Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Woggly

I believe this RfC has been filed in an attempt to intimidate and harass me, in response to my prior filing of an RfC on Israelbeach's conduct. I also suspect the users supposedly certifying this RfC are puppets of Israelbeach's, whether sockpuppets or meatpuppets. Though a check of their IPs proved inconclusive, their contributions to Wikipedia are those of classic puppets (i.e.: a small number of total contributions in similar style, always in unqualified support of Israelbeach, always in relation to articles over which Israelbeach has encountered opposition or to articles related to the Israel News Agency of which Israelbeach is editor). The same holds true for Bluegrasstom (talk · contribs). I therefore reject this RfC until such time as it is certified by users who are not acting as puppets of Israelbeach. --Woggly 11:04, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, you can't exactly reject an RFC. However, this RFC may as well be folded into Woggly's original RFC, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Israelbeach, since in any case the behaviour of both Woggly and Israelbeach will be need to be addressed in the earlier RFC to evaluate what's been going. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 14:19, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(this comment was moved from the Outside views section by BostonMA 22:55, 25 April 2006 (UTC)) BostonMA as stated on Tom's page it was not a personal attack, rather an observation of an adm who rather than resolving the issue with a clarification used a block which only enflamed the issue. My comment on this matter was a far better action than creating a RfC. I am a "she", last I checked. Best wishes, Bonnieisrael 21:31, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see little indication that attempts were made to resolve this dispute — in fact, that section cites Woggly saying: I will now remove the offending paragraph from the article in question, alert other adminstrators to the situation here, and wash my hands of this idiotic affair. This indicates she was ready to withdraw from, not continue in engaging, the dispute. Thus, this RfC reads like a needless reesecalation, and I will be deleting it in 48 hours unless I see how the signatories attempted to resolve this dispute (for each one of them, for a minimum total of two). El_C 01:04, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Correction: RfC has been up for ~72 hrs, and should have been deleted already. I'll give the signatories twelve hrs, starting now. El_C 01:41, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Woggly continues as of this date her personal attacks against Israelbeach stating: "Perhaps you can pull the wool over the eyes of someone who is not immersed in Israeli society and culture, but all this bluster doesn't fool or scare me for a minute. Part of the reason I'm pursuing this with you is ..." Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Woggly In addition, rather than seeking to resolve this issue she states that she will continue to "pursue" conflict. This does not serve the interests of the Wikipedia community. Bonnieisrael 21:50, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1. In response to attempting to resolve this dispute Bonnie, Nancy and I have repeatly invited Woggly to meet with us. She has refused (Ra'ananatalk page) and per above para is only concerned to "pursue" this personal attack.

2. I don't recall that I or any anyone else stating this case has entered into name calling i.e. - "creep," "idiot," "dangerous," and many more adjectives and nouns for which Woggly has blasted throughout Wikipedia against a user.
3. We have invited several neutral adms to join this discussion in the last 12 hours. I kindly request additional time that they become familiar with this RfC.
4. Israelbeach was unfairly blocked for a period of 24 hours, denying him the time to coordinate a case. This was lack of due process given the fact that he was blocked under the rule of making legal threats when in fact he openly stated before he was blocked that he was not engaging anyone with litigation and would cease editing if he did take legal action in accordance with Wiki policy.
5. We need to point out that this posting is coming from Israel which during the 12 hour extension everyone is sleeping ;>
6. We need a fair extension on this RfC as it pertains to a Wiki adm and Wiki would not want to give the impression that all Wiki adm stick together by denying the substance, the personal attacks and clear harassment illustrated in this RfC. Thank you for your efforts El_C. IsraelBeach 23:42, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Okay 48 hour extension, but I think you misunderstand the role of an RfC; the reason why so much stress is placed on resolving the dispute [I'm still not sure that could be established on all of your parts], that it isn't an indictment. Even if it'd pass and on its basis the Arbitrators would choose to accept this case (by no means a certainty), it's unlikely you (and the other signatories) will fair well. Woggly faces a minor (symbolic) reprimand, at worse. That is my own impression, perhaps I'm wrong, but I think if you pull any random admin, they're likely to say the same thing. Again, I'm under the impression the RfC has pulled her back into the dispute, notwithstanding her aforementioned reaction.

1. Note that inviting someone from the virtual world to meet corporeally can be viewed as intimidating in the context of a dispute.
2. Good, I'm looking forward to further opinion; I was unable to o study the case comprehensively (nor were all my quries answered).
3. The block [unfair or otherwise] is a mitigating factor, I accept that and am taking it into account with respect to this extension.
4. Yes, I realize the IDT difference of sleepiness. I did actually ended up taking it into account, and it has been well over 12 hours, in fact.
5. No problem. Please review my querries on this page, and propperly format —and document— the RfC (check out a few other RfC for examples). These are necessery preconditions, but I can't stress enough how key establishing the attempt to resolve the dispute is. And I think you might be wasting your time in this venue. Hopefuly, (an)other admin(s) will be on a scene soon to offer their feedback. El_C 03:33, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for providing a fair and just period of time for this RfC to be resolved.
I want to take this opportunity to respond to the charges that I am here solely to promote my own business. I love the concept of Wikipedia. Through both the nomination to delete and this process of RfC I have gained tremendous respect for the management of Wikipedia and the volunteers who make this academic world happen.

Wiki is very powerful as it allows a non professional editor who may happen to have and wishes to add yet another small piece of information to one of the several thousands of articles placed here. I cherish information as most journalists do. As most academics embrace.

I have edited several articles here which have no relationship whatsoever to my many occupations such as Ariel Sharon, Ehud Olmert, the Holocaust and Mickey Marcus to name just a few.

To attempt to crucify me simply based on one of my occupations, the fact that one of the hats I wear is that of public relations consultant is a very weak, sad and biased comment. This would then mean that Wikipedia should censor all PR and public affairs professionals who have articles here, who edit articles here (and they know how to edit better than anyone) and that Wikipedia's marketing department and it's own PR firm should immediatley cease all activity.

Lastly, I have done more to market Wikipedia through writing about it on the Israel News Agency / Google News then any vain action to promote myself. At my age I have learned that it is far better to give, than to receive. To state that my only interest here is commercial is a travesty, especially given my passion to highlight children's basic human rights, for which only our children, their parents and all of our families may benefit from.

No one compensates me for the many hours I spend in Wikipedia, not even for this sentence. If I can create more articles and edit existing ones with the many years of professional journalism / communications experience that I have - then we all shall benefit. Why Woggly is threatened by me, created a RfC against me and through personal attacks calls me a "creep," an "idiot," and "dangerous," for all to see is truly a strange mystery. For that reason this RfC was created. For it was only after trying to resolve and failing to solve all issues with her. When one volunteers to do some good in this world you should never be subjected to such verbal and emotional abuse, rather encouraged to pursue team editing here with an abundance of positive and warm reinforcement. Best wishes, IsraelBeach 05:42, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for this extension, but it discriminates among many of us who are religious or "shomer shabbat" that is after Friday (Israel time)at sunset until Saturday at sunset we do not work nor use the computer. Please extend the extension to cover till the end of Sunday. This would also provide weekend users of Wikipedia to participate in this RfC.

But I am really disappointed as to why my above remarks are being ignored by the administrators regarding Woggly's continued personal attacks and why this RfC is being delayed. As I stated above: :::*Woggly continues as of this date her personal attacks against Israelbeach stating: "Perhaps you can pull the wool over the eyes of someone who is not immersed in Israeli society and culture, but all this bluster doesn't fool or scare me for a minute. Part of the reason I'm pursuing this with you is ..." Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Woggly In addition, rather than seeking to resolve this issue she states that she will continue to "pursue" conflict. This does not serve the interests of the Wikipedia community. Bonnieisrael 11:16, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine, for those many of you who are shomrey shabt (yes, I do know what that is), I'll extend it by 24 hrs. But let's be clear about a few things: self-promotion need not involve commercial promotion (& I didn't even know a business was involved, I thought this was a nonprofit org.), it can entail items seen as altruistic; this RfC has not been propperly certified — it is poorly-documented and attempts to resolve the dispute need to have happned before not after the RfC had been filed; I'm uncertain what it "being delayed" precisely means in this context, but again, I urge reading the instructions carefuly and to also to glance at a few other RfCs as examples. And again, RfCs are not indictments and they are usually rejected when viewed as punitive (this is where efforts to resolve the dispute before it has been filed come into play). שבת שלום El_C 19:11, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(Taken from El_C talk page) This is the first time that I have visited your user talk page El_C, as such I missed out on some commentary. Pleased that I am here now to say 1. you have an impressive user page, 2. thanks for the extensions and objective feedback for which I and others are now acting on. Thanks for speaking with Woggly to turn down the innuendos. I believe that these attacks are motivated from either political / religious beliefs (threatened perhaps by a new, successful non-profit Yahoo community forum in Israel that I created - "NewRaanana" which was the subject of this cover story in the Jerusalem Post.

If I have sounded "near- patronising and condescending" at times I apologize. In addition to my commercial and non-profit work, I serve in the IDF Spokesperson's Office (res.) and consult the Ministry of Foreign Affairs so that I am well experienced in having personal attacks thrown my way - but not by fellow Israelis, not on Wikipedia. :<

I will try my best to help you resolve this dispute. שבת שלום, best wishes,"

I would like to add that the next time you speak with Woggly you can pass on my standing invite to have coffee - either with me and or those who have supported me here. There is no reason for conflict between us - unless their is an agenda for which Woggly and friends are not making public. Best wishes, IsraelBeach 21:55, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I already responded on my page, but regarding the addendum, I actually would prefer it if we kept all interactions as professional as possible at this stage — otherwise, the potential for miscommunication is too great, I feel, so long as the dispute remains unresolved. El_C 00:20, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Israelbeach is presently blocked. Please extend this RfC until his block has been lifted. Nancetlv 12:39, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(these comments were moved from the Description section by Woggly 06:05, 27 April 2006 (UTC))[reply]

anyone can have multiple ip addresses - it proves nothing. israelbeach works with computers all the time both at work and at home and will be the first to admit that. Hence he could easily have several IPs though that he would never admit. It would be interesting, were woggly to take him up on (though I believe it to be a bad idea) meeting for coffee to see whether he could show up with Bonnie and David as well and have them all in the same room at the same time... Kfceater 12:44, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Name the place and the time. I will bring my camera. But what is truly ironic about your request for credibility is that Kfceater does not even have a one word description on his Wiki user page. IsraelBeach 13:42, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The lack of this description is not pertinent to our purposes, neither so much whether these are sockpuppets or real-life (or otherwise virtual) aquintences, nor the whole 'bring your camera' bit. What is pertinent is that these are users with very few contributions, and that the attempts to resolve the dispute has yet to be clearly established; and indeed, appears difficult to do so considering that prior to this RfC having been filed, Woggly expressed that she will be withdrawing from the dispute. El_C 09:41, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To be perfectly clear: I withdrew from the edit war on Ra'anana. However, I did not withdraw any of my charges against Israelbeach. I still find his general conduct and the conduct of his cohorts/puppets reprehensible, as outlined on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Israelbeach and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Users: Nancetlv and Bonnieisrael. --Woggly 09:53, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I see. My point, though, is that you seemed ready to withdraw from the editorial dispute, opting to let other admins handle it (less so whether your view of his conduct remained unchanged). As for Ra'anana, what was the dispute about, in a sentence. As for the RfC, it's rather lengthy. As for your However, that's cause for a (pedantic) grr. El_C 10:14, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Duly chastised for howevering. The dispute on Ra'anana regards a single paragraph at the end of the article, which Israelbeach and his friends/puppets insist on including[1], despite several editors' attempts to explain how this constitutes undue weight. User:Israelbeach, User:Nancetlv, User:Davidstone, User:Bonnieisrael have worked as a tagteam, reverting the paragraph time and time again, always careful to avoid 3RR from a single user. I claim they are all puppets of the same user, as seen by their low contribution count of clearly coordinated contributions. The edit war on Ra'anana was leading nowhere: back and forth reverting is pointless, and I as a single user cannot beat a revert tagteam. However This same tagteam is now employing the same methods on Joel Leyden. It's not the articles themselves I care about, so much as the method by which Israelbeach makes and enforces whatever edits he feels like - and attacks and harasses anyone who attempts to oppose him. --Woggly 10:29, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would have removed that paragraph, too; totally out of proportion (esp. considering the size of this city article). And "has two ex-wives"? I think they meant divorced twice! [not the signatories, who want it removed due to some inexplicable reason which I'm sure will be revealed] El_C 10:52, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Because apparantly it's all tied up in Israelbeach's mind with a custody battle. Several editors have already been accused of being in cahoots with his ex-wife. --Woggly 10:54, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That is a truly unenviable position. But it's difficult to see how Wikipedia could be used to aid this plight. Clearly, established users with thousands of edits across many articles will (within reason) recieve greater deference than those with less than a hundred and a narrow focus. Wikipedia isn't a court of law (and RfC isn't a trial) — its main concern should be to sustain itself, editorially. El_C 11:14, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm moving this recent comment by Israelbeach: [2] To its proper place. User:Benon endorsed the outside view by User:BostonMA; he did not endorse your response. --Woggly 09:35, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Or those registered in the last few weeks: please limit your participation to the talk page. You will only confuse me by editing the project page. El_C 10:29, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It should be noted as per above paras that is should be the quality of edits and not the quantity of edits. We have many professional editors working at Wiki as volunteers, including myself, who foresake valuable real working time and deadlines to be here. IsraelBeach 00:09, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is never an excuse for a personal attack or verbal abuse. Woggly has called Israelbeach everything from a "creep" (stated on user talk page User:Jayjg to an "idiot" which has been documented. She has uploaded DisneyWorld accusations against me and apologized later to both me and others. Woggly has stated on user talk page User:Jayjg)"most of the voters don't know enough about Israel to judge notability in Israel -not to mention the sockpuppet votes he uses just in case." Here she ignores all entries of my professional activity as witnessed with a simple search on Google and from a very recent cover story for which I was the subject of by The Jerusalem Post.
But far worse, she has tried to create an environment of paranoia to those who do not know me by stating without any verification that I am a "dangerous" person (as seen again on the Ra'anana talk page in direct response to my attempt to resolve this dispute). There is no excuse for this behaivor. None, especially by an administrator. IsraelBeach 08:51, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It has not been propperly documented. Where are the diffs? El_C 09:53, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If it is links that you are referring to, I am now uploading them. IsraelBeach 10:57, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, please. For the record, I have worked as a journalist for Galei Tzahal (Israel Defense Force Radio) and for Ha'aretz and the fact that I'd never before heard of you or your agency is significant. Granted, you're excellent at manipulating Google to give you lots of hits, and your articles are sometimes picked up by The Jerusalem Post. Whoo double hoo. Perhaps you can pull the wool over the eyes of someone who is not immersed in Israeli society and culture, but all this bluster doesn't fool or scare me for a minute. Part of the reason I'm pursuing this with you is to keep you from using Wikipedia as a vehicle for your self aggrandizement, or to increase your hits on Google. --Woggly 12:18, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And ladies and gentlemen - Woggly just keeps throwing out more and more personal insults and threats. This time you do not need a link to find it! You decide, is Woggly speaking in a manner which creates for a warm and friendly Wiki community or is her above diatribe evidence enough for this RfC? Best wishes, IsraelBeach 14:27, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean warm and friendly like this: [3]? --Woggly 15:04, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please reread the instructions which state:

Users editing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Response") should not edit the "Outside Views" section, except to endorse an outside view.

and move your comments to the talk page as appropriate. --BostonMA 14:41, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't we establish the notability or lack thereof of the organization. I'm not really interested in the interpersonal stuff at this stage. We'll get to it. At any rate, I certainly haven't heard of it. Who in Israel has? It seems to be an unbalanced mention. No other city article mentions a local(?) organization of the sort, and the city article in question is brief, to begin with. It appears difficult to justify. That Jerusalem post article doen't mention its activities/scope as an organization very precisely. Does it actually have thousands of [active] members? What has they accomplished aside from the aforementioned meeting with the Mayor. Please provide sources. Also, it would be useful to review Biographies of living persons#Dealing with articles about yourself. Everyone else, please tone it down with the innuend and give me a chance. El_C 19:34, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

in today's comments on the Raanana page Bonnie says "I am noones alterego and it has been suggested that we meet over coffee. This warm move to resolve issues was turned down." In fact if one checks the history of the conversation the only place where meeting over coffe was mentioned in said conversation was where israelbeach says

"On this page one can witness how accusations of "being dangerous" to other Wiki editors and using sockpuppets were never confirmed before she accused me of these actions and others. Woogly, I cordially invite you to have coffee with me at the Gam Cafe in Ra'anana and discuss offline what issues you have with me and Wikipedia. Communication is the key to understanding and respect. Best wishes. IsraelBeach 02:35, 24 April 2006 (UTC)"

I don't see anything here about bonnie meeting for coffee with anyone - the invitation is issued by israelbeach to woggly in the singular. It seems one must take "Bonnie" at his/her word and assume s/he's telling the truth...except that he simply forgot that his earlier invitation was extended under the israelbeach identity. Following which s/he attacked woggly with this rfc endorsed by israelbeach and bonnie (if "and" is the appropriate term). due to woggly's apparently justified (looking at the evidence above) accusation that Bonnie is a sock puppet of israelbeach. I'd suggest this bogus claim against someone clearly just trying to do their job be dropped and that bonnie be cautioned to remember which id s/he's posting her invitations under...IMHO this is rather embarassing... 84.94.110.99 14:31, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As you don't ID yourself, I will not respond to a "ghost. To an Israeli in Jerusalem hiding behind an IP address located in Amsterdam.

I know your identity, but according to Wiki policy I will not reveal your personal details. You continue to ignore Wiki policy which clearly states: "Calling someone a liar, or accusing him/her of slander or libel. Even if true, such remarks tend to aggravate rather than resolve a dispute."
You continue to request the truth from others yet you attempt to hide your own details! IsraelBeach 23:25, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Due to new threats left on my talk page and other locations[4] and "outing" of my real life identity[5][6], 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)[reply]

Question: as long as Israelbeach remains indefinitely blocked, is there a point in my taking this up to arbitration? Arbcom have their hands pretty full anyway, no? --Woggly 20:56, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm certainly inclined to entertain extra-administrative authority; of the sort which won me praise here! El_C 00:36, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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 18:09, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I want to express my outrage and dismay at the unacceptable provocation on the part of Israelbeach. Rather than taking advantage of my multiple extensions, so as to provide himself and the other signatories a chance to fix this RfC, which continues to read as punitive and as a form of ahrrassment, he has taken it upon himself to wage battle against Woggly. Wikipedia is not a battle ground, revealing personal info. will not be tolerated, legal threats are strictly prohibited. Israelbeach has violated all these policies yesterday. The rest will be up to the arbitrators. El_C 20:18, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]