Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Israelbeach: Difference between revisions

In order to remain listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the same dispute with a single user, not different disputes or multiple users. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with ~~~~. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: ~~~~}), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 09:04, 14 November 2024 (UTC).

• Israelbeach (talk · contribs · logs)

Users should only edit one summary or view, other than to endorse.

This is a summary written by users who dispute this user's conduct. Users signing other sections ("Response" or "Outside views") should not edit the "Statement of the dispute" section.

{Add summary here, but you must use the section below to certify or endorse it. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries, other than to endorse them.}

Israelbeach (talk · contribs), has stated that he is Joel Leyden: according to the first line of the Joel Leyden article, a professional Search Engine Optimizer [1]. I suspect that Leyden is attempting to use Wikipedia as a tool for his PR firm [2].

He has performed the following actions:

• Threatened other users with legal action
• Created articles (some via sockpuppets) about himself, his privately held business, his employees and former employees and giving as "evidence" of notability references to his own news agency. Has written articles about other non-notables - possibly clients of his PR firm?
• Created sockpuppets to support himself, to defend his articles on AfD, and to circumvent 3RR (see: Wikipedia:Requests for CheckUser#Israelbeach aka Joel Leyden for a list of the suspected sockpuppets)
• Deleted (via one of his sockpuppets) comments of another user who opposed him on a talk page
• Repeatedly adding this paragraph to the article Ra'anana, despite objections on talk page. He has admitted to being personally involved with a lobby for divorced fathers' rights. [3]
• Disregarded consensus
• Circumvented 3RR by means of sockpuppets
• Falsified votes on AfD by means of sockpuppets
• Harrassed other users
• General lack of civility or respect for other users, threatening tone

(Provide diffs. Links to entire articles aren't helpful unless the editor created the entire article. Edit histories also aren't helpful as they change as new edits are performed.)

1. adding AfD tag to another user's page
2. Israelbeach announcing his intention to delete a comment by another user. The offending comment was later indeed deleted from Talk:Ra'anana by Bonnieisrael (talk · contribs), a suspected sockpuppet
3. threat of legal action (under an IP, later altered to his sig);claim to having filed a criminal complaint against another editor
4. edit history showing multiple reverts: about 8 reverts of the same paragraph by Israelbeach, and 4 more by sockpuppets (circumventing 3RR)
5. [www.israelnewsagency.com/wikipediagoogleisraelleyden5580110.html Joel Leyden's own report] on his discovery of Wikipedia, and his effort to get articles about himself and his news agency past AfD.
6. The following item of evidence is in Hebrew! An article from a leading news portal in Israel about a service offered by Joel Leyden's PR company: promising to boost clients' rankings on internet search engines [4] Here's a translation.
7. Suspected sockpuppets:

• Nancetlv (talk · contribs) voted against deletion of Israelbeach's articles[5], [6]
• Achlasaba (talk · contribs) voted against deletion of Israelbeach's articles [7], [8]
• Davidstone (talk · contribs)
• Bonnieisrael (talk · contribs)
• Bluegrasstom (talk · contribs)

{list the policies and guidelines that apply to the disputed conduct}

1. Wikipedia:No legal threats
2. Wikipedia:Sock puppetry
3. Wikipedia:Three-revert rule
4. Wikipedia:Civility
5. Wikipedia:Harassment
6. Wikipedia is not a Search engine optimization tool

(provide diffs and links)

1. [9]
2. Talk:Ra'anana
3. User talk:Rasmus Faber#Talk:Rasmus Faber
4. [10]
5. [11]

{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}

1. --Woggly 11:11, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 15:26, 23 April 2006 (UTC), though I don't agree completely with all the details in the description of the problem, the overall picture seems right.[reply]

This is a summary written by the user whose conduct is disputed, or by other users who think that the dispute is unjustified and that the above summary is biased or incomplete. Users signing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Outside Views") should not edit the "Response" section.

{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.}

I am pleased that Wiki provides a forum for those Wiki editors who have been personally attacked, as I and others have been harassed by both Jpgordon and Woggly who have also vandalized Wiki pages. It is the negative, fraudulent and dangerous actions of Jpgordon and Woggly which create a bad name for Wikipedia.

Background: I am a professional editor and journalist who has served many leading respected international media outlets including UPI, Newsday, the Jerusalem Post and Google News. Entrusted with their good names in all the copy for which I written for them. Furthermore, as an Israel Government accredited journalist and the publisher of the Israel News Agency, as such I continue to strive in maintaining an abundance of credibility, objectivity, balance and lastly a good, understanding heart for the people and events I write about. No human is perfect, including myself and we all make mistakes. I believe without any doubt that Jpgordon and Woggly are making one very big mistake in a campaign to malign my name and reputation.

In fact, one just needs to look at Jpgordon's actions on the Ra'anana page where he repeatly deleted accredited news sources which verified material that I upload onto that page! That Jpgordon and Woggly have the time to make such false accusations as they have below is a very sad and pathetic commentary regarding to their character.

Before going charge by charge, I want to bring to the adms attention one of several of my good faith attempts to communicate with Jpgordon on his discussion page [[12]] where I stated: "Why Have You Removed Two News Links on the Ra'anana Page? Two independent news sources point out gender bias discrimination in Ra'anana, Israel, but yet you delete these sources of published fact. Why? IsraelBeach 21:56, 22 April 2006 (UTC). Jpgordon never responded to my questions. Or should I say that this Request For Comment was his response.[reply]

It is truly sad for Wikipedia that both Jpgordon and Woggly do not know how to communicate with those they are supposed to be helping?

Furthermore, this is how Woggly describes me to other editors on Wiki:
"Asides from just bugging the heck out of me, I truly believe this is a dangerous user, in that he is working out ways to manipulate Wikipedia for his personal gain. I realise this is a severe accusation, (of which Woggly has no substance behind) which is why I would like to get more Wikipedia administrators involved in dealing with this person. If I just go ahead and block him and his sockpuppets, he'll simply lodge a complaint against me and invent some story about this being my personal vendetta or something. And he's bound to pop up again under some different guise. His articles will continue surviving AfD because they're written well enough to seem plausibly noteable, and 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. What do I do? How do I deal with this creep? Thanks. --Woggly 06:53, 23 April 2006 (UTC) Oh my, I've just read this article which was linked to from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joel Leyden, and learned a new term: Search Engine Optimizer. Wouldn't you say this is signing his own confession? --Woggly 07:07, 23 April 2006 (UTC) Jay, I don't have access to the maillists, so, yes, I would appreciate your bringing the matter to the attention of other wkipedians. Thanks. --Woggly 18:06, 23 April 2006 (UTC)"

She has repeatly torn down the Ra'anana page, knowing that it contained 3 verifiable news sources and after doing so made the following comment: "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." Woggly called those taking part in an objective and good discussion as "idiots" then preceded to take the Ra'anana page down again and ran or as she has said: "wash my hands of this idiotic affair." But yet she came back today with a RfC as another personal attack after labeling me as a "dangerous user". How does one spell the word defamation? Charges:

• Threatened other users with legal action - Wiki policy frowns upon this for corporate reasons, they do not need nor want lawsuits for which they have plenty. And they truly want people to communicate in a warm and understanding manner. But as Wiki clearly knows, you cannot ignore a crime nor can you truly demand of others to ignore criminal activity and break both US and international law.

• Created articles (some via sockpuppets) about himself, his privately held business, his employees and former employees and giving as "evidence" of notability references to his own news agency. Has written articles about other non-notables - possibly clients of his PR firm? - Sounds good! But where's the beef? Show me evidence of using sockpuppets and that Levine and Silber were ever employees of mine? It just ain't there.
  This is better than DisneyWorld!

  What is there is a campaign to malign my name - something that my ex-wife has started as we are in a custody dispute and the fact that I started a Yahoo on-line community forum NewRaanana serving over 1,300 members for which many extreme Israeli right wingers and religious citizens of Ra'anana are threatened by. Combining my custody dispute with the creation NewRaanana and several other community groups (was just written about as a cover story on The Jerusalem Post [www.israelnewsagency.com/anglosisraelinternetgroupsforumsjerusalempostleyden480422.html]) one gets their good share of enemies. But I consider myself fortunate as my friends outweight my enemies (serve as a consultant to the Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Israel Defense Forces). Most of those who dislike me belong to such groups as Hamas and Islamic Jihad for the pro-Israel work I am respected for.

• Created sockpuppets to support himself, to defend his articles on AfD, and to circumvent 3RR (see: Wikipedia:Requests for CheckUser#Israelbeach aka Joel Leyden for a list of the suspected sockpuppets) - Where is the evidence? Again - this is pure harassment and apologies are due to those mentioned as sockpuppets and myself.

• Deleted (via one of his sockpuppets) comments of another user who opposed him on a talk page - Again - no evidence. Only harassment.

• Repeatedly adding this paragraph to the article Ra'anana, despite objections on talk page. He has admitted to being personally involved with a lobby for divorced fathers' rights. [13] - What is the crime for wanting to spend more time with your children? These accusations are disgusting and tranparent.

• Disregarded consensus - What consensus? Again, harassment!

• Circumvented 3RR by means of sockpuppets - Where's the evidence? Only harassment and empty charges!!!

• Falsified votes on AfD by means of sockpuppets - Where's the evidence? Only harassment and empty charges!!!

• Harrassed other users - Is discussion now called harassment? This is excellent spin!

• General lack of civility or respect for other users, threatening tone - I don't make threats nor and as a trained cross-cultural consultant with a degree in psychology always reach out for understanding, respect and healthy communication.

It should be noted that none of my SEO work is connected to Wikipedia, but my editorial work is [www.israelnewsagency.com/wikipediagoogleisraelleyden5580110.html]- as material I have written for the Israel News Agency has been used as Featured Articles on Wiki. That I take pride in contributing to Wikipedia and those above call it SEO is a strange and ugly paradox. The above empty charges against me are only filled with hate and contempt for a man who simply cares to point out that the City of Ra'anana practices gender bias discrimination in child custody cases. A proud dad who has had his children taken away from him and as salt to a wound is brought to this room today to defend himself for trying to make the world a slighly better place for his and all of our children. I kindly request all Wiki adms to examine the behaivor of those who brought me to this room. To look at this organized campaign of hate [[14]] and to ask if this behaivor is positive for Wikipedia? Best wishes to all Wiki adms who have come here to read the above.
Thank you for your time ... and efforts ;>

Users who endorse this summary:

IsraelBeach 20:47, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have never witnessed an organized and disgraceful campaign of hate like this in my life [[15]]. I hope the adm take action against those who brought you to this room Israelbeach. Keep posting in Wiki. Your contributions are brave, objective and professional. Nancetlv 22:11, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bonnieisrael 17:19, 25 April 2006 (UTC) :::Just spoke with Israelbeach who has been blocked by Tom Harrison for alledged legal threats after Israelbeach clearly stated that he accepts Wiki legal guidelines and that he is not taking any legal action against any Wiki member. Also wish to point out after speaking with Israelbeach that the Israel News Agency is a non-profit, volunteer news organization which does not employ anyone. There is no compensation involved. If one did there research you would find this information here [www.israelnewsagency.com/inaabout.html]. Sara Silber is not an employee of the Israel News Agency. I find this harassment of Israelbeach and myself to be disgraceful and a black mark for Wikipedia. I am not a "sockpuppet" for anyone. Contact me - let's talk and confirm that I really am a female with a mouth of her own. It is Holocaust Day in Israel today when we remember those we have lost in Europe, we should also remember father's who have lost their children to gender bias discrimination in Ra'anana and other cities and towns around the globe.[reply]

• Woggly continues as of this date her personal attacks against user: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 21:58, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You write: Show me evidence... that Levine and Silber were ever employees of mine. Regarding Sara Silber: [www.israelnewsagency.com/silberdivorcemediationfamilyisrael220217.html this link] names her family affairs editor of the Israel News Agency, of which you claim to be publisher (first paragraph of Joel Leyden). I found the link by going through the history of Sara Silber, and I was also interested to discover that you had twice removed the {{notability}} tag inserted by another editor [16]. As for Charley Levine, I apologize, I misread a line in the article. Upon rereading I see he is merely a member, not an editor of IsraelPr, the internet discussion group you founded (according to third from last paragraph of Joel Leyden). I have struck that comment from my description. --Woggly 12:02, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute. Users editing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Response") should not edit the "Outside Views" section, except to endorse an outside view.

{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.}

This dispute is unjustified and that the above summary is highly biased and incomplete. Israelbeach is a highly respected member of the Ra'anana community and has contributed greatly to Wiki. All Israelbeach is asking for is that gender bias discrimination be removed from the City of Ra'anana. In fact, he has provided three news links to support this issue, news links that jpgordon has vandalized by deleting them from the Ra'anana article against Wiki policy. Bluegrasstom 16:48, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This is Bluegrasstom's third edit. --Woggly 17:30, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary:

User:Israelbeach has been using the article on Ra'anana as a soapbox to promote his views on father's rights. He has used puppets and edit warring while trying to force the inclusion of a paragraph not supported by consensus. He has made legal threats. Tom Harrison ^Talk 23:07, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary:

1. Calton | Talk 06:44, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2. I endorse this, but I think more needs to be said, see below. Mangojuice 15:25, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
3. BostonMA 22:42, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Israelbeach has tried to use the Ra'anana article to highlight the issue of father's righs, and has edit warred to back this up. Edit warring is inappropriate no matter the dispute. Furthermore, Israelbeach is in the wrong in trying to include this information; it constitutes a minority viewpoint, and covering the issue of father's righs to any degree in the article as it currently exists consitutes undue weight: the article on Ra'anana, following very strong precedent, should give basic facts about the city, and while the issue of father's rights may be newsworthy, it does not consitute a salient feature of Ra'anana. Consensus among established, uninvolved editors is that the information Israelbeach wants to include is inappropriate, but this may not have been clear, given the support Israelbeach has received, probably through his own solicitation. Furthermore, Israelbeach has made legal threats against other editors. He must understand that legal action constitutes an impediment to free editing of articles on Wikipedia, and that if he does not withdraw this threat, he should be blocked until the legal actions are resolved. Mangojuice 14:47, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1. Tom Harrison ^Talk 15:34, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2. BostonMA 22:43, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
3. Ansell 05:09, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do not know the truth behind the sockpuppet/meatpuppet claims. However, in my opinion, this edit by user:Nancetlv, contains language which is unacceptable on Wikipedia. --BostonMA 23:30, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am still fairly new, so please forgive me if I'm going about this wrong. It's been my impression of IsraelBeach that he is making POV edits to articles he feels strongly about, then using his own writings at Israel News Agency as a source for these positions. I do not feel that Israel News Agency is a reliable or reputable source, judging by the criteria in WP:RS. I feel strongly that IsraelBeach is mostly interested in pushing his agenda. I also believe that he is either using more than one user name, or is having friends of his (meatpuppets? What a strange term) make edits on his behalf. I have also noticed he (and/or his counterparts) has a tendency to suggest that those who disagree with him are anti-semetic, anti-Israel, or simply hateful people. This does not help users in disagreement come to a resolution. Thank you, -DejahThoris 00:10, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think I was one of the first users to interact with IsraelBeach here on WP. I have Search engine optimization on my watchlist and saw this edit. It was removed by someone else, but when I see such edits I usually check the contributions to see what else might have been added. I saw the Joel Leyden- and Israel News Agency-articles and since they in my opinion were below the notability-treshold, I nominated them for deletion. Here, IsraelBeach did not assume good faith ([17], [18]).

I later ran into him again, when I interfered in a minor edit war on Joel Leyden, where an anonymous user added "and two ex-wives, which BonnieIsrael removed (Deleted how many wives Leyden may have had. Not relevent.) After a few reversion and some "discussion" on talk ([19], [20], [21]), I went on IRC and got help from Fozzie who found a nice compromise. A few days later, after IsraelBeach got a belated block for personal attacks [22], he added this to my talk-page. Here it turned up that he believed I had been attempting to delete Joel Leyden daily (I just found out that he apparently was confused by a non-substed {{CURRENTDAY}} {{CURRENTMONTHNAME}} {{CURRENTYEAR}} [23]). After agreeing to talk by email and not receiving any response to my mail, I decided to stay away from these articles and let other people handle them. Unfortunately, it now looks like they are having similar problems.

My advice to IsraelBeach, BonnieIsrael, Nancetlv and the rest would be to stay away from articles about subjects you have strong feelings about. IsraelBeach has shown that he can write excellent articles (Daniel Seaman, Agam Englard), but unfortunately he tends to lose his temper when he feels he is attacked. It would be best for Wikipedia if he accepted this and kept away from editing these types of articles.

Rasmus (talk) 12:27, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rasmus, thank you for your kind feedback. Yes, you were among the first Wiki users I had come into contact with and yes although it started off on a bad footing I came to learn that you are a fair and decent person. As to the e-mail, I never received it, sorry.

I thank you for your compliments re my writing style, but I do take gentle and friendly exception with your stating to stay away from certain topics.

My friend, the best writing ever produced on this planet was by writers who had a passion for which what they were writing. This is were one is motivated best to produce the best they can, to extract every once of creative juice, to pour both knowledge, experience and illustration into one's message. But one must also try to be objective. As a trained, professional journalist, I can be objective. Although I will admit it can be trying for me and other journalists at times. For instance, tt is very difficult for me to describe Hamas, Islamic Jihad and bin-Laden as "militants" or "freedom fighters" as I have personally witnessed blood pouring from babies and children after many a terror attack. Same with children who have been separated from one or both parents. To say that it is "heartbreaking" does not even begin to scratch the tip of the iceberg of the deep pain and suffering by both sides.

As editors at Wiki we must be objective and balanced in what we create and edit, but concurrently we must always keep a warm and understanding heart for the subject. We must never totally separate logos from pathos. When we do that we become nothing more than cold mechanical machines. Best wishes, IsraelBeach 19:00, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In the past 24 hours there has been an escalation in the war of the words between user:Israelbeach and user:Woggly. Woggly who never apologized for her personal attacks against Israelbeach was never addressed or blocked for these attacks by the administrators. In fact, she has been attacking Israelbeach, whose identity is for all to see, from an anonymous position. Not very fair or ethical!

Israelbeach, in turn, revealed Woggly's identity, something he was wrong for doing. According to Wiki policy: "This sort of behavior is blockable on its own (for example, moving another user's User Talk page), but should be considered an aggravating factor for the purposes of the block. For example, behavior that would earn a 1 day ban might become a 1 week ban if the Administrator believes the behavior was for the purposes of harassment. The block should only be enforced after warning the user and these pleas go ignored."

Israelbeach was warned by user:jpgordon and according to the logs deleted all material within minutes. Israelbeach should not have been blocked according to Wiki policy as he never ignored any warnings by adm but reacted quickly to them.

Woggly is now rightfully worried about legal action that Israelbeach can take against her for stating, without substance, that he was "dangerous" and other accusations made in front of his local community and the world public. She now appears to be leaving Wikipedia on her own.

Solution: Both Israelbeach and Woggly are professional editors and should be encouraged to stay with the Wiki project. The block on Israelbeach should be removed immediately, as it only serves to increase conflict. Remember, after a first warning, Israelbeach on his own removed all personal data even though he thought he was correct due to that personal information regarding Woggly was posted by Woggly with a direct link to Wikipedia that anyone can find on a simple Google search.

Both Israelbeach and Woggly should be warned with no punitive action taken and instructed not to interact with one another on Wikipedia. These are two professionals with tremendous pride - do not expect either to aplogize at this point. We must encourage both users to stay, to avoid court action (with the documentation that Israelbeach has on these clear personal attacks, no judge would deny Woggly's guilt) and keep Wikipedia operating with less negative news coverage.

I do not blame Woggly or Israelbeach for their now wanting to resign from Wikipedia, I place the blame solely on the desk of the administrators (with the exception of user:jpgordon) who could have taken action on the personal attacks which started this conflict. Woggly and Israelbeach are both assets to Wikipedia, all action should be taken to keep them here. I will be posting this message in how to resolve this matter on other pages. Nancetlv 12:36, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why is Israelbeach blocked for legal threats and Woggly is not? There does not appear to be equal enforcement of Wikipedia rules in this case. When will Israelbeach's block be lifted? As many others have stated, this blocks serves to create more conflict, not reduce it. Israelbeach states that he acted in good faith. It appears his posting of private information was due to ignorance, not malice as it is documented that he immediately responded to an adm's first warning of deleting all data. By looking at his extensive experience (Newsday, UPI, Jerusalem, Israel News Agency, Google News) Israelbeach normally gets paid well for his copywriting and professional editing skills, here Wiki gets it for free. He has in addition made every effort to resolve this dispute with Woggly, who has rejected his every overture. We should encourage Israelbeach to stay and develop this project. Davidstone 08:54, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I really do not really care about the AfD placed on my user page. The only strong opinion I can offer is that use of sockpuppets in voting or to pretend outside participation in an article should result in ban. If this is not observed meticulously the ship will go down due to lack of trust among editors. Pavel Vozenilek 22:16, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The sockpuppet issue appears to be resolved from what I have read. Users Bonnieisrael, IDFbarak and Sara Silber have all spoken to Danny Wool. These were real people casting real votes. What I and many others don't understand is why Joel Leyden's article and the Israel News Agency were deleted after a community vote to keep? Potterseesall 12:25, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hah hah. --woggly 15:50, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Woggly, I do not understand your sarcasm. It's best that we address facts and avoid personal attacks. Karnei 14:03, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All signed comments and talk not related to an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page. Discussion should not be added below. Discussion should be posted on the talk page. Threaded replies to another user's vote, endorsement, evidence, response, or comment should be posted to the talk page.