Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Israelbeach

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 "I think we should RfC Tom Harrison for harassment..." 2 Arbitration 3 Block of Israelbeach 4 Unblock Israelbeach 5 Enforce Wiki Policy Equally - Block Woggly 6 DIscussion moved from main page 6.1 Outside View by Idf-barak 15:13, 2 May 2006 (UTC) 7 User has been blocked

[edit] "I think we should RfC Tom Harrison for harassment..."

Bonnieisrael (talk • contribs) left this comment on my talk page. Tom Harrison ^Talk 17:26, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Should also mention that an RfC has already been opened against me as the initiator of this RfC: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Woggly --Woggly 05:38, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Arbitration

Due to new threats left on my talk page and other locations[1] and "outing" of my real life identity[2][3], I request that immediate action be taken agains Israelbeach (talk • contribs). I caution Israelbeach that if he should make any attempt to contact me in the real world outside of Wikipedia, I will take the necessary legal action to protect myself. I am taking the matter up to arbitration, and as of now relinquish my duties as sysop and will no longer be making any non-related contributions to Wikipedia until the matter of Israelbeach is resolved. --Woggly 06:14, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Block of Israelbeach

Note that I have blocked Israelbeach, see WP:ANI#Requesting immediate action. The block is currently of indefinite length. --bainer (talk) 13:06, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Indefinite lenght? Is there any chance of him being unblocked in the far future if he promises to change his ways? If I am not wrong, an indefinite lenght block is a rarity for any user and a bit harsh. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 16:48, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi Siva1978. From what I have observed, indefinite blocking is a typical action taken in cases where another user's personal information is revealed. I don't think it is a matter of harshness. The need to protect confidential information related to editors outweighs the contributions that might be made by a single editor. It is conceivable that Israelbeach may, after time, convince an admin to perform an unblock. However, an admin is very unlikely to take such action without a very convincing demonstration that the user has reformed -- not merely that the user promises to refrain from specific egregious acts, but that the user's positive contributions to the project will substantially outweigh their negative. A history of edit warring, harsh language, possible sock puppets, an RfC which appears retaliatory, etc. indicate a heavy burden to overcome. --BostonMA 21:50, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Note that "indefinite" is not the same as "infinite". The block is currently of an unfixed duration. I have said to Israelbeach that I will unblock him if he apologises to Woggly and if Woggly accepts that apology. So the block will end when that happens. --bainer (talk) 09:47, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unblock Israelbeach

I agree with Siva1979 - indefinte blocking is extreme. It is not a question of Israelbeach changing his ways; it's Woggly's personal attacks and peronal threats that need to stop, such as Woggly's legal threat above: "I caution Israelbeach that if he should make any attempt to contact me in the real world outside of Wikipedia, I will take the necessary legal action to protect myself. "

I think that all this has been blown way out of proportion. The original issue raised by Israelbeach was related to father's rights in Ra'anana, a very legitimate news item for discussion. Whether or not this is the appropriate forum for discussion of the news item (i.e. Wikipedia rather than the press) has long been forgotten. Woggly's personal attacks and legal threats towards Israelbeach and the claim that she is afraid for herself and her children are unfounded and imply that Israelbeach is a dangerous person. What is Woggly's agenda for doing this? I did suggest that she contact me and that I would try to help resolve this issue but Woggly declined. I agree that Israelbeach should not have published personal information. But he was warned and he immediately removed the information as requested. He also stated that he found Woggly's information in a simple google search. The search yielded a site that had a link to Woggly's wikipedia page. In addition, I think the administrator, by blocking Israelbeach, has given unwarranted credibility and support to Woggly personal attacks. harrassment and legal threats. If Israelbeach is blocked for legal threats than Woggly should be blocked for making personal attacks and legal threats as well. Moreover, I agree with nancetlv - the rules have to be enforced equally. It's time to get back on track and stop this unnecessary digression from the real issues. In order to resolve this once and for all, unblock Israelbeach and address Woggly's persistent use of personal attacks and threats. It's time to resolve this and let these two capable editiors continue their work on Wikipedia.Bonnieisrael 18:25, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Please be advised BonnieIsrael appears to be a friend of IsraelBeach outside of Wikipedia. She and several others (inc. IsraelBeach) have tried to make it appear there is strong backing for minority views. Woggly did not attack or threaten anyone, Woggly is the one who has been harassed. It is not a threat to let someone know that you will defend yourself from off-line harrassment through legal means. After seeing the way IsraelBeach and his many 'friends' have behaved here (including posting personal info, which he knew was way out-of-line), I think Woggly is perfectly justified in expressing concern. -DejahThoris 20:06, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Enforce Wiki Policy Equally - Block Woggly

After reading all the facts of this dispute - I really don't understand why Israelbeach has been blocked while Woogly goes on editing after making very clear and transparent personal attacks, legal threats and overall harrasment against Israelbeach.

I would expect that the managment of Wikipedia and its volunteer administrators would have enforced Wikipedia policy equally for both sides. Wikipedia could have prevented the above lawsuit if it acted properly and swiftly. Maybe there is still time to avoid it.

I have also been a victim of personal attacks by Woggly (being named a "sockpuppet" without any evidence). If anyone here is willing to meet or speak with me - you are most welcome.

Some editors here are playing childish but very harmful games to other's personal and commercial reputations instead of focusing on the real mission of Wikipedia - creating a fine community service. Bluegrasstom 08:50, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi. I would be more than happy to meet you. Contact me via the "email this user" link on my User page.

Cymruisrael 09:11, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Why have you been asking people to contact you offline ever since your second edit to wikipedia [4]. Ansell 09:45, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I completely agree with Bluegrasstom that Wikipedia policy must be enforced equally. Also, please note that user:Bluegrasstom has been blocked by user:SlimVirgin for simply expressing his views here. That is pure harassment under Wiki policy. Idf-barak 13:43, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

The above is this user's fifth edit. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 15:17, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] DIscussion moved from main page

[edit] Outside View by Idf-barak 15:13, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I also ask why has Israelbeach been blocked when he openly admits and apologizes for making a mistake. What we must ask ourselves is what is "private details?" I have also checked Google and one can easly see that Woggly openly declares that she uses this username and provides her personal details under it. Israelbeach now threatens legal action because it appears that a few administrators in Wiki have totally ignored Woggly's personal attacks and legal threats against Israelbeach.

[edit] User has been blocked

This editor, along with several alleged sock- or meatpuppets, has been blocked for legal threats and harassment. [5] should have the details. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 02:42, 4 May 2006 (UTC)