editor, I doubt he has understood that I bode no ill will, but feel he does.--Cerejota 07:01, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I hope that this is the correct area for discussion. As I understood from the mediator that this discussion is about my alleged incivility, I will limit my comments to that unless otherwise instructed (though the alleging user has also made other claims above, all of which I am prepared to discuss if necessary):

I believe that Cerejota's claim that I have harassed him/her is not true in the least, and is actually a reversed portrayal of what happened. As you can see from the difs I presented on the user's page, I was the subject of continuous harassment and incivility, among other things. Until that point I specifically chose to disregard most of the inappropriate remarks, but as the user showed no sign of letting up, I pointed out the violations to them in what I believe was an extremely civil manner.

The edit that I believe prompted the user to seek mediation was this one where I pointed out the user's uncivil comments towards other users. I also believe that this edit was quite civil, and frankly, I recall trying to be extra-civil when dealing with this user due to the potential for contention, and I certainly do not recall making any threats, another of the user's allegations. I would appreciate if the dif of any inappropriate edit I made could be presented to me. I acknowledge to being a fallible human-being, and admit the possibility, however slim in my mind, of that having happened. But if any such edit is not produced, I would appreciate a total cessation of the user's various allegations towards me, and an end the entire affair, which is simply a waste of our time.

As an aside, if the issue is inappropriate placement of comments (ie on the user's talk instead of the page's talk), then I note that as of my second edit on the user's page, I had already suggested a response on the page's talk, and have since made many response's on the page's talk. As for my other edits there, I will make an accounting of each in the interests of clarity.

• POV tag: begins as a request for discussion on the page's Talk, followed by 2 more requests that conversation be moved to the page's Talk.
  • To be clear, these are me requesting that we move the discussion, in direct contradiction to what I am accused of. Tewfik^Talk 02:12, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Your "chastising": the notice including difs which I detailed above, though I will do so again if necessary
• sprotect tag: the user did not seem very agitated about this edit (and I wish to return to a state of mutual :D)
• Lebanese Casualties: response to the user's edit on my Talk; another response to an inappropriate statement, and a request to cease.
• Rockets in intro: while I didn't sort through the archive, I believe I initiated this after I made mention on Talk, and was not replied to there. In any event, the user replied to me there, and there was no sign to me that this was a problem. The second part of this edit was in response to an edit the user made on my Talk.
• WP:Civil; WP:No personal attacks: this edit was explained above, but essentially I pointed out that the user had been uncivil and potentially committed personal attacks.

Hope to resolve this all soon, Tewfik^Talk 20:25, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First off, I would like to note that both users - Tewfik and Cerejota - have made enormous efforts to improve and keep NPOV of the article in which I think their dispute has begun - 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict (and I have awarded both of them Barnstars for that, just before I heard of their dispute).

Secondly, I believe that we cannot find the exact starting of this dispute, nor can we say exactly who started it. As far as I remember from the discussions of 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict, there were many cases of disagreement between them, and although they both remained quite civil through it all, several inappropriate responses were written (and I'm not gonna list them here, because that would be ridiculous and a waste of time).

So, Cerejota and Tewfik, I ask you, please just apologize to each other - even if you don't think that you're really guilty of anything - and let's finish it off. And Tewfik, it seems that some people do not like your responding to them in their Talk page instead of the article's talk - so just refrain from doing this in the future. That's all, and I hope we can all settle this in a quick and calm way. Tamuz ^(Talk) 21:51, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't rocket science. It's about civility and respect for others. Like Cerejota, I too had requested that Tewfik keep his discussions on the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict article's Talk page, but this user continued to use my personal Talk page and made thinly-veiled threats like "If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia"--and "you have already been listed for 3RR, stop edit warring". (The latter was a comment the user left on Edit Summary.) According to WP:NPA, "Specific examples of personal attacks include but are not limited to: Accusatory comments . . . ." I don't see the need for such interaction between users and I hope that in the future Tewfik will exercise more civility and respect other users more. IMO, dialogue should be non-accusatory and on the article's Talk page when users request it. FightCancer 22:59, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fightcancer was not harrassed by this editor and recieved no vieled threats. The warning that he may be blocked is part of the official 3RR warning template which was used by Tewfik to, appropriately, warn FightCancer for his actions for which FightCancer was, appropriately, blocked for. Further, I was the one making telling FightCancer to cease edit warring as he was and that he had been listed on 3RR as I, not Tewfik, was the one who listed him on the admin notice board for 3RR. Further, I would like to suggest that this mediation be restricted to its origional topic of mediation. Tangents such as this will only distract from the origional conflict between Cerejota and Tewfik and threaten to create a situation where nothing or little is resolved. --Strothra 03:04, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I would just like to note that this "threat" was actually the {{3RR}} template. I placed this there to warn the user about the edit-warring they were engaged in, per policy (see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR). The user continued reverting and was blocked by an admin. Tewfik^Talk 02:04, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• I would like to further add an accounting of my "offending" edits on FightCancer's Talk:
  • Negotiations for ceasefire: didn't see any complaint.
  • US Aid: explaining why the user's edits were being reverted, and asking them to cease Wikipedia:Edit warring
  • 3RR: this is the template that I added prior to requesting a block, per policy
• These are the only edits I initiated on the user's page. Tewfik^Talk 02:23, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that these comments made by Tewfik were really unnecessary, but from my brief acquaintance with him, he seems to me like one of the more civilized users on Wikipedia. Of course, nobody's perfect, and he too made comments like those, but as I said, Cerejota made such comments too. Now, we're not gonna fight over who started it or who made worse comments, so I suggests both users to just appologize to each other and start anew. As for the matter of Tewfik responding in user pages' talks instead of articles' talk, I hope he would simply stop doing that, and we can forget about what's already been done. In fact, I'm simply gonna suggest it now in the Compromise Offers section. Tamuz ^(Talk) 23:15, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

While I don't mean to seem juvenile, and I acknowledge the possibility that I may be mistaken, I have so far provided difs and explanations behind everything I have done and every claim I have made. I would not feel comfortable with any acceptance of responsibility unless there was at least some evidence of my wrongdoing provided. Tewfik^Talk 02:10, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tewfik's warning on my personal Talk page came right at the time when this user was performing 2 full reverts plus 4 identical edits to 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict in just over 5 hours. IMO, the warning from Tewfik was hypocritical and pure harassment. --FightCancer 02:22, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• 1st revert: 12:16:20
• 2nd revert: 13:28:33
• 3rd revert: 14:08:39 (full Wikipedia:Revert)
• 4th revert: 15:22:08 (full Wikipedia:Revert)
• 5th revert: 15:54:33
• 6th revert: 17:30:19

The two reversions marked (full Wikipedia:Revert) are reversions of vandalism, which do not qualify for 3RR. Number 5 is a cleaning up of a lone header and move of the link to "See also" after someone else reverted you. I do not think any administrator will block me for that, though if you feel I have violated policy, you may of course file a complaint. My three reversions and Strothra's ([1]) and Comrade438's ([2],[3]) and Gudeldar's ([4]) make clear that you reverted at least nine times, a clear violation of 3RR. Tewfik^Talk 02:59, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tewfik, the goal of mediation is not to prove that you're right. It is to reach an agreeable compromise. You seem to be going off in the wrong direction here :)... Remember, keep it cool. What exactly do you want to obtain through this? Why not say that right now, and then the other users here can keep that in mind and we can work towards a compromise? GofG _|^|_| Contribs 03:03, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps it would be best if all further discussion focuses on the conflict between Cerejota and Tewfik and not Tewfik's interactions with users not involved in the conflict? From the discussion above, I can see why Tewfik may think it neccesary to defend himself against trollish behavior. --Strothra 03:09, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A good suggestion, but the interactions between Tewfik and FightCancer is equally important, as both Cerejota and FightCancer are saying the same thing. This should not be a "Tewfik is defending against FightCancer and Cerejota" type thing, though. As of yet, Tewfik has not listed exactly what he would propose as a compromise. GofG _|^|_| Contribs 03:15, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, but in that case, is the mediation seeking a compromise between Tewfik-Cerejota and Tewfik-FightCancer? It seems that the latter dispute is nothing more than a "He did this to me, but he's responsible for doing the same thing" commentary and not something that is resolvable by any compromise. That's why I'm unsure as to why they're being given equal importance. The only reason I'm weighing in is because it would seem that FightCancer's dispute would be better directed if it were toward me since I'm the one who actually listed him on 3RR. --Strothra 03:20, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So, it would seem we have two choices. Remove FightCancer from the equation, leaving Tewfik and Cerejota and Others (possibly so that she can direct her dispute toward Strothra_), or add them, making it Tewfik and Cerejota and FightCancer and Others. I think that the three mentioned should decide this. GofG _|^|_| Contribs 03:30, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused, "her?" Who does that refer to? Wiki can be annoying when you don't know anyone's gender yet are trying to refer to them easily. I'm fine with it if FightCancer wishes to direct his/her dispute against me - if they were to do that they might as well direct their dispute against the admin who blocked them for their offensive behavior. I can handle trolls. I would say remove FightCancer from the equation - I assume that it's now up to the others to weigh in. --Strothra 03:43, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strothra, if you had been 1) making accusatory comments towards me, 2) on my personal talk page after I had expressed my wishes to converse on the article's Talk page, and 3) had warned me about 3RR which you yourself had violated, then I would consider it harassment as well. FightCancer 03:33, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewing the comments on your talk page I have seen none that seem accusatory, but standard warnings for those violating 3RR. Can you post links to diffs of Tewfik's comments which you see as accusatory? --Strothra 03:43, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

6th revert As I posted above, this user wrote "you have already been listed for 3RR, stop edit warring" in Edit Summary. According to WP:NPA, "Specific examples of personal attacks include but are not limited to: Accusatory comments . . . ." Furthermore, I'm not sure why this user had to put the 3RR warning on my page at all as I had requested we continue the discussion on the article's talk page. Strothra, since you're getting involved in the midst of an ongoing mediation, would you mind reading my comments above please? FightCancer 03:52, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, it makes more sense to tell a user about his alleged violation of 3RR in his user page or talk page, than on an article's talk page; that way you can make sure he sees it. As for the message Tewfik left in an edit summary - I believe that after he saw that you have (in his opinion) violated 3RR, he just wanted to make absolutely sure that you are aware of it, before you get blocked. And for your claims about Tewfik's violation of 3RR - that's a completely different subject, as it has nothing to do with the case we're dealing with. Of course, if you still believe he violated it, you can file a complaint where it is supposed to be filed - here. Tamuz ^(Talk) 11:21, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My goal is to make the accusations stop. I am not one for preserving my ego at all costs, and I am open to compromise where it is applicable, but I am currently faced with numerous allegations to which there has yet to be a single dif, or any other sort of evidence produced. I assure you that I am coolly writing this, though I am disturbed at having to divert so much time and energy from editing. As to the immediate question, I would rather separate FightCancer's complaint from Cerejota's, as I fear that the issues will merely become very cloudy. I want a quick resolution to this. Tewfik^Talk 03:54, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Then you won't mind answering these questions? FightCancer 03:58, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How are the two reversions marked (full Wikipedia:Revert) "vandalism"? The first full revert resulted in adding one single word, "extremist", to describe Hezbollah. The second full revert resulted in changing the topmost picture from Haifa to Beirut. How were you preventing vandalism with those full reverts? The 5th revert from the list above was still you deleting that same line the 3rd out of 4 times total in just over 5 hours. Given these circumstances, I don't see how the 3RR warning you left on my personal Talk page could be construed as anything other than hypocritical harassment. I certainly took it that way. FightCancer 03:33, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Remember guys... stay cool and polite. GofG _|^|_| Contribs 04:05, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tewfik's alleged violations of 3RR have nothing to do with this case. While I respect your joining the mediation because you believe you had a dispute with Tewfik similar to Cerejota's dispute with him, neither disputes are related to reverts. Of course, if you believe Tewfik has violated 3RR, you are welcome to report it at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RR. As for Tewfik's responses to your reverts, they do not seem like threats to me, and seem to be in policy for warnings about violations. As for the WP:NPA, please note that the sentence you gave as an example from there doesn't end after the first two words. "Accusatory comments", as it is specifically mentioned there, refers to such pointless and baseless comments as "X is troll" or "Block Y!". Tamuz ^(Talk) 11:21, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that 3RR is not the issue here. IMO, what is the issue is the credibility of testimony. When someone says there has not been "any other sort of evidence produced" and "The two reversions marked (full Wikipedia:Revert) are reversions of vandalism", I tend to question whether he is "not one for preserving my ego at all costs". FightCancer 12:28, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• The quote from above, "any other sort of evidence produced," is directed at your insistence that I have personally attacked you on your Talk page after a request not to use your page. I believe that other user's have showed that this is not true, though if you still believe it is, please produce evidence (read: difs). As for 3rr, that has been dealt with elsewhere, though I have what to say on that topic if it must be brought up :-). Tewfik^Talk 22:06, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My goal to request mediation is because I am tired of Tewik:

1) constantly disregarding requests not to engage in major discussions regarding an article in my talk page

2) Constant accusations, "warnings", threats, and "reminders". I am a smart person, a thinking being, and can read policies just like he can. Sometimes a reminder is a good way to get people to learn the ropes, but when it becomes constant, or out of context, or simply repetitive, it makes no sense.

3) His attempts at using admins directly, instead of using the correct channels for conflict mediation, usually even without warning to the user. His contact with me has never been to resolve conflcit, but to threaten, even if the contact has been civil in form. Others can also attest to this.

I first learned of Tewfik when he went to admin Cyde with some type of grivance, after talking to me ONCE about some wikipolicy or the other (its a blur, maybe wikilawyer Tewfik can fetch things up!). The rest were editing disputes, which IMHO opinion belong in the talk page of the article, and are the BIGGEST part of wikipedia. In a large sense, wikipedia THRIVES because of edit disputes. They are good, they are what makes it great. Tewfik seems to be upset that his edits are debated, while this is the whole point.

And what promted me to raise this mediation proceeding in the first place was his discussion (out of context, I might say) of some replies I gave to OTHERS. Who do Tewfik thing he is? Jimbo?

Tewfik seems to want to be an admin, but I think he doesn't have what it takes: he is intolerant, and to focused on the punitive and monitor-hall aspects of it to really make an effective admin, plus seems to forget that one of the policies, from WP:SR:

(After the four unegotiable rules)

"These are absolutely everything else, from advice to procedures to trivia. Everything here you can get away with bending or ignoring, often to quite an extent. :-)"

and

"3. Ignore all rules. If the rules discourage you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia's quality, ignore them." Also known as WP:IAR. A, gasp, policy!

In a wider view of these issues, I think Tewfik must learn the wikilawyering is as bad as being a vandal: instead of presenting original arguments to support or deny specific edits, Tewfik just responds with policy arguments. This is okay, after all, policies are there for a reason, but he over does it, and further more, tends to have intepretations of policies that go beyond their stated reasons... which is part of the definition of wikilawyering. Specifically, he constantly thinks that simply mentioning another person's POV is a breach of civility (it isnt!), that calling things "ridicicoulous" or "untought out" are uncivil (if they are, then Cyde, and admin, is in breach!), and in general has a rather thin skin for debate.

While this is speculation, I also supect that his constant policing has two bad effects on article quality:

1) it intimidates users who dont share his point of view (hence allowing his point of view to emerge unchallenged, or with less challenge)

2) It creates an environment in which wikilawyering, instead of reasoned debate, is the main form of debate. Hell, I am guilty of joining the fray to in this respect, and it is in reponse of Tewfik's wikilawyering. This diminishes article quality because it doesn't allow good ideas to emerge. For example, no amount of wikilawyering would have reached the simple yet elegant edit that AceMyth did: he divided a contentious section into two sections for each POV, which resulted in a much better article. By creating a general environment of policy focus, Tewfik is responsible for diminishing article

I will admit I have done some errors in judgement, and promise they will happen again, as I am but human. Yet when I have, and realize it on my own, I apologize and move on. Tewfik needs to understand this basic concept of civility: live and let live.

Its about those free of sin throwing the first stone.

--Cerejota 13:37, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps if you gave some examples (diffs) of what he has done, he could tell what you think he's doing wrong, and then either explain himself (staying cool and civil) and say that this is what he actually meant by that, or he could learn what he was doing wrong and make a note of it (if he was doing something wrong). GofG _|^|_| Contribs 20:43, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(sorry for being redundant, but there was just an EC, and I don't feel like rewriting at the moment =])

I'm not sure what I'm doing here but I have read a lot of these two's writings on talk pages on the Israeli-Lebanon conflict and related pages, though I have not read their talk pages much. These two have been some of the more rational people partaking in discussion on these articles (more rational and follow the rules better than I do), so I don't see why they can't just try to make amends and start over; both have added valuable discussion and edits to these articles. I don't know if this is helpful or if I'm even allowed to post here, so apologies if not.--Paraphelion 09:07, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

dividing up the discussion, as per request

Its good to see your (Cerejota's) response here. Perhaps now we can make some progress.

1. You claim that I constantly disregard your requests not to edit on your Talk. I accounted for my edits on your Talk above. If you disagree with my explanation, please note which parts and what you believe them to actually be.
2. You claim that I constantly threaten, warn, and remind you. I admit to (civilly, in my opinion) asking you to stop making allegations and uncivil remarks to/about me. I admit to then pointing out to you uncivil remarks which bordered on personal attacks, which seems to have precipitated this Mediation.
3. You claim that I short-circuited procedure by discussing what was then your nondiscussion in detail why you were branding the article. I believe that I merely asked an administrator who had criticised you for something or other on how best to deal with your then noncommunication despite editing. This was an informal communication, and nowhere did I ask for any action on the administrator's behalf - just advice.
4. You claim that I Wikilawyer. I challenge you to produce an edit I made that fits its definition, especially in relation to attempting to push a POV or intimidate a user, which you've also claimed.

What I hope to achieve from this process is a cessation of these various claims. While I'd rather not commit the resources, if it is necessary to prove/disprove every supposed claim, then so be it. I provided difs documenting the inappropriate statements the user made to me. If Cerejota believes that I indeed acted inappropriately, and can prove it, then I will be happy to apologise. Tewfik^Talk 22:04, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GofG, I am cool as a cucumber so don't worry ;). Now to the matter at hand:

1. You claim that I constantly disregard your requests not to edit on your Talk.

You posted stuff, which I responded.

If responding means I forefeit my previous requests not to discuss, then I will stipulate I did so, and remove this as grievance.

If it doesn't mean that, then all your edits after my first request fall into the category of constant disregard.

I will accept without question the judgement of the Mediator on this one. He has access to the talk page, which I have not reverted or archived for now, and has many edits afte rmy original request.

1. Tewfik: You claim that I constantly threaten, warn, and remind you.:

I will stipulate at your civil tone, but not your general civility:

Accusing someone without giving them the benefit of the doubt, alleging they are violating policy, and not looking for any outcome but having them shut up, in particular in the middle of an editing conflict (as we where at the time) is by not means "civility".

Examples:

My talk page:

1. "Your "chastising" section. WP:Biting anyone? And furthermore, doing a list similar to one done in a formal proceeding, besides being wikilawyering, its a way to intimidate, in particular coming after a "request for advice" from an admin. I felt very threatened by this.

1. "WP:Civil; WP:No personal attacks" which promted this request for mediation.

1. Tewfik:You claim that I short-circuited procedure You provided the link to the talk page in question, but failed to provide context in the form of the ongoing debates you and I where having, in which you made no attempt to directly resolve any conflicts. You cannot claim ignorance enough of procedure as to not being able to read WP:DR on your own.

Your "request for advice" is at worse disingenous, and at best misguided, and in the context of an ongoing edit dispute, uncivil. At least I learned something from the admin: that claiming good faith is a violation of WP:AGF itself. I didn't know it, and now I do. You on the other hand cannot claim ignorance: your wikilawyering was obvious at that time.

The context for your "request for advice":

Request:

[5]

Talk page of article:

(no specific diff is relevant, but see the debates around this date (less one day, plus one day), specially "Abduct vs Capture")

1. [6]

Ironically, a major point of contention was the unilateral, and unpopular delcaration of consensus on the part of Tewfik regarding "Abduct vs capture". "Capture" has won out to this day, and except for some POV driven edits back to "kidnap", has remained stable. This is when Tewfik became mad at me, and apparently fixated on my every word, even those directed as others: I exposed, civily, both that "abduct" had a moral connotation, and that those pushing it where actually pushing a POV. I called his bluff, and now we all pay for it with this proceeding, which would have been unnecesary had Tewfik just let it slide, and continued the debate on topic.

1. Tewfik:You claim that I Wikilawyer.

I am listing as proof this:

[[7]]

Look at your messages. In particular the last one. And most of your arguments in the talk page are based not on reasoned debate, but WP tags, or their spoken equivalent.

Please read the definition of wikilawyering again. As so often happen whenever you raise policy with me, we happen to disagree on the interpretation.

When that happens, whe either stop using policy as an argument, or go to Mediation.

I prefer the first, but was forced by you to the second. That said, what prompted me to raise the present proceedings was a perfect example of wikilawyering: you raised all kinds of policy issues to "support" your claim, without elaborating or providing any sort of commentary. It also carries an implicit threat: since I am violating policy, you are going to report me to have me disciplined. If not, why make the claim in the first place? To make me feel bad? That you didn't do so in the first place speaks volumes: you want the benefits of chastasing (ie shutting up a rival) without the responsibility of having to prove anything.

That borders on the slanderous, and that my friend, is uncivility.

And policy use + uncivility = wikilawyering, IMHO.

That said:

In the main, I do want to make clear I belive there is more to civility than just tone of the words. Actions also speak of civility: if you insist there is consensus when there isn't, if you accuse people of violating X or Y policy without discussing why, if you post things that belong in the article talk page (however civily) in a person's talk page after a request not to do so, those things I consider uncivil. And aparently and unbecknowst to me, I am not alone in this feeling.

I think you use civil tones as a substitute for real civility, which is one that recognizes each person's validity as human beings, and reflects before judging. I am willing to accept you can reflect upon that, but I am not willing to accept your denial: I have felt frustated, not at our difference because as thinking beings those are inevitable, but at your failure to understand that a difference of opinion is not one you can punish via process. If you can understand that, then I will not feel I have lost anytime. And wikipedia will have gained another great editor with a deeper understanding of what difference is.

Lastly, I will make an admission: when I began in wiki about a year ago, I was a POV driven a-hole. Then I felt bad, and I stopped editing, except for a thing here and there non-controversialy. But I read talk pages assiduosly, read policy, read read read and learned, and learned that one never stops learning, and that if one is to be a successful wikipedian, one must not abandon all POV, but rather understand that those with other POVs are not the enemy, to be watched, chastised, and punished for policy violations, real or imagined. To paraphrase Jimbo: all is not procedure, its also rational beings exchanging...

The basis of me feeling harrased is your failure to understand this, your need to try to chastize me as a person, rather than contest what I am saying. I can live with debate, even heated debate: I cannot stand people who hide behind policy their contempt for their fellows. It is dishonest, and ultimately uncivil. I find it ironic that a couple of people, including an Israeli reservist, have been able to continue to improve the article with me, and that even you and I have been able to do some good, yet you find it necesary to wikilawyer me into submission...

--Cerejota 02:39, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1. 1. 1. Engaging conversation on Cerejota's talk instead of article's talk - I looked at you talk page, and found only one place in which you asked Tewfik to stop sending you messages there - under User talk:Cerejota#POV tag (I only checked the current state of your talk page; you don't have any archives, right?). While it would have been better if Tewfik stopped after that one request, I don't think this should be considered an issue here since you haven't tried to ask him again ever since (unless I accidentally overlooked something).
      2. Alleged repetetive warnings & threats - When you're having a long-standing disagreement with someone, it's very difficult not to view anything he says as a threat, and it's also hard not to sound threatening. I agree that the "chastising" section was out-of-place, but the other section you mentioned seems to me like a legitimate request (and you have said yourself that the tone was civil). But, of course, it is possible for one person to be bothered by what another person would see as OK, and that's why I think it would be best if you two would simply apologise to each other, even if you don't see how what you have done is wrong.
      3. Short-circuiting procedures - On that I partially agree with Cerejota. I do believe that Tewfik has tried to resolve the issues with you first without going to User:Cyde, but perhaps he should have tried more. However, even in that context, Tewfik's request for help from Cyde still seems to me like, well, a request for help; not help in the form of user-blocking or mediation commitees, just a request for advice on what to do next. Also, I agree that Tewfik's declaration of a Concensus over the use of the word "abduct" was not true, but I do not think it has anything to do with this case, because that declaration was made on the article's talk and was not directed specifically at you. As for your mentioning of WP:AAGF (not in specific words, but read that link, this is exactly what it is talking about) - this page is only an opinion, not an official policy, and besides, sometimes you pretty-much have to tell other users to WP:AGF.
      4. Wikilawyering - I don't see how his messages could be considered Wikilawyering. Only the last message - WP:Civil; WP:No personal attacks - could be considered as such, IMO, and you can't accuse someone of being a Wikilawyer based on one message.

As for what you say about the use of POV - true, one must not abandon POV, but you also said here that you can live with discussion, and if you ask me, POV edits should be discussed with whomever made them, in order to attain a higher level of the article. Of course, one must remain civil through discussions, but they really should discuss.

And guys, please stop refering to policy pages, that's utterly redundant in my opinion. As FightCancer said above, this isn't rocket science or anything. It's about being civil, and getting well together, not things that can be defined and written. Tamuz ^(Talk) 21:38, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GofG, please break this discussion into another sub-heading to make it easier to read and edit. I suggest break just before Tewfik's last comment.

I would like to add to Tamuz's comments:

1. Engaging conversation on Cerejota's talk instead of article's talk: Beyond not being subject to any extensive requests not to converse on Cerejota's Talk, I actually suggested numerous times that the conversation be continued on the page's Talk.
2. Alleged repetetive warnings & threats: I would like to put the "chastising" section in proper context. It was after Cerejota made several edits that seemed to me to be uncivil and questioning of my good faith, which I had mostly ignored until that point (I say mostly because I have a faint recollection of making a short note about them once elsewhere, though I may not have), and which had no sign of ceasing. I did so (in my mind at least) in a civil, even conciliatory manner, in the hopes of ending the whole affair then and there. Still, even if I was in the wrong, this one edit cannot be construed as harassment.
3. Short-circuiting procedures: In terms of the editing about abduct as an NPOV alternative to kidnaping and capture, I admit that in hindsight it was premature to declare consensus, but at that point the discussion (not prompted by me) was in favor of using the term (3 in place of capture, myself included:1 alongside capture:1 against, Cerejota) and I was being WP:Bold in the then (relatively) new article. Moreover, admin Cyde later states there that "It's more like you're using m:MPOV, actually" regarding Cerejota's arguments, so it is far from clear that my editing was out of place. Even if I was completely in the wrong, this does not justify claims of harassment.

As a general response to the parts of Cerejota's response in which he expresses his belief that I try to manipulate policy in order to shut up rivals (punish via process), consider: maybe I didn't attempt to report you because I was not out to get you, but rather thought you were a relatively new editor (as am I, but slightly less so) who didn't really mean to make those comments. I have not chastised you as a person, nor made any other personal attack or uncivil statement, and I try to always believe that editors are acting out of good intention. If you still believe that I harassed you (which is why we are here), please make your case. I hope that we can resolve the issues soon, and that we can all get back to editing. Tewfik^Talk 01:32, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tewfik: I have made my case. I am awaiting moderator response.

You provided most of the relevant diffs and there is simply a difference of opinion as to what those diffs represent. If more are needed during the proceedings I'll dig em up.

I am not alleging that any of your edits were out of place, as this proceding is not about an editing dispute. It is about you stopping your harrasment of me, and protecting my space as an editor from unwarranted attention.

When I mention your questionable edits, I do so not to evaluate them as edits, but to demonstrate that you have engaged in behaivior you readidly criticize in others, and to show, which is one of my central contentions, that you are wikilawerying to push your POV and silence the opposition, not by debating and trying to build consensus, but by intimidation.

For example, there is no doubt that FightCancer has violated 3RR. This is proven by the fact he was banned.

But it shows either a great lack of judgement or a great lack of civility, when you are a significant part of the process of punishing a person with whom you have an editing dispute. If you where an admin I would call it an abuse of power, even if it is entirely within policy. It gives the impression regardless if it is true or not, that you are trying to bureacratically censor people. And this impression in me is strenghtened by your behaivior towards me, and that I have witnessed towards others, which has led me to feel threatened and harrassed. You might think what you will, but I do feel that way, and that is something you must understand if we are to resolve our conflict: I feel how I feel, and you behaivior here has done little to diminish those feelings, and your treatment of FightCancer in particular has actually increased that feeling. And I have not been impressed with your sudden change from monitor hall police to humble wikipedian since this proceeding began.

Let me ask you something, how many people who share your POV have you tried to imposse policy or raise alarm upon before this mediation began?

You can read what I have to say as to your alleged civility in my previous reponse.

Lastly, I find hard to believe that your approach to me was because I was new (which is itself irrelevant, you a wikicounsel, look it up), and FightCancer's issue is a case in point: you have done the same thing to other people.

I appreciate Tamuz's attempt and mediation, but I think Tamuz misses the point: this is not about me, but about protecting the community... I think wikipedia could use less wannabe admins and wikilawyers imposing policy and more editors creating quality entries. --Cerejota 04:43, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I will limit my comments at this time to a respectful request that you stop referring to me as a wikilawyer, or any variation on the term. Do you really think that was necessary? Tewfik^Talk 05:37, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WOW! Tewfik, maybe you don't realize it, but you are basically asking me to shut up and stop one of the reason I started this proceeding! You deny being a wikilawyer, and I assert it! So before the moderation process is over, you are already missing the point, and unwilling to participate in it.

Please re-read my previous contribution, but I will re-phrase and re-explain: One of my assertions, which might be wrong, is that you use wikilawyering as a form of intimidation.

Now, I do understand you might be upset, but if you read my usage of the term, it was not meant as an gratuitous insult, but as precisely part of my allegations.

In fact, in my previous contribution it was used to address your previous denial of being one!!!

May the moderator please note that this is exactly one of the reasons I feel harrassed: in the course of regular debate Tewfik grabs on to a small part of what is being said, and taking it out of context, turns it into a violation of X or Y policy, usually lack of civility, I believe in order to distract attention form the debate at hand.

So for obvious reasons, your request is denied, for now. You cannot ask me to undermine my case by removing one of its key assertions. It makes no sense at all. --Cerejota 05:49, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Let's try not to worry about the issue quite so much and just calm down a little bit.

Cerejota, Tewfik might have originally spoken to you because he thought you were new. This isn't irrelivant, as many new people might need help, and this action should not be looked down upon. I don't believe that he was "imposing policy" or even "raising alarm", but was instead in good faith, trying only to assist you. Saying that he either "lacks judgement" or "lacks civility" is going a bit too far. His change to a humble wikipedian, if he wasn't always one, might be because he might feel intimidated by your request for mediation.

I don't see how he was trying to turn your saying he is a wikilawyer into a violation of any policy. Likewise, I don't believe he was asking you to shut up. You have remained as cool as a cucumber, as you say, so far. Please remain so, as it does help keep other people cool. The use of exclamation points shows something along the lines of impatience. I'm not saying that anything you said is wrong, just please keep WP:CHILL in mind, as it is the basis of a mediation.

I believe his request for you to stop using the term "wikilawyer" was a result of you indirectly refering to him as a "wikilawyer" or a "wannabe admin." GofG _|^|_| Contribs 06:37, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Of course I get exasperated, there is nothing more frustating in the world than to try to speak to someone who plays deaf, and furthermore requests, ignoring line upon line of conversation, that one ceasing asserting what one is out to precisely prove. As I said before: It makes no sense at all.

1) "Tewfik might have originally spoken to you because he thought you were new" I would belive it, had we not been engaged in several high temperature debates on opposing sides. This is the fulcrum of all this. Placed in the context of an ongoing debate, his actions cannot be viewed as dispassionate. We are not robots but human beings. As I have mentioned above, this for me speak of disinginuity: why didn't any of the more experienced users or admins in the debates approach me? Why precisely a person I was having disagreements with? This is why I feel harrased in the first place. T

2)"I believe his request for you to stop using the term "wikilawyer" was a result of you indirectly refering to him as a "wikilawyer" or a "wannabe admin". I do not question this, but rather gave reasons as to why. If it walks like a duck, talks like a duck, smells like a duck, it is a duck.

3)Being civil is part of policy. Saying I am not civil is saying I am violating policy. So Tewfik did say I was violating policy. I do read what he writes, and I don't know any other interpretation to his words.

Now I might be wrong in my opinion Tefik is a wikilawyer, but this doesn't change the fact that it is my opinion. And asking me to change it, in particular when it is part of my issues, repeating myself, is frustating and part of why I began it in the first place.--Cerejota 21:12, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Again I say, I disagree about the Wikilawyering part. I haven't read all of Tewfik's messages in his Wiki history, and obviously, I'm not going to do so, so I have no way of knowing whether he behaved as a Wikilawyer with other users. However, I have read all his messages to you on your talk page, and as I said, none of them qualifies as Wikilawyering in my eyes, except for the last one. I also don't see how his messages during this process qualify as Wikilawyering.

Tewfik, about the chastising section, I still think it wasn't necessary to write a whole, detailed list. If you felt Cerejota made offending comments, it would have sufficed to ask him to stop; if you felt that you did that and it didn't work, it would have been best to just go to mediation (though I understand your unwillingness to start a formal process if you believed it was possible to resolve the issue in another way).

I would like to point out that, Tewfik and Cerejota, you both seemed to me to be acting on good faith all through your disagreements and arguments, and I don't think that any of you can be accused of intentionally (or even subconsciously) trying to silence or intimidate each other (or any other user). However, each of you made some comments that offended the other one, whether accidentally or out of temporary anger or frusration. But, because none of these comments were made on purpose, and after both of you made your cases and clarified what offended you in each other's behaviour, I really believe we can close all that matter for good, by simply saying "sorry". Hoping to resolve everything in a fast and good way, Tamuz ^(Talk) 20:45, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

you say you disagree with the wikilawyering part, and I think you are making a narrow reading of the term: its not just going around WP:XYZ or WP:ZXY people, but also about the whole approach. Very few times has Tewfik done any attempt to engage me as a person, but rather as an object subject to rule. I earn my living writing software, so I know how to treat things as objects subject to rules, and know when people do that. For me that is wikilawyering: the substitution of real, honest interaction with procedural excuses. For example, accusing me of being "uncivil", which only Tewfik seems to uphold, is wikilawyering: you are not saying "man, stop badgering me, this is upseting", no, you say "this is uncivil". "Uncivil" in the wikipedia procedure has weight as do other phrases which commonly don't have that weight.

I learned this the hardway from Cyde when I mentioned "good faith". I was saying it in layman's terms, but s/he said it had some weight here in wikipedia that could actually harm my case. So you see, my opinion is a fresh one, and one I didn't have of Tewfik until shortly before I decided to go ahead with this moderation case.

As a matter of fact, I just wikilawyered. And I hate myself for it.--Cerejota 21:12, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A) I, too, am a programmer (though I don't yet make my living out of it), but this has nothing to do with it.

B) I know that wikilawyering isn't only about linking to Wiki policy pages. I knew that when I said what I said, but now that you made that claim again, I have re-read Tewfik's messages to you because I thought I might have missed something. Well, I still don't see how he wikilawyered. Not only did he made almost no links to policy pages, he also mentioned almost no expressions which ring the bell of a policy. I also don't see how he engaged you as an object. When you did something he disliked, he asked you to stop it (examples - 1 2). Except for that message, he always spoke about specific things you did and asked you to stop, and even in the chastising section he gave specific examples (though I think he should'nt have given them). So, yes, I still disagree about the Wikilawyering.

C) (and that's a response to your last response to GofG) I'm not asking you to change what you feel about Tewfik actions. If you really feel he Wikilawyered then he has done something wrong (though perhaps unintentionally, and therefor he may not be guilty), and hence, should apologise. Yeah, I know it's already the gagilionth time I say it, but I still believe that we can resolve all this by both of you apologising to each other even if you don't think you're guilty of anything (and that goes for both of you, Tewfik and Cerejota). Tamuz ^(Talk) 19:59, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In the interest of speeding things up, could a neutral party evaluate the claims of harassment, and spell out whether they believe I have acted to any degree inappropriately? This would allow me to respond to a specific action, and help pinpoint what the problem is. Thank you, Tewfik^Talk 19:41, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't GofG supposed to be a neutral party?

I think your impatience with this proceeding, which you have expressed several times, might be a disrespectful approach to the proceeding itself. This is meant, belive it or not, to get you and I to talk. That you want to end it procedurally without even making the slightest attempt at compromise seems to support my worse fears: that I am right, and you are just weasel wording.--Cerejota 21:12, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In the interest of coming to compromise, it's important that everyone assumes good intentions of everyone else. To say someone is weasel wording is making a claim of bad intention. Wikipedia can be edited by anyone, so we obviously trust that the entire world is going to act in a benign way. Otherwise we'd all be screwed. Thanks for understanding the importance of such a principle! --The Prophet Wizard of the Crayon Cake 03:44, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So he can say I am uncivil and still meet assume good faith, but I can't say he is weasel wording?

I understand perfectly well the principle of good faith, but precisely feeling harrased doesn't mean that good faith is being called into question?

If so, this proceeding might be unnecesary: when you feel harrassed you are not assuming good faith (even if you *are* being harrased), and hence the party who is considered wrong is the party being harrassed.

Since this is my first time involved in aproceeding of this nature, I have no idea if this is the case.

If so, well, I disagree with the notion, but I am willing to accept it as part of contuning to be an editor in Wikipedia. I can handle rules I find unjust or wrong (like I find tax laws etc, but still pay my taxes). But I woud be able to make an informed desicion on that regards, and wouldn't have raised this request for moderation.

I would have simply gone to an admin (who has supported my POV in the talk page for advice), filled Tewfik's talk page with complaints against him, declared consensus after three people speak (if they meet my POV), and studiously pursue those of POV other than mine in order to get then banned for some bureaucratic reason or the other, and if a moderation request was raised, I would continually declare it a waste of time, argue that the other part is being uncivil, and make no offer of compromise at the begining.

All, of course, while being civil.

Please advise.--Cerejota 19:02, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We're now checking all these claims, no need to mention them again. And while I'm all for sarcasm, using it this way only makes it appear as if you're really not cool and in-control.

And yes, when you're harassed you should attempt to discern whether or not the one harassing you is acting on good faith. However, reading Tewfik's messages, I still believe that he has in-fact acted on good faith. And so have you, despite the fact that he, too, claimed he was harassed by you (or at least, that you made harassing comments). So yes, good faith is called into question, and what we're doing here now is questioning it. But it doesn't necessarilly mean that the other user have not acted on good faith (and I do not imply that you said that it does mean that. Only saying... :]) Tamuz ^(Talk) 19:59, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I fpeople have good faith, and are smart and honest, sarcasm shouldnt be an issue. I see no reason why I should stop being the world weary, humor loving perosn I am, and stop jesting, simply because I might be misunderstood. If you notice, I didn't question Tewfik's good faith until that last message on my talk page. I thought I had been clear with him, and the only reason I raise this moderation proceeding was because I felt further conversation would have been futile. Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me...

And by the way, I think you should join the Moderation Cabal, you seem to have what it takes... I might not agree with you, but you are really civil and are really trying hard both to end the controversy and to hear out both sides of the story. Commendable, and rare. :D--Cerejota 03:40, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, I'm all for sarcasm, usually. Problem is, on the web, all we can "hear" is your words, not the tone in which they were spoken. That way, we have no way of telling whether you're saying it out of anger and frustration, or simply trying to make light of a heavy issue. Emoticons help, of course, but even with them you can't convey your exact meaning.

Thanks for the compliment :] I'm working real hard to keep cool and NPOV, and it's good to know that it's working =] Actually I've thought about joining the Cabal, but I'm not sure I am willing to actually commit to this right now. But thanks anyway :] Tamuz ^(Talk) 18:08, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation is extremly easy if people are trying to keep a cool head, so thanks for the effort everybody.

So if I am to understand the reason for this mediation, it involves some sort of harassment yes? There's really no content involved here, right? --The Prophet Wizard of the Crayon Cake 20:50, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. --Cerejota 00:02, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

dividing up the discussion, hope this is not seen as bad --Cerejota 20:09, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah ok. Here's what I suggest we do...

Let's get right to point, everyone involved tell me in what way they feel "wronged", so to speak. Tell me what you think the problem is. And try to keep it concise. --The Prophet Wizard of the Crayon Cake 00:11, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that Cerejota believes that I have harassed him, though perhaps he can best explain what he feels I did wrong (it seems he also thinks I have wikilawyered, and not treated him with respect). For my part, I have tried to explain the edits I made to his Talk, which he says were the focal point of said harassment, and don't believe they have amounted to such, though perhaps you can clarify that. An edit of mine which Tamuz has pointed to as questionable is one where I listed some statements Cerejota made to me which I didn't think were civil, and asked him to stop making such edits. My understanding is the edit that precipitated this was my pointing out what I believe to be uncivil statements he made to others. It would probably be best if I made my response after Cerejota's concise complaint though, as I'm not completely sure what parts to respond to. Thanks for your help, Tewfik^Talk 05:04, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I've decided against a response for now. The mediator can feel free to jump right in. Tewfik^Talk 23:44, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Basically all is up there. I don't contest the facts presented by Tewfik, but I do obviously consted his characterizations of the facts.

First, he asks that I explain why I feel wronged, giving the wrong impression that I haven't. Even Tamuz has replied to my explanations. So this is further proof of my assertion that Tewfik selectively reads and (mis)quotes and in general takes no time to engage people he doesn't agree with.

Second, even when I don't feel I have been uncivil, after Tewfik's initial request, I have taken steps to avoid even the appearance of uncivility towards him. That Tewfik chose to allude to my allegedly uncivil behaivior to another user rather than to himself is proof of this. Of course, since he is not an admin, nor the other user raised any complaint, and he used policy arguments, that is a blatant use of wikilawyering and constitutes a form of harrasment. Who is Tewfik? The Righteous Defender of Wikipedia against the Hordes of Anti-Zionist Infiltration? :D No, he is a fellow editor: he should have used the talk page of the article, and should have used common sense arguments that are not an attempt to interpret policy. A salient fact is that the user Tewfik "defended" didn't feel offended enough to mention anything in my talk page or that of the article. The controversy is entirely a construct of Tewfik's mind, to use as harrasment.

Third, as I stated, my goal is to get Tewfik not just to stop his behaivior against me, but towards others, as FightCancer's intervention shows. I might disagree with FightCancer's arguments, and his style, but this should not obscure the proof he brings to this: Tewfik seems too preocupied with the behaivior and going-ons of users engaged in edit disputes with him than with the goal of writting a quality, NPOV, encyclopedia. And he uses the talk pages of users, and tries to misuse the power of admins, to harras and ultimately diminish the speech of those who disagree with his POV and/or his edits.

I apologize for repeating myself, and for the extention of this, but I felt I had to address Tewfik continual misrepresentation of what is said and not said. --Cerejota 20:09, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To recap, I feel harassed by Tewfik. I also feel that his testimony in this mediation has been less than honest and insincere. FightCancer 18:00, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It would seem that there are three conflicts going on. Just to put it into our view, I'll list the obvious solutions.

• Tewfik was, or was not, wikilaywering.

Tewfik admits that he was wikilaywering, or Cerejota admits that Tewfik was not wikilaywering. (No agreement)

• Tewfik was, or was not, uncivil.

Tewfik admits that he was uncivil, or Cerejota admits that Tewfik was not uncivil.

• Cerejota was, or was not, uncivil.

Cerejota admits that he was uncivil, or Tewfik admits that Cerejota was not uncivil.

We've been dealing with all of these, but I suggest that we focus on them one at a time, since we will proabbly move toward a solution sooner. GofG _|^|_| Contribs 00:54, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would add:

• Tewfik was, or was not harrasing Cerejota

Tewfik admits that he was harrasing, or Cerejota admits that Tewfik was not harrassing.

• Tewfik misrepresents, or doesn't misrepresents Cerejota

Tewfik admits that he misrepresented, or Cerejota admits that Tewfik was not misrepresenting.

• Tewfik mislead admins, or doesn't mislead admins

Tewfik admits that he mislead, or Cerejota admits that Tewfik was not misleading.

• Tewfik harrassed others, or doesn't harrass others

Tewfik admits that he harrassed others, or Cerejota admits that Tewfik didn't harras others.

--Cerejota 02:33, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, that's good. Let's start with "Tewfik misleads admins". Just to clear things up, is this the first contact that Tewfik made to Cyde? If it is, I would say that Tewfik doesn't mislead admins (which would, of course, be my viewpoint, and my hope would be that Cerejota would agree.) If it isn't, could someone please show me what was? (I'm going to remove all the HTML from the section header... it kind of fuzzles up edit summaries. GofG _|^|_| Contribs 03:28, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm... I would have to agree with GofG; that paticular edit isn't really intentional deception. Sure, it's misleading, but anytime you only get one half of the story there's going to be some bias. Frequently the very beginning of the case page, which is written by one user, is very misleading about what's going on, but that doesn't mean they're trying to fool us. So, I'd have to assume good faith and say that Tewfik wasn't being manipulative. --The Prophet Wizard of the Crayon Cake 11:31, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad you agree, but I was just asking the question whether that was the first time tewfik contacted Cyde, since that comment is worded as though Cyde had already helped out Tewfik. GofG _|^|_| Contribs 16:36, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not that you need to take my word for it, but I believe that it was. It followed this edit of Cyde's on Cerejota's Talk. Tewfik^Talk 20:53, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can accept the judgement of the moderators, and apologize to Tewfik for not assuming good faith on his seeking advice from an admin, even if that admin was involved in the edit dispute. This doesn't mean I accept I was being uncivil by saying that Tewfik was "fast becoming a vandal in my eyes". He did cease that behaivior shortly after, so he didn't become a vandal in my eyes.--Cerejota 02:11, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So, on the assumption that you just said that you admitted Tewfik did not mislead admins, I'm going to cross out that item.

Are the items "Tewfik was or was not uncivil" and "Tewfik did or did not harrass others" and "Tewfik did or did not harrass Cerejota" redundant, or is it just me? I'm gonna remove the second and third from the list and rename the first "Tewfik was or was not uncivil to Cerejota and others", but please put it back if you feel it should be put back.

Also, I suggest focusing on the "Tewfik does or does not wikilaywer" item next. Cerejota, could you re-provide us with the diff that you said was evidence of his wikilaywering? GofG _|^|_| Contribs 19:04, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree that harrasment and civility are related. Harrasment can be done in all apparent civility. Which of course has been one of my main points.--Cerejota 02:46, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose, but it's fairly hard to harrass someone while being civil. I see your point, and I will revert my changes. I do ask, though, that you represent the evidence you had before that Tewfik was wikilaywering. GofG _|^|_| Contribs 03:06, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. As I explained above, Tewfik seems to think civility is only limited to using a certain language, while language is actually the least of it. I do agree harrasment constitutes uncivility, but I don't want to confuse the issues.

My talk page posts by Tewfik, and the posts in Talk of the 2006 Israel-Lebanon Conflict up until around July 17. --Cerejota 03:40, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just through your entire talkpage, and the only edit I could find where he cited a policy on you (except in the Your "Chastizing" section where he listed the policies you accused him of violaing) was [8]. Looking through the talk page (archive 11 through now), I could only find this edit: [9]. I will search through earlier archives, unless of course you would wish to provide more examples. GofG _|^|_| Contribs 17:49, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you consider wikilawyering to only be the linking of policy pages in conversation, then Tewfik is not wikilawyering. If you consider wikilawyering the verbalization of allegeded violations of policy, then he most definetely is. I think that is the key of this particular part of the controversy.--Cerejota 01:08, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(Un-indenting, I hope no one minds :D) There were none that I could find. I did not search for him linking policies, I searched for everything he said. Because what I produced was him linking policies, that does not mean that that is what I consider wikilaywering. I'm going to continue searching, though. GofG _|^|_| Contribs 02:34, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As opposed to finding an edit, then going to the main article's history and trying to find the diff where he put that (Which is very confusing, as the signature time does NOT always line up with the edit time D:), I'm instead just going to put what he said.

# Oppose: I repeat: Let us not forget that we are not here to analyse current events - the title of this article should reflect what it is known as in the wider world. Period. We mustn't forget the basics: No original research, Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. TewfikTalk 18:23, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

• Note: I believe this was actually selected by the Talk organisers as the summary of a discussion... Tewfik^Talk 19:22, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In this, he cited a policy. From Archive 9, continuing... GofG _|^|_| Contribs 05:45, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In Archive 7, he justified an edit with the claim that it was pushing the article towards NPOV, assumedly (by me) an edit that there has been some conflict over.

I understand that we are trying to keep the article short, but non-coverage of the Hezbollah rocket attacks makes creates a twisted perspective on the events. I am going to restore some of the removed information in the interest of balance and NPOV. Cheers, Tewfik^Talk 16:43, 20 July 2006

(UTC)

GofG _|^|_| Contribs 05:55, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I hope that this doesn't inconvenience the procedure, but I need to archive my Talk. I'll use a "move" type so as to preserve the history. Tewfik^Talk 01:58, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I'm concerned... the size of the article shouldn't limit what we can put into it. Verifiable knowledge in a neutral voice that explains all viewpoints is the top priority, not conserving bytes. --The Prophet Wizard of the Crayon Cake 12:48, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • Because some of the allegations on this page appear there, I think it would be appropriate for the mediators to be aware of Talk:Roles of non-combatant State and non-State actors in the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict. Tewfik^Talk 03:35, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes in particular when you accuse me (as I was who initiated the page and its original template) of POV pushing and original research. Man Tewfik, everytime I warm up to you, think I might be over reacting and think for second that might you have a good heart and are indeed trying to make an NPOV encyclopedia, you go ahead and say thing like what you just said. I feel sad rather than angry.--Cerejota 03:43, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

While an expression of my sentiments on the matter would be quite similar to your formulation, I have no choice but to say that having read over my comments, I'm truly at a loss as to where you see me saying these things to you. On the other hand, on that page you said things like:

• you of course revealed that you are unable to really support NPOV
• We need to show facts, not hide them
• your edits so far have been directed not at improving article quality, but at trying to push two POV allegations
• You seem to seek to diminish the quality of our article by seeking to hide sourced information,

I'm sure you are a really nice guy who is passionate about this subject. I share that passion, which is part of why I spend time editing it, and why I don't like spending that time here. All I request is that you carry on a discussion that is limited to the arguments. If anyone thinks that I'm totally off with my comments here, please let me know. Tewfik^Talk 04:23, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Those comments where in response to two accusations directed at me: 1)That I performed OR, 2)That I was seeking to water down some relevant facts. Live by the gun, die by the gun.

Why don't you just apologize for harrasing? Hell, we could even accept Tamuz's comprpmise.

I belive in actions rather than words, and your actions speak louder than your words. That you list my responses and not your original accusations shows this: you are just trying to win. This is funny cause I actually agree at times with you and have nothing personal against you.--Cerejota 06:31, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cerejota, after looking through each archive of the article talk page, I could not find any legitamate examples of his alleged wikilaywering. Unless you can provide a diff or diffs of evidence, I'm going to ask you to admit he was not wikilaywering. GofG _|^|_| Contribs 05:54, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. Sorry but I do. Please explain how it isn't? I mean, if "Your chastising" doesn't stand for a poster child of wikilawyering, then perphaps I misunderstand the term and need a reasoned explanation. At least the comments regarding mis-uuse of admin power had some sense in them, and Tamuz, who I respect, also said things similar, but on this one count I remain unconvinced.--Cerejota 06:25, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, seeing as "chastise" means "to punish" [10], I don't see how that is wikilaywering at all. It is, agreeably, questionable wording that I personally don't like, but it is not wikilaywering. GofG _|^|_| Contribs 17:55, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Who punishes? I mean, lets forget the title, read what you wrote, it reads like a prosecutor's statement. Which GofG, need I remind you, are lawyers, if something is procecutorial, it is by definition lawyery, hence in wiki context its wikilawyering. As I said, I can be convinced of Tewfik not wikilawyering only by one means: that my defnition of th term is wrong. I cannot find a word that suits his interventions in my talk page that is better than wikilawyering. I mean, defending other people? This is wikipedia, not Boston Law--Cerejota 06:32, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Just to clarify, there should be a parenthetical "Re:" before the "your chastising," as I was presenting evidence to him of what I percieved to be his chastising of me, and I wasn't chastising him. Tewfik^Talk 18:26, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Now you remember this? Where did I chastise you? I can express disagreement, but I never presuppose any superiority require to title something "your chastizing"? Perhaps you are confusing me with someone else you had a beef with with... --Cerejota 06:32, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am pointing this out now because it seems to be misunderstood now. I was referring to the statements you made (which I percieved to be accusing me of vandalism, of not assuming good faith, of editing without consensus, of reverting your edits, as well as inferring that I was doing the above to push a POV). Tewfik^Talk 07:00, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I still don't honestly understand what jump of language is being made here. It makes no sense. If it makes you feel better to all of the sudden remember this (in spite of me mentioning it previously, and Tamuz mentioning it too).

In any case not very relevant, as my concenr is the contents. All of the quotes where provided out of context, without the text I was replying to. There is nothing wrong with saying those things, they constitute nothing bad, and they are true in context. But they belong in context and in the discussion with others: they are directed not at you personally, but at the whole community in the context of very specific things. A basic issue I have with you is that you are very willing to give out critcism but are absolutely uncapable of accepting it yourself. --Cerejota 07:22, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I didn't 'remember' this now, rather it seems that it is being misunderstood. If Tamuz and yourself also misunderstood it, well there isn't much I can do - I replied to objections that were raised in the past based on what I thought they were, and so if I misunderstood the objections, there isn't much I can do about that either.

I explained the section above. I don't see how it is WP:Wikilawyering (incidentally, its correct definition: 1. Using formal legal terms inappropriately regarding Wikipedia policy. 2. Asserting that technical interpretation of Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines should override the principles they express. 3. Hiding behind misinterpretations of policy to justify inappropriate edits.) If you still feel it was inappropriate, we can discuss it after we finish dealing with your claims that I wikilawyered. If you feel that it is an example of wikilawyering, please explain how. Cheers, Tewfik^Talk 18:18, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for being out of touch for a while, I was on a trip (saw the fiery tails of some Katyushas in the sky from the south. Looked kinda cool ;-)

I, for one, did not misunderstand the heading of the said message from Tewfik.

I don't think we can treat the Wikilawyering and the civility (of both sides) seperately. Tewfik's "chastising" message was in response to some things that Cerejota said which he (Tewfik) thought of as uncivil. Please remember that that message was written way before this mediation process was initiated, so Tewfik had no reason to intentionally mislead readers by taking things out-of-context, as Cerejota claims he had. Rather, he probably misunderstood what Cerejota said, misinterpreted Cerejota's intentions or "tone of speech", and\or just thought of them in a different way than Cerejota.

Tewfik felt harassed by Cerejota's comments, but maybe not because they were a violation of policy, but simply because he felt they were uncivil - not "uncivil" as in violating-the-WP:CIVIL-policy, but "uncivil" as in offending or insulting. Even if Cerejota didn't mean for them to "sound" like this, that's how Tewfik felt about them eventually. On the other hand, when he asked Cerejota to stop, he may have intended it to be a simple, polite request, but Cerejota was apparently offended by it.

The definition of the term "Wikilawyering" is, I believe, irrelevant. If Cerejota felt Tewfik was wikilawyering and was offended by it, then Tewfik is guilty; but if Tewfik was forced to write a message which Cerejota was offended by, then Cerejota is also guilty. Agreeing on a definition for the term won't make it any clearer who (if anyone) is "right" in this argument. Tamuz ^(Talk) 10:27, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good to see you safe and sound Tamuz. While I appreciate your effort at conciliation, I'm not sure that I can accept your conclusion. I have no problem discussing if my edits were out of line, but on the other hand, I do not want Cerejota to continually level these allegations at me if they are incorrect. And if he ultimately acknowledges that "wikilawyer" isn't what he meant, then that is even more of a reason to stick to definitions and facts here. That said, I'm not opposed to a general "personal" reconciliation with Cerejota, its just that I don't see that happening as long as he thinks that I did do these things. Please correct me if I'm wrong. Cheers, Tewfik^Talk 18:19, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alas Tewfik, we hit the same nail on the head: you continue to fail to see how your actions were not only offensive to me, but unwilling to apologize. I have no idea of your age, but Tamuz is wise beyond his years, in spite of my disagreements on other questions with him. I think his argument is sound, and I am at a loss to find a reply that is not an obfuscation... I think perhaps you are being a bit hard-headed?--Cerejota 07:25, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have a corroborating experience with Tewfik. Tewfik has displayed the same tendency to 'wikilawyer' during the course of discussions about content in another article. As a last resort I am seeking arbitration on Tewfik's edit warfare and attempts to promote imbalance in that article.

In the course of the discussions Tewfik has been happy to throw wikipedia policies around like confetti. WP:Notable, WP:RS, WP:Consensus, WP:SPAM, WP:V, WP:OR, and WP:SOCK have all been produced by him. These policies supposedly support his agenda of forcing aid to Israel out of an article dealing with military aid to combatants in the conflict. While doing this Tewfik has adopted the tone and manner of a 'prosecutor at trial'.

Tewfik exhibits a tendency to reach for the 'My favourite policies' book before considering anything else. He refuses to consider the arguments of others, he doesn’t inspect the source material, he wont concede basic points made on standards of balance. All ignored. He employs a tactic of brow beating via policy statements and arguments cobbled together from wikipedia policies he cherrypicks. That his argument is malformed doesn't matter so long as the principles the policies express can be twisted to try and belittle the quality of the detail in question or their source (in this case the US Government/Congress/DCSA and WPI).

His highlighting of policies WP:SOCK, and WP:SPAM were considered by me as veiled threats. Threats made in response to my innocent attempt to highlight his minority viewpoint. By inviting other editors to comment I demonstrated that Tewfik was effectively holding the article to ransom via his edit warfare. Tewfik's response wasn’t to consider the views of these editors in good faith but to reject and ignore them all on the basis of 2 policies; WP:Consensus & WP:SPAM he then accused me of using sock puppets. When other wikipedians told him to stop reverting and to discuss, he ignored their calls, based perhaps on his interpretation of WP:Revert?

I agree with Cerejota that Tewfik's behaviour has a detrimental effect on quality. In the case of the article I wished to contribute to his reverts deliberately promote a total imbalance. Tewfiks reverts were often without discussion, he failed to respond on the talkpage, he continually bandied around policies to stifle discussion, he promoted edit warfare in a non controversial article, and he continually showed disrepect for other editors. Tewfik has created an atmosphere of disrespect and belligerency in the article that was not there until he began his revert warfare and wikilawyering. That is all I wanted to say and testify to here- Cerejota is not alone in having experienced this. RandomGalen 12:56, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This what I don't understand. THis is the second random person that comes in and states more or less what I have stated on Tewfik, yet the moderators seem not to get it? As a matter of fact, at the begining of this process the moderator had to ask Tewfik to change his tone, yet this seesm to be forgotten? Now I am getting disheartened: in another related moderation procedure a person started talking speaking off wiki and off MedCab and derailed the process. Perhaps Tewfik is using the same tactic? I ask the moderators explain their motives and if they have had off-wiki contact with Tewfik or anyone who supports him? I mean, how can a number of random people with no contact to each other people be essentially saying the same thing, and the moderators saying they don't see it?--Cerejota 20:25, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have had off-wiki conversation with Tewfik. The nature of the conversation was one that in no way changed my opinion of any party at all. So, you can either see that I was biased from the start, or that I am not biased. I remind you (gah, linking to a policy) that Wikipedia is not a democracy, and simply because there are more people against Tewfik than supporting means nothing.

Please, I ask you again to produce evidence that he is a wikilaywer, as you have not done so yet. EDIT: By evidence, I mean either one diff showing explicit wikilaywering, or a series of diffs showing a trend that is wikilaywering. GofG _|^|_| Contribs 23:09, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I ask you to respectfully recuse yourself from this proceeding, based on your admission you had off-wiki conversations with Tewfik, and did not disclose this until asked. I find it impossible to accept as neutral a moderator who breaches my trust in this manner. Nothing personal, but you inability to see my provided evidence, while others do, coupled with this admission, lead me to not being able to trust you anymore. As to evidence of wikilawyering, see below. I mean, he is doing it right here!--Cerejota 04:49, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cerejota, I highly recommend you review WP:Wikilawyering. Quoting a policy is not wikilawyering. Tewfik^Talk 05:26, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your recommendation, but I have re-read it many times in the last few weeks... For the umpteenth time Tewfik, it is not the quoting of policy, it is the intepretation you give to policy, and your use of policy to stiffle and prosecute those you disagree with you that makes you, in my view, a wikilawyer. Since I have said this before, I am either not being clear or you are just ignoring me.

In the case below (besides the extremely prosecutorial tone, inappropiate IMHO), your use of [WP:SPAM] doesn't seem appropiate, you are "intepreting policy beyond their stated" scope. And WP:SOCKS allows the creation of multiple accounts if they are no malicious. Your use is clearly wikilawyering designed to make you sound important and prosecutorial, rather than engaging on the goal of those polices... for example "man, posting all that stuff is just bothersome" or "man your multiple accounts are confussing the beejezzus out of me". There is a difference between being a prosecutor and being an interested party.

I could live with your wikilawyering if you used it with equal vigor to prosecute those who agree with your edits: it would show you are a procedure freak fit to be admin. But your selective use of this knowledge is wikilawyering: you are interpreting policy beyond its scope.

Lastly your arrogance is off-putting: who the hell are you to be giving "notes to our newer visitor"? Jimbo? And you just di this to me by "reminding" me to read wikilawyering... Can't you just not see how having that attitude makes it difficult for people to relate to you, or you just don't care?

Lastly, I take the opportunity to ask you to address points in full, not selectively. You have this tendency to ignore what others are saying and go on tnagents, lets get back: what did you and the moderator speak about off-wiki?--Cerejota 13:24, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• A note to our newest visitor: When you post messages to 20 users, that is WP:Spam. When you use 2 different accounts, that is the definition of WP:Sock (I acknowledged to the user when I made the statement that I understood his use not to be malicious, but requested he cease due to the confusion it caused, which he did). Tewfik^Talk 02:39, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The 'definition' of WP:SOCK according to Jimbo Wales "multiple usernames are really only a problem if they are used as a method of troublemaking of some sort." See also "Legitimate uses of multiple accounts". I have been creating new articles and uploading images with one, editing with my IP address in unlocked articles, and then decided to switch all my efforts to this ID. If on the occasion highlighted I fail to notice I am not logged in then correct it does it violate WP:SOCK? You immediately implied I was in violation. You have failed to understand the policy yet throw it around like confetti pretending you do. Wikilawyering.

Non disruptive polling is permitted Tewfik. Read WP:SPAM: "If there are a small handful of editors who share your taste and/or philosophy, it is sometimes acceptable to contact them with regard to a specific issue as long as it does not become disruptive". Again, you fail to understand the policy and bandy it around as if you do. Wikilawyering.

My edits on wikipedia are constructive and non disruptive, my contact with editors concerned with balance or who could be expected to have an interest in the article were also non disruptive. I have contributed using three ID's to localise my activities, and have now decided to move all activities to one account. Stop claiming I infringe wikipedia policies until you are actually aware of what they say. RandomGalen 13:51, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I will only repeat what I have already said: I never accused or implied a malicious usage of sockpuppets. I said that it was frowned upon (which it is), and that it is confusing (which it was). I also noted on this page that you hadn't been malicious. And "a few interested parties" is not the same as 20 individuals. There is some acceptance if you notify equal amounts on both sides, but you notified primarily (if not totally) people from one side. Cheers, Tewfik^Talk 15:30, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Now into the guise of prosecutor arguing the definition of "a small handful of editors" in the policy guidelines :) I did not disrupt. Im entitled to use multiple accounts, no secret is made of it. Im entitled to contact other editors asking for comment on balance. Not once did I indicate that my efforts had produced a consensus.

You constantly asserted violations of policy despite your assertions being at odds with; the text of the policies, the willingness of those asked to comment in stating their views, the lack of complaint on the part of those contacted, and the actual principle and goal of the policies, designed to halt troublemaking.

Some examples of your assertions about WP:SPAM, WP:SOCK & WP:Consensus:

"I don't appreciate the WP:Spamming that RandomGalen engaged in"

"I should repeat that WP:Spamming like-minded users isn't the same as WP:Consensus"

"..it is extremely bad form to WP:Spam, and that does not constitute WP:Consensus"

"If you dispute that you engaged in WP:Spamming, I'll be glad to display the dozen or so difs (check your contributions if you forgot)"

"I should add that the use of WP:Sockpuppets is frowned upon, and at the very least is confusing to readers of this conversation. While you note on your User:RandomGalen user page that you are also 82.29.227.171, I would encourage you to pick one identity and stick with it"

"The number of editors who posted agreement with you is irrelevant in light of the WP:Spamming that elicited their comment"

Your assertons about various policies is in response to what Tewfik? No disruption was caused, no malicious intent on my part in evidence, no protests from users I contacted, no claims of consensus. In fact, no violation of any policies at all. So why would you be asserting policy violations? Maybe wikilawyering definition #3 is applicable? "Hiding behind misinterpretations of policy to justify inappropriate edits".

At best your assertion of policy violations appear to be exercises in cherrypicking if not downright fraudulent attempts to pervert the spirit of the policies to your agenda. Both the litany of incorrect assertions, and the attempt to imply violation of WP:SOCK all have the same aim- to belittle the validity of points raised by others or to negate their validity altogether. Perversion of the policies. Wikilawyering. RandomGalen 18:27, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I will again restate this: As the dif I linked to and the statements that you have provided show, I never accused you of maliciously using sockpuppets. I did state that their use was frowned upon, and that they were confusing. And I stand by my assertion that you spammed, which has nothing to do with user protests. Tewfik^Talk 18:38, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Of course you stand by your assertions. Your problem is that you cant actually show any violations per the text or principle of the policies. You can only smear and invoke demons with the cry "Policy Violation!!", whilst ignoring the entirety of the policy, along with its underlying intent and cherrypicking to suit your agenda.

This is a behaviour described in the wikilawyer definition under #2 & #3

• Asserting that technical interpretation of Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines should override the principles they express.
• Hiding behind misinterpretations of policy to justify inappropriate edits.

RandomGalen 19:58, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Do you deny requesting comment from 20 other editors? All I did was point out that you shouldn't do so, and note that the subsequent comments on Talk from solicited editors did not now make your position more of a consensus. When you stated that you perceived a belligerent tone in my comments, I tried to make clear that that was not my intention. I want to make clear that that is still not my intention, and I'm really sorry if you feel that I'm smearing you or invoking demons. Lets just get on with the business of editing. Cheers, Tewfik^Talk 00:54, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(To Cerejota, I was afraid if I responded below his post it would not be noticed.) As I explained before; my offwiki business never influences my mind. If I was biased, i was biased to begin with.

Saying that Tewfik "invokes demons" is a clear indicator that you need to calm down. We are having a mediation, please do not overstep the line. GofG _|^|_| Contribs 20:19, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say that Tewfik invoked demons. Please read again. It was RandomGalen.

Now, I thought I asked you to recuse, are you ignoring me? I again respectfully request you recuse yourself as per my stated reasons. You seriously breached my trust. Perhaps you don't see how you did this, but you did. Sorry, as I stated in the desk, I have nothign against you and you were good but this is a serious breach.

Furthermore, I have asked both you and Tewfik to diclose these conversations, yet neither one of you have. This goes against a spirit of collegiality and honesty, and creates the impression of partiality, and impression any moderation process must live without if it is to be a sucessful process.

Lastly, for the replacement moderator I state that while I agree RandomGalen has been uncvil, he is yet another person who states more or less the same. Wikipedia is not a democracy, but it isn't an alternate reality either: for a neutral moderator to ignore repeated, unconnected statements from different sources with the same theme on Tewfik should be, in my opinion, something to take into consideration. I do agree it should be of secondary importance to the issues between Tewfik and me, but should not be summarily swept aside, and should be enagged in their essence. Two evils don't make one good, but One goos can make two evils...--Cerejota 01:22, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I will quite gladly disclose our conversation. I am going to email it to you right now. I ask that you not take offense in any way, and I also ask that you not post it anywhere publicly unless you feel that it has relevancy on the mediation. Coming through email... GofG _|^|_| Contribs 02:47, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your email address has not been verified. I cannot send you an email until you do so. GofG _|^|_| Contribs 02:49, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for triple posting, but I must add that since I have given you ample time to give evidence, in the form of a diff, to the fact that Tewfik is a wikilaywer, and you have not given any after I have asked you to several times ( [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], I believe I was clear enough), I'm going to close the wikilaywer conflict. I'm sorry :(. GofG _|^|_| Contribs 03:02, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

August 15 onwards

[edit]

1) I aunthenticated my new email almost a month ago "Your e-mail address was authenticated on 13:45, 18 July 2006." So I don't get it. My email is verified. Don't know if a Crat can confirm this but its the truth.

2) I belive I have asked you to recuse yourself, yet you continue to act as if you are a legitimate moderator. You have no addressed my points and continue to ignore me. Why? --Cerejota 05:53, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Mediation Cabal is an informal process, and as such there are no 'legitimate' mediators persay, all I can do as a coordinator is state that certain people are not officially affiliated with the mediation cabal, but essentially anyone can offer to mediate cases even if they aren't on the list of mediators - I'm looking into this situation to see if I can help in some way - but I'm not exactly sure what is being disputed here. Is this a content dispute or a user behavior dispute? Is there something you are looking to gain from this informal mediation? If all you want is to stop being harassed, then that is as simple as walking away from each other and avoiding each other in the future, no matter what the circumstances you've had in the past. At this rate this process doesn't seem to have any clear goal that I can see. Could someone clarify and explain why this is more difficult than a simple agreement to walk away? Thank you. Cowman109^Talk 06:02, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All I want is an apology and a promise from Tewfik that his prosecutorial wikilawyering and harrament of me and others will not continue. It has stopped considerably since this process started, but I am still waiting to hear even an inkling of recognition and apology from Tewfik, not even when I have apologized to him.

To digress, I do understand and support the mediation cabal and the principles behind it. So my loss of trust as a moderator on a particular moderator cannot be intepreted as a loss of trust in the process. IT just means that someone made an error in judgement.--Cerejota 06:12, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, then; that sounds simple. So, my proposal is that you both simply recognize that you may have had your differences and that it is important that we remember to focus on content, not on the contributor regarding content, and agree to simply avoid upsetting each other in the future. If that requires simply not speaking with each other, so be it. A simple apology from each of you (or again, if done already) agreeing that this situation should not have escalated so far and acknowledging that there are no hard feelings would be best. So, how does that sound? Cowman109^Talk 06:44, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I pretty much agreed to this when Tamuz proposed it, with a footnote caveat. Tewfik, unfiortunatelly, ignored that.--Cerejota 07:04, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(EC*2)I had no problem walking away - I did not initiate this proceeding. However, Cerejota continues to level these accusations at me, to the point that I feel harassed. That leads me to believe that either A) the accusations are false, and they should stop B) the accusations are true, and I should learn how not to repeat the offensive behaviour. To those ends we are discussing each of the claims of my improper action, and reaching an objective answer as to whether I committed them or not. So far this has clarified that two of the claims are unjustified. If you have a another idea for achieving a resolution, I'm sure we would all like to hear it, but if Cerejota still believes that I am engaging in improper behaviour and calls me on it, and I disagree, then I don't think an apology would solve much. Cheers, Tewfik^Talk 07:24, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Only one claim. Thats is exactlly what I mean, you ignore reality: Prove to me that two claims are unjustified. One I apologized the other was declared "no agreement" by GofG after I had asked him to recuse, twice. Unless "no agreement" automagically became "unjustified". Do you see it Tewfik? Do you?

And you have never made any effort to compromise, with me as a person, or to apologize.--Cerejota 09:09, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Tewfik, Cerejota's claim wasn't unjustified, and we haven't proved it either way. Cerejota, I ask that we continue, and not go through the business of changing mediators. Of course, it's your decision. GofG _|^|_| Contribs 13:49, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake then. I took the closing of the claim to mean it was disproved. If indeed that is not the case, I would like to finish dealing with the wikilawyering until a conclusion is reached, especially as that is a claim that Cerejota continues to allege about my editing. In terms of an apology, I've mentioned several times that I'm not opposed in theory, but as this deals with ongoing behaviour, and not some incident in the past, I don't see it as being at all productive.

If I may make an observation Cerejota, it seems that a lot of what you see as objectionable about me is the attitude you perceive that I edit with. Consider that text-only communication is plagued by a lack of 'emotional context' (if that is the correct terminology). Tewfik^Talk 16:01, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I also thought that GofG meant that the claim was disproved, but if that's not what he meant, I don't think we can close it before arriving at some conclusion, or at least a compromise. This is one of Cerejota's main claims, and - if Tewfik is wikilawyering (which I don't think he is) - then he should learn how to avoid it. Tamuz ^(Talk) 13:36, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine, but until Cerejota supplies what he thinks is evidence we can't really get anywhere. GofG _|^|_| Contribs 16:19, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

False and true and pretty damn muddled in actuality... so I think we should work on accepting our differences rather than discerning the Absolute Truth^TM. (yes, another one of my trademarks) Levelling accusations and citing evidence is really a crappy way to go about mediation, since it just further diverges the two parties away from each other. This is the very reason Tewfik feels harassed, accusations in a mediation only worsen the situation. The very name of this case, "Tewfik harrassment of Cerejota", sums up why we have an 112 KB discussion on our hands. --The Prophet Wizard of the Crayon Cake 00:40, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think our main problem here is differences in the definition of Wikilawyering. Also, I think that the definition of the term is irrelevant - if we find that Tewfik has acted unpolitely or even offensively, it doesn't matter how we label his behaviour (the labeling itself being a kind of Wikilawyering - relating actions to policy-breaking instead of to being offensive or unjust). I suggest we stop using the term, as it only causes confusion. Tamuz ^(Talk) 09:46, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As it has been nearly a month since there's been any activity, I'm going to stop checking up on this mediation. Please talk to me on my talk page if there's any activity, rather than expecting me to just see it. GofG _|^|_| Contribs 00:24, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation

[edit]

In response to the request made above, and in an attempt to solve any dispute between the users User:Tewfik and User:Cerejota, this case has been listed for informal mediation on the Mediation Cabal.

I am User:GofG, the mediator. I will respond to all comments impartially and civilly. Will the two users involved, in addition to any user wishing to take part in the mediation, please sign up below?

• GofG (Mediator)
• The Prophet Wizard of the Crayon Cake (Second Mediator)
• Cerejota (Disputant)
• Tewfik (Disputant)
• Tamuz
• FightCancer
• Strothra
• Paraphelion

Discussion moved to 2006_Israel-Lebanon_conflict/Article_debate_on_number_of_civilian_casualties_and_importance_of_missiles GofG _|^|_| Contribs 21:12, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

At the time, I was not aware those issues were resolved. We'll continue on this page. I apologize :D. GofG _|^|_| Contribs 23:10, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hakuna Matata :] Tamuz ^(Talk) 23:26, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]