User talk:Yoav Raz

Concurrency control[edit]

Hello Yoav, You recently reverted my edits on Concurrency control to the previous, badly-worded version. Why? François Robere (talk) 20:16, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits have been reverted since they were less informative than the original text. Also you have deleted a correct well phrased statement with no reason. Yoav Raz (talk) 01:47, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

unblock unjust block[edit]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Yoav Raz (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I have just found that I have been blocked by User:Ruud Koot. The reason indicated is incorrect.

I was about to file a complaint against him before the blocking took place after observing unethical behavior by him since end of 2012 regarding Wikipedia articles that are based on my work. His general method was to block any criticism on his conduct in article discussions without providing any reason except "sockpuppeting" which he is now applying to me. I could not see any compliance with sockpuppeting or an explanation in all his claims. In one case I saw testimony for a "shared internet profile" (or so) which does not established sockpuppeting to my opinion (editing completely different subjects: no articles' interaction except reference to Yoav Raz, and not commenting on same articles). I found nothing wrong in the comments that he blocked for sockpuppeting and reverted, except, maybe, when people used harsh words to protest against his unexplained actions. He also has inserted tags in multiple articles about Concurrency control (see article and related discussion) that pertain to my work on Commitment ordering (see article and related discussion, where he also instigated an attempt to delete it), ignored request for explanation (except writing "in dispute" which was never resolved or explained; the nature of dispute is still unknown to me) and promoted the deletion of several other articles related to me. I'll add details and log records to establish my case as needed. I would like to add that I have clear evidence from the log about his misconceptions in the subject matter which is very specialized and out of the scope of his current PhD research. In summary, I find his conduct unethical and inappropriate to Wikipedia, and am looking for your prompt help for stopping him from interfering and allowing me to enhance/correct articles in the areas of my expertise. Thank you Yoav Raz (talk) 02:26, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Based on behavioral evidence, I agree with the assessment of the blocking admin. In this context, I'm declining your request to be unblocked. PhilKnight (talk) 08:09, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Yoav Raz (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

See my first unblock request which describes the incident. The blocking has been applied for incorrect reason. "Behavioral reasons" in the reply is unsatisfactory, vague, and does not prove the reason. After I have reviewed the blocking history of User Ruud, I found nothing that has justified his behavior towards users who contributed to the Commitment ordering and ERROL articles and related articles based on my work. Two contributors have done tremendous work and contributions to Wikipedia, positive actions only. Now they are blocked as a result of Ruud's actions and do not want to contribute any more. The subjects above are established subjects in academia, and the first one also in industry, referenced by over 250 patents and articles (see Google Scholar for example). I ask again that a completely independent and impartial reviewer makes a thorough inquiry and removes the block.

Decline reason:

Well, I think I am a "completely independent and impartial reviewer": before coming here to assess your unblock request I had never heard of you, of any of the other accounts that are thought to be you, of the blocking administrator, or in fact of any aspect of the case. I have extensively reviewed the history, and the conclusions I have reached are as follows. (1) If you really are not the same person who has run the other accounts involved, then not only is is very remarkable what a huge number of coincidences and similarities there are among the editing of several different editors, both in the content of their contributions and in their style and manner of editing, but it is even more remarkable that, while quite a number of people have come to Wikipedia to post stuff about your work and how important it is, nobody who does not have those very distinctive characteristics in their writing has ever done so, as far as I can see. (2) Let us give you the maximum of the doubt, and assume that you really are a new editor, who has never edited before, and not a blocked editor returning with a new sockpuppet. The facts remain that you are here for one purpose only, namely to abuse Wikipedia by trying to use it as a medium for promoting your work, and the fact that your approach to other editors is combative and unconstructive. For those reasons, unblocking this account would not be to the advantage of the project, whether or not it is a sockpuppet. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 16:07, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

JamesBWatson: I find all this discussion quite embarrassing and unexpected. To answer to your comments: (1) I have been with software system most of my life, and can easily learn how to use the Wikipedia tool... Thinking about "similar characteristics" of W editors, they can stem from similar origin, background, and education out of the US. The areas are very specialized and not well understood by not experts. Hence the relatively small group which looks here and can appreciate the work. (2) I have been an avid user of Wikipedia for many years in many areas. My work has been reflected in several Wikipedia articles in which I have special interest, and would like them to be the best possible. Two principal editors (in distinct areas, and different articles), User:Comps and User:ERfan111 have been blocked for wrong reasons and misrepresentation of facts, I believe, and stopped editing. The work of one was deleted (ERROL), and the articles related to Concurrency control started to deteriorate by editors with no expertise in the field. My only purpose in recently starting to edit Wikipedia was to maintain the quality of these articles. Neither to promote my work nor to abuse Wikipedia, as you write. Keeping quality of Wikipedia is the opposite of abusing it. Regarding my "combative approach": From reviewing the long history I strongly suspect that many actions, especially the massive automatic blocking, were performed not in good faith, and I do not know the reason. The result is clearly silencing the (very valuable) work in Wikipedia that has been done in this area. Multiple tags about a "dispute and inquiry" regarding "Yoav Raz" have been inserted in articles mentioning Commitment ordering in 2011 with no any resolution. I intend to find a way to further pursue my appeal. Yoav Raz (talk) 21:10, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yoav, there are very simple guidelines here that, if you abide by, I believe you will see no further trouble from other Wikipedians:

Avoid publishing your own work (even if you think it's utterly brilliant and world-changing).
Do not use your own work for reference.
Make all your edits from a single username

If you agree to follow these rules you might just get unblocked. Good luck. François Robere (talk) 17:05, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]