Yao Ming, which is Today's Featured Article was semi-protected for one month on July 19. Right now, it is [edit=autoconfirmed:move=sysop]. Should someone change it to [move=sysop]? Or was there some discussion somewhere that I didn't see? J.delanoygabsadds00:08, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Not too sure why this thread was started seeing as this is pretty run of the mill. If you see a article that was previously protected and then was placed on the mainpage (unless there is something in the logs for that day stating it has been temporally protected for some reason) you just set the protection level to [move=syop]. Take a look at the protection log, that will help explain a few things. Cheers, Tiptoetytalk17:10, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
OK, after reviewing these instructions this process requires someone with tools (like access to the tools server) that I do not have.--Kumioko (talk) 15:55, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Eh, no. It seems to require Java and a database dump. I'll see if I can set up a run early next week, but I need to go update all my Java stuffs. lifebaka++16:21, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Thank you. However, could somebody also explain to him that WP:NAME and WP:CONSENSUS are both policy and work together? Mrg's refusal to admit this that appears to be the reason for the incivility. Like many of us, he gets uncivil when frustrated. SeptentrionalisPMAnderson14:29, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Oh no, Mrg again? Wasn't he at WP:AE or some such just the other day for similar behaviour and narrowly escaped a topic ban or something? Fut.Perf.☼14:36, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Yep, that's actually what I meant, thanks for digging it out. Original discussion was here. He can be banned from individual pages if he is disruptive, and that applies particularly to making exaggerated amounts of fuss over lame naming and article moving discussions. Fut.Perf.☼14:43, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
If he fails to respond positively to the warning then we may have to step in and ban him from that article too. *Sighs* - Hopefully he will though. ScarianCall me Pat!14:49, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Well, to be fair, he hasn't been editing the article; he's just been discussing the move interminably (to my mind unreasonably). The editing restriction could stand being rephrased to include talk space; it's clear from the discussion that that was intended, but it's not stated. SeptentrionalisPMAnderson15:33, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
CSD Refusal
NawlinWiki rejected my proposal for the speedy deletion of Société_à_responsabilité_limitée. Sadly his/her talk page is semi-protected, and so I am unable to talk to him about it.
This page appears to be a direct translation from the French version of the article (CSD A2). However, it was rejected without entering into any discussion on the talk page. The CSD article clearly states that articles that are translations from foreign language WIKIs are to be deleted. The edit history shows that all this content appeared in one edit, showing evidence of a translation. So I am disappointed that NawlinWiki rejected the proposal so out of hand. Explanation please. --Spaceinput120 (talk) 15:50, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
You have misunderstood the criteria. WP:CSD#A2 is for articles written in a language other than English but created on en.wikipedia. The article in question may, however, require attribution to fr.wiki. CIreland (talk) 15:58, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
(edit conflict) First, the topic is highly notable and second, the article would only be a CSD if it was still in a foreign language and had been copied to en.Wikipedia as such. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:00, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Mosedschurte (talk· contribs) is again edit warring to insert content on Harvey Milk, consensus, discounting SPA's, was pretty clear that additional content about Jim Jones/ People's Temple was undue. During the last ANI thread Wikidemo boldly started Political Alliances of the People's Temple which now has become a repository for similar sections from other articles. I've looked into only the Milk content but that section itself seems somewhat cherry-picked (to quote another editor who looked at this). Per advice from ScienceApologist I posted to WP:NPOV Noticeboard, although that board seems less active. I feel the content as it was on the Harvey Milk article, (last protected version), was fine, neutral and RS'd. As soon as the article came off full-protection Mosedschurte reinserted a new-and-improved section that again violates exacted what has been pointed out over the past 2.5 months. I reverted twice already but it's now back in. I'm sick of this and am taking a break. If someone else would look at this I would appreciate it. Banjeboi17:38, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
I've tried to be a neutral third party in this. While I generally support Benjiboi's views, and think he is an excellent editor, I think he is as culpable as Mosedschurte in the edit warring on Harvey Milk. While I believe that the consensus on the talk page agreed that having a huge section on the People's Temple issue was undue weight, it was at one point reduced to a well-sourced three sentence sub-section of the "Public office" section of the article, and really, I don't see how anyone could object to that. As reluctant as I am to say, it seems to be that Benjiboi has consistently tried to sanitize the article and eliminate any mention (except the most general and vague) of the relationship between Milk and Jim Jones/People's Temple, which, for better or worse, is very well documented and was widely noted and discussed in the media at the time and later. Harvey Milk was indeed a great man, and one of my heroes, but it does no service to his memory to try to suppress notable, documented, widely-discussed, historical facts about his political life from his Wikipedia article.
The article was protected (not by me) in an attempt to end the edit war; I had hoped that would work, but the back-and-forth appears to continue. A good compromise was the three-sentence subsection, which I think everyone can live with, and is certainly unassailably sourced. I propose to revert to that version, and hope that both Benjiboi and Mosedschurte, and others, will accept that as a good encyclopedic solution, and move on. --MCB (talk) 18:05, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
MCB, you are mischaracterizing this; I wrote those "well-sourced three sentences" and support its inclusion. I have never suggested that content about Jones/People's Temple be scrubbed, not even close. I am opposed to an undue separate section which implies this was a big chapter in Milk's life/career. This is what the RfC was addressing - was an entire section undue? Minus the SPA comments there was no consensus to keep it. There wasn't much, if any "relationship" between Milk and Jones, I support exactly what you and other editors have stated is the way to go - three NPOV sentences in context. This is Milk's bio not anyone else's. 71.139.38.121 (talk) 02:44, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
There is some simple confusion between the sections and events I can clear up here. I don't think MCB is referring to your three sentences on Jones supporting Milk in 1975. He's referrnig to the three well sourced sentences in the "Peoples Temple investigation" section.
Your three sentences were of Jones support of Milk in the 1975 election. That's a separate matter from Milk's support of Jones during the investigation and attack of the leader of the Concerned Relatives. The latter was in the :Peoples Temple investigation" section.
Correct, I was talking about the three sentences in a sub-section called "Peoples Temple investigation", regarding events in 1978, not the 1975 election (which should also be mentioned in a sentence or two, in passing). --MCB (talk) 04:32, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
First, someone else told me about this thread. I was given no notice at all someone had started some Administrator's notice thread naming me. I'd have never known this was started about me. It is in response to a section of the Harvey Milk article that Benjiboi began repeatedly deleting in its entirety weeks ago.
Second, as MCB stated, most editors had agreed that a 3 sentence (actually a bit larger then) section on the Milk's support for the Peoples Temple during the investigations should NOT be deleted. In fact, these comments were mostly in response to an Rfc started by Benjiboi himself after repeatedly deleting every single mention of Milk's support for Jones or the Peoples Temple from the article.. Here were some comments:
“
"I've reviewed the Milk page, the Moscone page, and have worked on the various Jones pages. I disagree that this is being given undue weight. His involvement with, and defense of, Peoples Temple, during and just after their time in California, is relevant." Wildhartlivie (talk) 11:09, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
"I agree with this writer. Please do not delete. It is true there is no consensus to delete the section emerged." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Caramia3403 (talk • contribs)
"Given the context and timing, the Peoples Temple section is far too important in this article to delete or merge. Especially the letter cited in the article attacking people calling for an investigation." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.23.197.82 (talk) 16:06, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
" This material seems perfectly fine and weighted ect. Please do not be put off by editors who appear to own articles as is the case here. Good luck, --" 72.209.9.165 (talk) 16:59, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
"The Jones section has to stay in a page like this. It's way too big if its true. I don't know why it would be cut. The part about Harvey being scared of him should be added to it." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.215.117.116 (talk) 13:50, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
"I think this is worthy of a paragraph and perhaps a short subsection in the article. Milk was heavily involved in the People's Temple (as well as a number of other well known activists who would also like not to be remembered for it), there appears to be plenty of documentation on this, and it would certainly appear to be notable and noteworthy. CENSEI (talk) 16:19, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
"Finally, the entire Peoples Temple involvement, even with Jonestown literally dominating the Bay Area and Milk's key support, is only a tiny (6%) portion of the article, thus there is no undue weight issue. As well, included is only a tiny portion of Milk's involvement with the Temple." - obviously me.
”
Third, if I can step back for a moment, I understand the repulsion by some to any inclusion of support for Jones or attacking the Concerned Relatives, though it is clearly sourced and NPOV phrased. Jim Jones was one of the most notorious figures in American history and Jonestown was the largest American civilian loss of life in a non-natural disaster until 9-11 came around. I won't requote Bejiboi's text, but much of it appeared to be concerned with Milk's character and negative implications one could draw from support for Jones and the Temple. However, keep in mind that it is entirely factually correct, properly sourced, phrased in the most neutral manner possible at this point and VERY TINY section of the overall article. Absolutely no implication could be made that Milk wanted anyone to die.
Fourth, I have REPEATEDLY edited even the short section of the article in response to Benjiboi's comments. Every time,, he simply wholesale deleted the entire section, when it was 7 sentences, 3 sentences and now just 1 sentence.
Fifth, after frankly being tired of resisting the deletions of every word every time, it was reduced to ONE SINGLE SENTENCE. However, Benjiboi even deleted this one sentence, claiming even this sentence's inclusion amounted to "Undue Weight."
I apologize for the long post, but I felt I had to respond as this thread was started about me. I encourage anyone interested to examine the Milk Talk Page and/or Milk Edit History. Incidentally, with Wikidemo's starting of a new PT political alliances page, I have no problem with including the details of support for Jones and the PT there as simply a practical matter of not having to fight some edit war. However, this obviously does not mean that the mere mention of support for Jones and attacking the Concerned Relatives should be scoured from the articles in their entirety. This was the point of the one sentence summary and link to the other article. Mosedschurte (talk) 03:22, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Mosedschurte keeps inserting POV content and seems incapable of adhering to policy and writing this material neutrally. For instance, Milk wrote a letter of support is neutral - "supported the controversial Peoples Temple during investigations of criminal wrongdoings" is not. It misinterprets this letter which this entire content fork relies upon. 71.139.44.169 (talk) 18:02, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
The above editor has made all of two edits to the project both disagreeing with Mosedschurte. --70.109.223.188 (talk) 18:50, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Could I please get some help or at least some impartial advice on this? I again tried to neutralize this content; it doesn't merit it's own section, it's no big deal a politician spoke at a political rally and Mosedschurte is misrepresenting what this primary source is about and cherry-picks information seemingly in an effort to post-humously scandalize the subject of this bio. They've simply reinstalled the same content again.[1] They have also inserted the same content on other articles like Jonestown. In an effort to clean up the 75k of discussion devoted to this user/issue from six down to one I archived the oldest threads, most of them stale and no longer relevant. Mosedschurte simply reverts again.[2] I explain archive and explain why I did what I did[3] and they again simply revert.[4]
I remain unconvinced that this editor is willing to remain civil and neutral and would appreciate some eyes on this. Banjeboi00:41, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
Confirmed sockpuppet
As per User:Alison's (the checkuser) suggestion, I'm asking an uninvolved administrator to review the results of this checkuser and take an admin action (if needed). Considering the user's disruptive sockpuppeting, which started in January and is still ongoing (edit warring on Maria Sharapova, threats to the checkuser etc), I think an indef block for the sockpuppet account may be appropriate. Cheers. BanRay10:03, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Okay, as best I can tell, Musiclover565 (talk· contribs) (the "sockmaster" account) has not edited since February 2008. I'm not seeing any evidence of abusive socking here - either there hasn't been any, or the evidence has not been provided. A couple of IP edits which could (WP:AGF) have been made whilst inadvertently logged out, but no proven multiple accounts. Where is this threat to the checkuser? Is there a diff?
Edit-warring, yes, but nothing that breaches 3RR, and I can't justifiably block Whitenoise123 (talk· contribs) (the "sock") for edits which I agree with myself. The Sharapova article really did go into a disproportionate amount of detail on her 2008 season than all previous seasons. If I have missed something, feel free to let me know. Neıl☄10:40, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Folks, can we have more eyes on this, please? Since the above commentary by Neil, User:Whitenoise123 has been indefblocked while the master account has been left unblocked, per the checkuser clerk. There are clearly some issues regarding the solution to this problem. Note that Whitenoise123 has taken issue with the checkuser case and is intent on making a complaint. This should be viewed impartially and not as "threats to the checkuser", as stated above; they may have genuine grievances. I'm involved so I'm standing clear on any judgement. They have requested unblock once already and have been declined. They are now requesting unblock again. At this point, I'd like to see some more folks review the matter and come to some consensus here. Thanks - Alison❤00:49, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
His unblock requests is so weaselly, I don't know why we shouldn't block the master account indef as well. Clearly this sort of user should not be permitted alternate accounts, under whatever interpretation they may have. MBisanztalk00:54, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
If I'm in the wrong place to ask this than please forgive me and transfer the discussion to the appropriate place. I'm looking for administrator input on what exactly constitutes "no consensus" in AfD. I've recently been involved in two AfDs which were closed as "no consensus" and cannot help but, be confused. For openness I was on the delete side in both (and the nom in one of them). In neither case did the keep side discuss the policies and guidelines of the project (as far as I could tell). I'm under the impression that "no consensus" is meant to be used where both sides discuss the merits and/or lack there of from a policy and guideline standpoint but, consensus is not reached through that process. Is this wrong in someway? I can't seem to find the information at the deletion guides (though I may have simply overlooked it). I can reveal the actual discussions if you guys/girls feel they are needed but, don't want to use this noticeboard as a way "around" deletion review or other process. Thanks. Jasynnash2 (talk) 13:24, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
You'd have to specify which deletions to get really useful feedback. The closing admins should weigh the arguments on both sides; presumably they have. You might ask them what keep arguments they felt had weight; if that doesn't satisfy you, DRV is always an option. SeptentrionalisPMAnderson13:40, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm in the process of asking the specific admins but, am really wondering where the policy/guideline on "no consensus" is and/or what it says. My understanding of DRV is that is for process review and such and I don't feel I can go there unless I know what the process is meant to be in the first place. I also think the admin's in both cases had the best of intentions and don't want to make it about them (if that makes any sense). Jasynnash2 (talk) 13:55, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
So there isn't a policy/guideline specific to admins which helps in these cases? Only the general ones you link to above? Is DRV just for policy/process errors? Jasynnash2 (talk) 14:17, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
I don't know any more specific pages; admins don't have a namespace of their own.
DRV is for policy/process errors, but misreading the balance of argument is a process error. (Uninvolved editors are less likely to feel that any individual case is a misreading, so such requests are often denied; it is also civil to tell the admins you have appealled to DRV.) SeptentrionalisPMAnderson14:25, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
(outdent)this is one. I figured giving it a rest for a couple of months with a clear-cut directive to improve refs was the most time-effective way to go rather than continuing. Cheers, Casliber (talk· contribs) 14:37, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
this is the other one. I'm still awaiting a response from the admin on this one. As stated above I didn't want to make my basic question about the specific articles or admins but, since people more experienced than I think it is important. Like I siad I don't want to make this into a replacement for DRV or other places so please don't let others do that with this question. Thanks. Jasynnash2 (talk) 14:52, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
It depends on what the Keep arguments actually were; as it happens, I would have !voted to keep one and delete the other.
On Casliber's close, the keep votes claimed notability, which is certainly an appeal to policy; he could have chosen to look behind them to see if there was more here than a resume, but we can also get back to the issue in a couple of months.
On King of Heart's close, one issue is whether we need an article on every Wikipedia. The fact that we don't have one, and have actually deleted some, was not brought out till half-way through; if it had been, a consensus might have emerged. SeptentrionalisPMAnderson15:43, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
This is going to sound bad probably but, that is exactly what I didn't want this section to turn into. It's why I was asking about general policy and guidelines. I don't want this to turn into an actual DRV discussion of the particular articles. Jasynnash2 (talk) 15:58, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Then let me summmarize. The admins clearly chose not to discount the keep arguments entirely. This was a judgment call, defensible in both cases; other admins might have chosen differently, and that would have been defensible too. Once that's done, our vague definition of consensus comes in. We can have consensus despite one or two objections (it depends on how many the supports are, and how reasonable); but not this many. SeptentrionalisPMAnderson16:21, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
There's an essay at WP:NOCONSENSUS, but I don't know how helpful it'll be. And I think the DRV part is wrong, usually no consensus there results in endorsing. Cheers. lifebaka++02:29, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
yes,at present DRV usually endorses a no-consensus close and just suggests another AfD in a few months--it doesn't prejudice matters and provides a chance to see if consensus has changed, or for other similar articles to be discussed. Seems just like common sense to me. To keep says "we agreed!" when others say we didn't, is a little pointless most of the time. I'd strongly encourage the use of such closes when the situation remains in doubt. DGG (talk) 04:10, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
I always find it odd when people insist they have to be unblocked NOW. He says he's willing to follow the rules and regulations. Part of our regulations are that consensus is king. The consensus in the previous discussion decided that no action would be taken until August 20 at the earliest. If he wants to show he's willing to abide by our policies, he should be willing to wait until then. Consensus can change, yes, but continually pestering people isn't going to get the change he's looking for. As you told him yourself back in July, he's not helping himself with this. If he wants to be unblocked, he needs to show some self-control that hasn't been witnessed yet. Hersfold(t/a/c)20:29, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Agree with Hersfold here, impatience shows immaturity, and immaturity usually causes problems. He was already advised that only time will decide his fate and yet here he is not much longer. Tiptoetytalk20:33, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Not yet, and now I have doubts about August 20th. It's a Zen[1] thing; he should remain blocked until he is no longer desperate to be unblocked; once it is no longer vital to him, then it's safe to unblock. --barneca (talk) 20:41, 8 August 2008 (UTC) [1] Probably should note that I don't actually know anything about Zen Buddhism, so it's quite possible it isn't a Zen thing at all; it might be irony or something, although that's a tricky concept too.
The person who created the original Nedra Pickler article, the one deleted as a G10, has not edited the new one. The old article was extremely short, only five lines, and it really *was* an attack page. The current one is much more balanced. If you are still concerned about the current article's neutrality, you could raise the matter on the article's Talk page. You could also open a complaint at WP:BLP/N if you think the article violates our rules on Biographies of Living Persons. EdJohnston (talk) 22:39, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Loathe though I am to short-circuit normal processes, I note that John Edwards appears to have confirmed the allegations currently discussed at John Edwards extramarital affair, currently under AFD at its former title of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Edwards paternity allegations. Given that confirmation, given in an ABC interview (certainly a Reliable Source), and given that the deletion rationale was based largely on the dearth of confrimation and reliable sourcing, I'm wondering if a procedural close would be appropriate. I note that this article will be getting a lot of traffic shortly, if it is not already, and will be seeing a lot of edits adding confirmed and reliable information - and, of course, some of the usual "cocksdickslol". Thoughts? I add, as a caveat, that I recommended strong keep once the news broke, and did not comment before - though I added the AFD to the society category. Thanks, UltraExactZZClaims~ Evidence 21:05, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Seems like closing is the sensible thing to do, with the proviso that it could be relisted without prejudice if there is a valid reason to do so. I have no time at the moment myself, though. Sorry. Thatcher21:08, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. I absolutely agree that it should be re-nominated if it ends up being the BLP nigthmare it could be. But it's impossible to have reasonable debate if the facts of the matter are changing so rapidly. One could argue, though, that it's impossible to have a reasonable debate where politics are involved, but there you go. Thanks for the quick responses, all. UltraExactZZClaims~ Evidence 22:14, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Jim Jones/People's Temple editing on Harvey Milk (again)
Mosedschurte (talk· contribs) is again edit warring to insert content on Harvey Milk, consensus, discounting SPA's, was pretty clear that additional content about Jim Jones/ People's Temple was undue. During the last ANI thread Wikidemo boldly started Political Alliances of the People's Temple which now has become a repository for similar sections from other articles. I've looked into only the Milk content but that section itself seems somewhat cherry-picked (to quote another editor who looked at this). Per advice from ScienceApologist I posted to WP:NPOV Noticeboard, although that board seems less active. I feel the content as it was on the Harvey Milk article, (last protected version), was fine, neutral and RS'd. As soon as the article came off full-protection Mosedschurte reinserted a new-and-improved section that again violates exacted what has been pointed out over the past 2.5 months. I reverted twice already but it's now back in. I'm sick of this and am taking a break. If someone else would look at this I would appreciate it. Banjeboi17:38, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
I've tried to be a neutral third party in this. While I generally support Benjiboi's views, and think he is an excellent editor, I think he is as culpable as Mosedschurte in the edit warring on Harvey Milk. While I believe that the consensus on the talk page agreed that having a huge section on the People's Temple issue was undue weight, it was at one point reduced to a well-sourced three sentence sub-section of the "Public office" section of the article, and really, I don't see how anyone could object to that. As reluctant as I am to say, it seems to be that Benjiboi has consistently tried to sanitize the article and eliminate any mention (except the most general and vague) of the relationship between Milk and Jim Jones/People's Temple, which, for better or worse, is very well documented and was widely noted and discussed in the media at the time and later. Harvey Milk was indeed a great man, and one of my heroes, but it does no service to his memory to try to suppress notable, documented, widely-discussed, historical facts about his political life from his Wikipedia article.
The article was protected (not by me) in an attempt to end the edit war; I had hoped that would work, but the back-and-forth appears to continue. A good compromise was the three-sentence subsection, which I think everyone can live with, and is certainly unassailably sourced. I propose to revert to that version, and hope that both Benjiboi and Mosedschurte, and others, will accept that as a good encyclopedic solution, and move on. --MCB (talk) 18:05, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
MCB, you are mischaracterizing this; I wrote those "well-sourced three sentences" and support its inclusion. I have never suggested that content about Jones/People's Temple be scrubbed, not even close. I am opposed to an undue separate section which implies this was a big chapter in Milk's life/career. This is what the RfC was addressing - was an entire section undue? Minus the SPA comments there was no consensus to keep it. There wasn't much, if any "relationship" between Milk and Jones, I support exactly what you and other editors have stated is the way to go - three NPOV sentences in context. This is Milk's bio not anyone else's. 71.139.38.121 (talk) 02:44, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
There is some simple confusion between the sections and events I can clear up here. I don't think MCB is referring to your three sentences on Jones supporting Milk in 1975. He's referrnig to the three well sourced sentences in the "Peoples Temple investigation" section.
Your three sentences were of Jones support of Milk in the 1975 election. That's a separate matter from Milk's support of Jones during the investigation and attack of the leader of the Concerned Relatives. The latter was in the :Peoples Temple investigation" section.
Correct, I was talking about the three sentences in a sub-section called "Peoples Temple investigation", regarding events in 1978, not the 1975 election (which should also be mentioned in a sentence or two, in passing). --MCB (talk) 04:32, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
First, someone else told me about this thread. I was given no notice at all someone had started some Administrator's notice thread naming me. I'd have never known this was started about me. It is in response to a section of the Harvey Milk article that Benjiboi began repeatedly deleting in its entirety weeks ago.
Second, as MCB stated, most editors had agreed that a 3 sentence (actually a bit larger then) section on the Milk's support for the Peoples Temple during the investigations should NOT be deleted. In fact, these comments were mostly in response to an Rfc started by Benjiboi himself after repeatedly deleting every single mention of Milk's support for Jones or the Peoples Temple from the article.. Here were some comments:
“
"I've reviewed the Milk page, the Moscone page, and have worked on the various Jones pages. I disagree that this is being given undue weight. His involvement with, and defense of, Peoples Temple, during and just after their time in California, is relevant." Wildhartlivie (talk) 11:09, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
"I agree with this writer. Please do not delete. It is true there is no consensus to delete the section emerged." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Caramia3403 (talk • contribs)
"Given the context and timing, the Peoples Temple section is far too important in this article to delete or merge. Especially the letter cited in the article attacking people calling for an investigation." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.23.197.82 (talk) 16:06, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
" This material seems perfectly fine and weighted ect. Please do not be put off by editors who appear to own articles as is the case here. Good luck, --" 72.209.9.165 (talk) 16:59, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
"The Jones section has to stay in a page like this. It's way too big if its true. I don't know why it would be cut. The part about Harvey being scared of him should be added to it." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.215.117.116 (talk) 13:50, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
"I think this is worthy of a paragraph and perhaps a short subsection in the article. Milk was heavily involved in the People's Temple (as well as a number of other well known activists who would also like not to be remembered for it), there appears to be plenty of documentation on this, and it would certainly appear to be notable and noteworthy. CENSEI (talk) 16:19, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
"Finally, the entire Peoples Temple involvement, even with Jonestown literally dominating the Bay Area and Milk's key support, is only a tiny (6%) portion of the article, thus there is no undue weight issue. As well, included is only a tiny portion of Milk's involvement with the Temple." - obviously me.
”
Third, if I can step back for a moment, I understand the repulsion by some to any inclusion of support for Jones or attacking the Concerned Relatives, though it is clearly sourced and NPOV phrased. Jim Jones was one of the most notorious figures in American history and Jonestown was the largest American civilian loss of life in a non-natural disaster until 9-11 came around. I won't requote Bejiboi's text, but much of it appeared to be concerned with Milk's character and negative implications one could draw from support for Jones and the Temple. However, keep in mind that it is entirely factually correct, properly sourced, phrased in the most neutral manner possible at this point and VERY TINY section of the overall article. Absolutely no implication could be made that Milk wanted anyone to die.
Fourth, I have REPEATEDLY edited even the short section of the article in response to Benjiboi's comments. Every time,, he simply wholesale deleted the entire section, when it was 7 sentences, 3 sentences and now just 1 sentence.
Fifth, after frankly being tired of resisting the deletions of every word every time, it was reduced to ONE SINGLE SENTENCE. However, Benjiboi even deleted this one sentence, claiming even this sentence's inclusion amounted to "Undue Weight."
I apologize for the long post, but I felt I had to respond as this thread was started about me. I encourage anyone interested to examine the Milk Talk Page and/or Milk Edit History. Incidentally, with Wikidemo's starting of a new PT political alliances page, I have no problem with including the details of support for Jones and the PT there as simply a practical matter of not having to fight some edit war. However, this obviously does not mean that the mere mention of support for Jones and attacking the Concerned Relatives should be scoured from the articles in their entirety. This was the point of the one sentence summary and link to the other article. Mosedschurte (talk) 03:22, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Mosedschurte keeps inserting POV content and seems incapable of adhering to policy and writing this material neutrally. For instance, Milk wrote a letter of support is neutral - "supported the controversial Peoples Temple during investigations of criminal wrongdoings" is not. It misinterprets this letter which this entire content fork relies upon. 71.139.44.169 (talk) 18:02, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
The above editor has made all of two edits to the project both disagreeing with Mosedschurte. --70.109.223.188 (talk) 18:50, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Could I please get some help or at least some impartial advice on this? I again tried to neutralize this content; it doesn't merit it's own section, it's no big deal a politician spoke at a political rally and Mosedschurte is misrepresenting what this primary source is about and cherry-picks information seemingly in an effort to post-humously scandalize the subject of this bio. They've simply reinstalled the same content again.[5] They have also inserted the same content on other articles like Jonestown. In an effort to clean up the 75k of discussion devoted to this user/issue from six down to one I archived the oldest threads, most of them stale and no longer relevant. Mosedschurte simply reverts again.[6] I explain archive and explain why I did what I did[7] and they again simply revert.[8]
I remain unconvinced that this editor is willing to remain civil and neutral and would appreciate some eyes on this. Banjeboi00:41, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
Confirmed sockpuppet
As per User:Alison's (the checkuser) suggestion, I'm asking an uninvolved administrator to review the results of this checkuser and take an admin action (if needed). Considering the user's disruptive sockpuppeting, which started in January and is still ongoing (edit warring on Maria Sharapova, threats to the checkuser etc), I think an indef block for the sockpuppet account may be appropriate. Cheers. BanRay10:03, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Okay, as best I can tell, Musiclover565 (talk· contribs) (the "sockmaster" account) has not edited since February 2008. I'm not seeing any evidence of abusive socking here - either there hasn't been any, or the evidence has not been provided. A couple of IP edits which could (WP:AGF) have been made whilst inadvertently logged out, but no proven multiple accounts. Where is this threat to the checkuser? Is there a diff?
Edit-warring, yes, but nothing that breaches 3RR, and I can't justifiably block Whitenoise123 (talk· contribs) (the "sock") for edits which I agree with myself. The Sharapova article really did go into a disproportionate amount of detail on her 2008 season than all previous seasons. If I have missed something, feel free to let me know. Neıl☄10:40, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Folks, can we have more eyes on this, please? Since the above commentary by Neil, User:Whitenoise123 has been indefblocked while the master account has been left unblocked, per the checkuser clerk. There are clearly some issues regarding the solution to this problem. Note that Whitenoise123 has taken issue with the checkuser case and is intent on making a complaint. This should be viewed impartially and not as "threats to the checkuser", as stated above; they may have genuine grievances. I'm involved so I'm standing clear on any judgement. They have requested unblock once already and have been declined. They are now requesting unblock again. At this point, I'd like to see some more folks review the matter and come to some consensus here. Thanks - Alison❤00:49, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
His unblock requests is so weaselly, I don't know why we shouldn't block the master account indef as well. Clearly this sort of user should not be permitted alternate accounts, under whatever interpretation they may have. MBisanztalk00:54, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
If I'm in the wrong place to ask this than please forgive me and transfer the discussion to the appropriate place. I'm looking for administrator input on what exactly constitutes "no consensus" in AfD. I've recently been involved in two AfDs which were closed as "no consensus" and cannot help but, be confused. For openness I was on the delete side in both (and the nom in one of them). In neither case did the keep side discuss the policies and guidelines of the project (as far as I could tell). I'm under the impression that "no consensus" is meant to be used where both sides discuss the merits and/or lack there of from a policy and guideline standpoint but, consensus is not reached through that process. Is this wrong in someway? I can't seem to find the information at the deletion guides (though I may have simply overlooked it). I can reveal the actual discussions if you guys/girls feel they are needed but, don't want to use this noticeboard as a way "around" deletion review or other process. Thanks. Jasynnash2 (talk) 13:24, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
You'd have to specify which deletions to get really useful feedback. The closing admins should weigh the arguments on both sides; presumably they have. You might ask them what keep arguments they felt had weight; if that doesn't satisfy you, DRV is always an option. SeptentrionalisPMAnderson13:40, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm in the process of asking the specific admins but, am really wondering where the policy/guideline on "no consensus" is and/or what it says. My understanding of DRV is that is for process review and such and I don't feel I can go there unless I know what the process is meant to be in the first place. I also think the admin's in both cases had the best of intentions and don't want to make it about them (if that makes any sense). Jasynnash2 (talk) 13:55, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
So there isn't a policy/guideline specific to admins which helps in these cases? Only the general ones you link to above? Is DRV just for policy/process errors? Jasynnash2 (talk) 14:17, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
I don't know any more specific pages; admins don't have a namespace of their own.
DRV is for policy/process errors, but misreading the balance of argument is a process error. (Uninvolved editors are less likely to feel that any individual case is a misreading, so such requests are often denied; it is also civil to tell the admins you have appealled to DRV.) SeptentrionalisPMAnderson14:25, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
(outdent)this is one. I figured giving it a rest for a couple of months with a clear-cut directive to improve refs was the most time-effective way to go rather than continuing. Cheers, Casliber (talk· contribs) 14:37, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
this is the other one. I'm still awaiting a response from the admin on this one. As stated above I didn't want to make my basic question about the specific articles or admins but, since people more experienced than I think it is important. Like I siad I don't want to make this into a replacement for DRV or other places so please don't let others do that with this question. Thanks. Jasynnash2 (talk) 14:52, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
It depends on what the Keep arguments actually were; as it happens, I would have !voted to keep one and delete the other.
On Casliber's close, the keep votes claimed notability, which is certainly an appeal to policy; he could have chosen to look behind them to see if there was more here than a resume, but we can also get back to the issue in a couple of months.
On King of Heart's close, one issue is whether we need an article on every Wikipedia. The fact that we don't have one, and have actually deleted some, was not brought out till half-way through; if it had been, a consensus might have emerged. SeptentrionalisPMAnderson15:43, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
This is going to sound bad probably but, that is exactly what I didn't want this section to turn into. It's why I was asking about general policy and guidelines. I don't want this to turn into an actual DRV discussion of the particular articles. Jasynnash2 (talk) 15:58, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Then let me summmarize. The admins clearly chose not to discount the keep arguments entirely. This was a judgment call, defensible in both cases; other admins might have chosen differently, and that would have been defensible too. Once that's done, our vague definition of consensus comes in. We can have consensus despite one or two objections (it depends on how many the supports are, and how reasonable); but not this many. SeptentrionalisPMAnderson16:21, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
There's an essay at WP:NOCONSENSUS, but I don't know how helpful it'll be. And I think the DRV part is wrong, usually no consensus there results in endorsing. Cheers. lifebaka++02:29, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
yes,at present DRV usually endorses a no-consensus close and just suggests another AfD in a few months--it doesn't prejudice matters and provides a chance to see if consensus has changed, or for other similar articles to be discussed. Seems just like common sense to me. To keep says "we agreed!" when others say we didn't, is a little pointless most of the time. I'd strongly encourage the use of such closes when the situation remains in doubt. DGG (talk) 04:10, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
I always find it odd when people insist they have to be unblocked NOW. He says he's willing to follow the rules and regulations. Part of our regulations are that consensus is king. The consensus in the previous discussion decided that no action would be taken until August 20 at the earliest. If he wants to show he's willing to abide by our policies, he should be willing to wait until then. Consensus can change, yes, but continually pestering people isn't going to get the change he's looking for. As you told him yourself back in July, he's not helping himself with this. If he wants to be unblocked, he needs to show some self-control that hasn't been witnessed yet. Hersfold(t/a/c)20:29, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Agree with Hersfold here, impatience shows immaturity, and immaturity usually causes problems. He was already advised that only time will decide his fate and yet here he is not much longer. Tiptoetytalk20:33, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Not yet, and now I have doubts about August 20th. It's a Zen[1] thing; he should remain blocked until he is no longer desperate to be unblocked; once it is no longer vital to him, then it's safe to unblock. --barneca (talk) 20:41, 8 August 2008 (UTC) [1] Probably should note that I don't actually know anything about Zen Buddhism, so it's quite possible it isn't a Zen thing at all; it might be irony or something, although that's a tricky concept too.
The person who created the original Nedra Pickler article, the one deleted as a G10, has not edited the new one. The old article was extremely short, only five lines, and it really *was* an attack page. The current one is much more balanced. If you are still concerned about the current article's neutrality, you could raise the matter on the article's Talk page. You could also open a complaint at WP:BLP/N if you think the article violates our rules on Biographies of Living Persons. EdJohnston (talk) 22:39, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Loathe though I am to short-circuit normal processes, I note that John Edwards appears to have confirmed the allegations currently discussed at John Edwards extramarital affair, currently under AFD at its former title of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Edwards paternity allegations. Given that confirmation, given in an ABC interview (certainly a Reliable Source), and given that the deletion rationale was based largely on the dearth of confrimation and reliable sourcing, I'm wondering if a procedural close would be appropriate. I note that this article will be getting a lot of traffic shortly, if it is not already, and will be seeing a lot of edits adding confirmed and reliable information - and, of course, some of the usual "cocksdickslol". Thoughts? I add, as a caveat, that I recommended strong keep once the news broke, and did not comment before - though I added the AFD to the society category. Thanks, UltraExactZZClaims~ Evidence 21:05, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Seems like closing is the sensible thing to do, with the proviso that it could be relisted without prejudice if there is a valid reason to do so. I have no time at the moment myself, though. Sorry. Thatcher21:08, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. I absolutely agree that it should be re-nominated if it ends up being the BLP nigthmare it could be. But it's impossible to have reasonable debate if the facts of the matter are changing so rapidly. One could argue, though, that it's impossible to have a reasonable debate where politics are involved, but there you go. Thanks for the quick responses, all. UltraExactZZClaims~ Evidence 22:14, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
This user, which was brought up at the WP:PW talk page appears to have a chronic problem with copyright images under GFDL licenses. His talk page looked like this before he blanked it. Despite all of this he has continued to upload many many questionable images under GFDL such as Image:Wwfedge&christian.jpg (which I recall seeing in a news article for The Sun several years back) and Image:Wedding22.jpg (promo image). Some of his images, such as Image:Mercuryandnitro.jpg have been moved to commons but given the incredible amount of blatant image violations should a purge be necessary and the user blocked? –– Lid(Talk)23:26, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Since the user was warned several times, but did not pay attention to the warnings, I think a last warning should be given to the user that if he upload any more image like those he previously uploaded, his account will be blocked indefinitely. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 11:21, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
And what about the images currently uploaded? Considering there is absolutely no way to tell which have been uploaded correctly, and some which blatantly are not correct, should all his image uploads simply be deleted outright? –– Lid(Talk)13:45, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
Recently appointed admin who barely squeaked by his RfA is editing abusively again. He keeps reverting List of Roman Catholic dioceses in Great Britain without discussing his reversions, over and over again. I have continually asked him to explain his actions on the talk page, and he has declined. Previously, he speedy deleted the page without discussing it with the other editors, which was later restored. He insists the category should be turned into a disambig because in his words "Great Britain does not exist".
As you can see from my talk page, talk he has harassed me previously, accusing me of being a meatpuppet, among other things. I was willing to give him the doubt provided he shaped up. He has reverted to his old pattern of reverting and refusing to discuss reverts on the talk page. I would like to request that he be put under admin review for reverting without discussing his reverts against the consensus. This is absolutely unacceptable behaviour for an administrator on wikipedia. Benkenobi18 (talk) 02:50, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
Dearie me ... welcome back to the crazed world of wiki! Since he has posted here, yes, can someone please sort this guy out. Puts me off coming to wikipedia when I know I have to waste my limited wikitime with this kind of tendentious nonsense. Most of the above is, as one would expect, fiction, and I have already had this argument with him many times. Essentially, the Catholic church in the British Isles is organized into 1) England and Wales, 2) Ireland and 3) Scotland, based on late medieval/early modern political boundaries and ignoring the boundaries of the modern United Kingdom. Ben created the article List of Roman Catholic dioceses in Great Britain (as well as a bunch of duplicate templates and categories) duplicating the previous wikipedia articles, for no good reason. Great Britain is neither a political entity nor an administrative sub-division of the Roman Catholic church. I've pointed this out to him already, but his only response was to tell me to wait for consensus while he forumshopped users and admins who largely ignored him or agreed with me. Maybe it's something ideological for him, who knows. His usual approach is to turn up every 5-10 tens, revert, and every other time subsequently leave a message to me ordering me not to revert him. Great big yawn. And incidentally I've never deleted any of his pages, though I have successfully nominated some for speedy (which is what he means by "he speedy deleted the page without discussing it with the other editors"). Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 03:33, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
"Ben created the article List of Roman Catholic dioceses in Great Britain (as well as a bunch of duplicate templates and categories) duplicating the previous wikipedia articles."
-Every single category in the Catholic dioceses has a list associated with it, including the Category of Great Britain. Why don't you nominate the article for A:FD again if you hate it so much? List of Roman Catholic dioceses in Balkanic Europe, List of Roman Catholic Dioceses in the Caribbean. These are all lists to help categorise the 3000 Catholic diocese articles. Why do you just want to disambig Great Britain, and not deal with the others?
"but his only response was to tell me to wait for consensus while he forumshopped users and admins who largely ignored him or agreed with me."
-So why is an adminstrator calling other users a meatpuppet without grounds for the accusation? I requested an admin who was uninvolved to assist, who was recommended from another editor. How is that forumshopping?
"And incidentally I've never deleted any of his pages, though I have successfully nominated some for speedy (which is what he means by "he speedy deleted the page without discussing it with the other editors")."
-As you can see he did it twice. It was restored, and rather then discussing the page, he speedied again, after I had argued for it's inclusion. It's all on my talk page. Again, if you want to delete it go ahead and nominate it again.Benkenobi18 (talk) 03:43, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
No, it's not a content dispute. I want Deacon to post on the talk pages when he reverts, rather then just reverting at will. He's an admin, and should behave according to WP policy. He's reverted again without discussion. Benkenobi18 (talk) 02:38, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Ok, now it doesn't say "Main Page" anymore in the header. But now it says "Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia". Did someone change the header setting? OhanaUnitedTalk page03:09, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
I'll bet there was a slight synchronization problem when the new version of MediaWiki went up. At any rate, it looks like it's working now. —Remember the dot(talk)04:08, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
User Yeago has been following me through my edits and undoing them [9], [10], [11]. I think this has something to do with an comment I left on BenBurch's talk page [12] that he has taken some kind of offens to. Now he continues to remove a POV tag on an article [13], even though he knows there is a debate over the article, and it has been posted on the BLP board for comment [14]. CENSEI (talk) 02:27, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
I took no offense whatsoever to your comment at Ben Burche's page. A simple comparison will show you and I expressed the same sentiment there. Please remember to assume good faith in the motives of other editors, as they may not necessarily be driven by vengeance, irrationality, or neuroticism. The BLP board is for administrative comment, not for general POV issues. My reversion of your tag is simply due to your misunderstanding of its application.Yeago (talk) 07:51, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
I don't see any personal vendettas here, just a disagreement over article content. It's clear that there's a revert war going on between the two editors. I'm blocking both for 24 hours to prevent further disruption to the article. Please discuss content disputes on the article talk page rather than reverting each other. If you can't agree, then please seek dispute resolution. Papa November (talk) 11:12, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
Looks like some intervention may be needed at that article. There is an editor (user:Eschoir) who has been on a rampage of adding poorly written unsourced content, looks like out of frustration at being thwarted in similar behavior on a related article, and another editor (user:Lima) who has been trying to defend the article but isn't able to. (I am an uninvolved observer.) Looie496 (talk) 04:11, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
I am from the te.wiki. I just noticed that fr.wiki uses the CEST time zone in their timestamp. I was just wondering if it possible for us to use the IST.
This isn't a matter for the Wikipedia administrators. It obviously is possible for the default timezone to be changed -- you'll need to get consensus on te.wikipedia first and then file a bug request at bugzilla. Sam Korn(smoddy)18:04, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
Reichstag Climbing in Progress
Resolved
– No admins needed, article has been deleted but can be restarted if an encyclopedic editor wishes to do so
Hi Administrators. Apologies if I have posted this in the wrong place, but I think we may have a case of Reichstag Climbing underway on Hythiam - 2 IP Editors seem to have been going at it hammer and tongs for the last several hours, with interruptions from other editors. The Edit History seems to be getting rather heated, and some pretty strong and incivil comments too in the edit summaries. Can I get some advice as to how to let this proceed, or indeed, whether to let it proceed at all? If so, please advise where to report this. Thanks.
Thor Malmjursson (talk) 17:27, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your help Administrators. Future Perfect has now deleted the offending article stating that "This article is a trainwreck." No more Reichstag Climbing on this one... Thor Malmjursson (talk) 17:47, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
Misuse of IAR here, I think. I've just been doing some Google research on this company (which I had never heard of), and in my judgement, it is notable enough to deserve an article, which should be written about halfway between what the two writers were trying to do, in a more neutral tone. This went from speedied to actually deleted in about two minutes. Protecting and directing them to the talk page would perhaps have been more appropriate. Looie496 (talk) 17:54, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
I partly agree, partly disagree. I certainly agree there could be a legitimate article. But these two guys are not the ones who can write it. Those two were a hopeless pair of COI warriors with dozens of real-life axes to grind, that much was obvious. Fut.Perf.☼18:01, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
Ceedjee keepts deleting the name war of Independence at Wars of Israel
He keeps dleting the name "war of independence to 1948 Palestine War. For NPOV I included both names.
He also keeps deleting Siege of Jerusalem (1948), to some newlly invented name.
it is unaccpetble to delete history, just because you don't like it.
someboy must take care of it, or refer this to someone responsible.
thank you. --Shevashalosh (talk) 21:09, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
the title issue has already been discussed on the IPCOLL project members : here. The question was to chose between 1948 Arab-Israeli War and 1948 Palestine War (Of course certainly not 1948 Independence War). The result of the discussion was to keep 1948 Palestine War;
There is not a single source in the article Siege of Jerusalem (1948) talking about this that way. The only one refers to the 1948 Battle(s) for Jerusalem : ((he)) Levi, Ytzhak, Nine Measures: The Battles for Jerusalem in the War of Independence, Ma'arachot, 1986.
Note I justified my modifications and corrections in the articles talk page and in the diff. several times.
Argh... I assume I must not be on the right page ??? Or I don't know what... If somebody could tell me (on my talk page) how we are expected to do to deal this... He doesn't discuss and if I revert him, I will go on / start / perpetue the edit war. Ceedjee (talk) 23:34, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
Contacted by the subject of an article
I was recently called, at home, by the subject of an article I've been editing from time to time. Fortunately, he thinks I'm the only neutral editor in the bunch....but I was wondering what I should do. I should add that he's not pressuring me for specific edits, and he knows I cannot include statements he sends me, unless published, in the article. I'd also like to contact somebody (probably ArbComm), so I can let them know who it is and what he did ask me to do (which is consistent with Wikipedia policies, IMHO). — Arthur Rubin(talk)00:29, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
I didn't ask how he got my phone number, but I have an idea, and it doesn't require a genius. The fact that I still live in the Los Angeles Times delivery area (see Arthur Rubin) and that I consider myself a southern Californian and a mathematician (see my userboxen) should give clues enough for anyone. — Arthur Rubin(talk)00:54, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
This is a followup subject to the above ABN AMRO naming dispute as the subject is now in the Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (capital letters) under the subject line Companies which officially use all-capital letters in their name. One of my more fanatical adversaries in the naming dispute is User talk:Croctotheface. The following statements are pasted from the above MOS talk page:
Another example is ARCO, an oil company whose name was derived from Atlantic Richfield Company. Please do not start an edit war in the ARCO article. Steelbeard1 (talk) 10:52, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Everyone reading this section will note that my above statement about ARCO was a polite plea not to make major changes to the ARCO article which could start an edit war with the ARCO article editors. Croctotheface considered that statement uncivil. I should pass this note along to the administrators. Steelbeard1 (talk) 15:04, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Yes, but the ABN AMRO content dispute developed into an edit war which developed into a renaming war which led an administrator who's familar with ABN AMRO to protect that article. Steelbeard1 (talk) 16:48, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Capitalization of company names is an interesting issue. US trademarks are forced to upper case by the USPTO, unless you trademark a graphic rather than a name. The Securities and Exchange Commission also converts all company names to upper case. So the only authority for capitalization is the company itself. --John Nagle (talk) 05:49, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Please issue warnings for improper reverts to 9/11
This should be a very simple matter but it isn't. I summarized 6 versions of the introductory sentence to the talk page of September 11, 2001 attacks and added a 7th at the suggestion of another editor (Peter Grey). This was left 2 weeks ago and no opposition was registered.
A few others are constantly reverting WITHOUT discussion or compromise. Others object to their version. (see comma discussion).
I think administrators should attempt to defuse the issue and to issue a block to Ice Cold Beer IF that editor refuses to discuss and compromise. If that user agrees to discuss as I have, I think the problem is solved. Presumptive (talk) 06:08, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
IceColdBeer has refused to discuss and reverted back to her/his non-consensus version. Bullies always win because I am letting it go. However, I did put a template warning on there which will probably be removed also. Do administrators support IceColdBeer's aggressive style? If so, should I copy it even though I favor discussion?
I don't think that I've done anything wrong here. Presumptive's changes are being made without consensus, so I've been reverting him/her. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 07:58, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
This has been a long drawn out discussion, with a few back and forths of the ad hominem nature, however, User:Skyring, who has dished a few personal attacks out on the page, and acted generally poorly regarding own and talk, in his latest act has overstepped the mark in my opinion. In response to his post here, I made this request that he clarify the meaning of the last part or strike it out, as another veiled personal attack on his opponents in general. His chosen reply was not to do either, but to bold the text instead. I think this is a clear indication that this user has no respect for anybody on that page that does not agree with the consensus he thinks is present and is enforcing, whereas incidentally by this survey there is clearly none to enforce. I would have warned first before coming here, but the nature of the response and his talk page/other actions in general make me think that would be a waste of my time. I will of course notify him of this request though. MickMacNee (talk) 18:05, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Additional instances: here he calls an user User:Matilda's contribution "farce" and here he gives wikilink to make a point against me. Though it may not be a serious breach of WP:TALK guidelines, it does not help much in a tensely debated talk page. DockuHi18:48, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
I suggest a neutral admin mark this resolved with nothing for admins to do. MickMacNee has been strongly pushing a POV which is unsustainable on the sources on the article, together with one or two other editors. Skyring, who I don't usually find myself defending, has been defending NPOV and RS on that article. Orderinchaos00:18, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
I am not so sure. The issue is not yet resolved. So, we still dont know who is pushing for POV. Anybody who make a decision should do so after reading the talk page in detail. In my feeling, we are about to rech a consensus. Finally even if one assumes MickMacNee is pushing for POV, it does not justify personal attacks. DockuHi01:41, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
This is an admin noticeboard. Things are posted here if there is something that admins are needed to do. In this case, it's a petty content dispute on a talk page. Orderinchaos02:15, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
I would really appreciate the views of non-involved (and probably non Australian) admins. I note quite a few people (not just Surturz) have referred to my actions in this edit war have been uncharacteristically dubious (actually the uncharacteristically is an uncharacteristic positive touch :-) ). I would observe however that Orderinchaos is an involved admin/editor in this case. I think it inappropriate that he call for a neutral admin mark this resolved with nothing for admins to do. --Matildatalk02:17, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
If I was trying to imply I was neutral, I would have closed it myself. Matilda's own actions in adding a policy-violating piece of text to a high-visibility article with an already problematic editing environment, then edit warring over it, then reporting her opponents for a block - all of which has created major drama and managed to unite large sections of the two usually opposing factions on the article against such inexplicable behaviour, have (and I note somewhat sadly) significantly reduced my opinion of someone who I have historically held in very high esteem indeed. I am disappointed to have to criticise her in a public place, especially since I suggested to an RfC on the topic recently that no further censure of her actions was required or helpful, but her sheer persistence and her refusal to accept she was wrong and her support of pure trolls on the article talk page makes it necessary. Orderinchaos02:29, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
It is not yet decided whether the text violates any policy. We are currently working on a non-violating text. User:Orderinchaos has stated himself that it is not a violation of BLP issue. You can see that here. I accidentally entered the article and was appalled by how badly some editors including Matilda were treated. You could see the evidences above. The issues are being discussed in detail in the talk page and we are about to reach a consensus. We are trying to reach consensus edit which does not violate any wikipedia policy. I really support Matilda's idea of a non-Australian editor. DockuHi02:44, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Then, what is the problem if Matilda says the same? How do you justify personal attacks against her and other editors? I will wait for a neutral admin. DockuHi02:49, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
I have not personally attacked anyone. I think sometimes AGF is misunderstood - it certainly does not mean we are not allowed to call people out when they act against the interests of the encyclopaedia (whether that be their intention or not) - at the end of the day we are expected at all times to do whatever it takes to improve the encyclopaedia. Otherwise we would never be able to block vandals because we would be accused of not be assuming good faith of them. Another very good example is conflict of interest, where we basically say that someone is either unable or severely limited in their ability to approach the topic or edit with the detachment required by an academically rigorous process, due to either an investment in the topic or a strong ideological commitment to a particular point of view. Orderinchaos03:05, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
I think what might be best is to put this page under community probation. The poor behaviour on that page has been going on for way too long and creeps out onto other pages and it's just too time-consuming for the community to constantly have to deal with these disputes which are always basically the same just over different content. Despite warnings and various users being blocked over the last year the page has not improved but rather got worse if anything. I tried previously to help on this page as an administrator but I gave up like most others due to the never ending partisan POV-pushing and disgraceful behaviour all round. So I have not been involved with these content disputes but I have been watching it and unfortunately I share Orderinchaos's concerns about some of Matilda's actions on this page. In addition to what OIC has outlined, in a blatant conflict of interest, Matilda blocked an alternate account being being used to write an RFC about herself, rather than reporting it and allowing another administrator to do it for her. I have a lot of respect for Matilda but I am quite concerned that she has become so involved that she has compromised herself and should not be using her tools at all in regard to this page or any of these users. I am also concerned about the general activities going on on the John Howard page and I really think it's time to do what some of us have been discussing for some time now and either take it to arbitration or put it under community sanctions. Sarah03:53, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Sarah: You may be right. I dont know about Matilda's past actions. But as of now, I couldnt find anything disputable. Therefore, as an editor already involved in the article and as an Australian, I guess you shouldnt have commented. Your comment will now prevent other uninvolved administrators from commenting because they might not want to differ with you. This is despite the plea she made for a non-Australian admin. I am quite disappointed. But, what is your opinion on the personal attacks anyway. I guess no action good or bad should justify personal attacks? DockuHi04:01, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
The personal attacks are not confined to one direction or one person. I largely agree with Barneca's comment on his/her talk page. Orderinchaos04:30, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm not involved with the article. I haven't touched the article since early December last year and I haven't touched the article's talk page for months. I am not and have not been involved in any of these content disputes. I am only aware of what has been happening because of various complaints made to this noticeboard and ANI and other pages on my watchlist. Other administrators will feel free to comment as they so desire and if they don't feel they can comment because I have commented then they shouldn't be administrators. Anyone can comment, including Australians. Sarah04:39, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Well, there is no conflict of interest in my case. I am not from Australia and I dont live there and I dont belong to any parties in Australia. Maybe it will be helpful if the ones who belong to parties stay away due to WP:COI. DockuHi03:26, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
I have no problems with people from parties editing so long as they edit encyclopaedically. As I told a newspaper a few weeks ago when they asked me, we view editing as the problem, not editors - although inevitably, some editors will be more problematic than others, but in terms of who they are in the real world, we're not terribly particular as long as they edit appropriately. This particular issue, as an aside, actually has very little to do with party politics in Australia, as supporters of all four major parties on the article have opposed its inclusion, and as the media isn't talking about it (given that it's only of marginal activist interest) comments from Labor and Liberal identities are not to be found anywhere. Orderinchaos03:39, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
I am impressed to know that you know who belongs to which party. I would be curious to know if there is no privacy issues. I however cant hide my surprise to learn that wikipedia is really politicised. Again, editors oppose the edit as it was initially suggested to be included. Let me be honest with you, I have no confidence whatsoever that the edit will get the consensus as it was initially included. Well, Isnt that why we are trying to get a consensus edit which everyone will approve of! I hope you have no problem in doing that. DockuHi03:45, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
One year and more of ongoing disputes on that article tends to bring out who follows which, also some state it openly on their userpages/userboxes. I originally entered the situation as an uninvolved administrator, but noone ends up uninvolved there for long. Also, David Hicks (an article subject to similar levels of intense dispute over a prolonged period, with many of the same people involved) and John Howard disputes tend to interplay into each other - it's the Australian politics project's only serious problem area - most are ignored for the most part, such as the Western Australian political topics I'm trying to whip into shape before the coming election which just got announced yesterday for a month's time, including eliminating copyvio in over 50 articles. My attitude to this dispute is - I am not going to forego Wikipedia policies just to keep someone happy. We are not going to add crap to articles. If, however, something is reliably sourced and does not require any synthesis, then I will support it so long as it does not distort the article (which is already doing things that would be beyond most gymnasts as it is). Orderinchaos03:55, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Docku, I don't mean to be rude at all and you're welcome to discuss partisanship and such with orderinchaos on your talk page but can I ask that you post elsewhere about anything that does not require administrative attention. By filling up this section you are making it increasingly unlikely that uninvolved administrators will be willing to wade through all this and then investigate the opening complaint. Sarah04:55, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
I was going to suggest it myself. Somehow got lost in discussion. Need to sleep anyway. I hope you will remind Orderinchaos as well.:) DockuHi04:58, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Please watchlist a discussion at Talk:John Howard : reply from Matilda
As my name has been mentioned several times above in this discussion I have chosen to respond. The article talk page has a current RfC which mainly deals with my conduct. I think calling for uninvolved admins has merit - particularly because there are significant wikiquette issues on that page.
I made no admin actions in relation to Skyring and the edits at John Howard (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) that I am aware of, other than the blocks of no longer necessary (in his view and my view) sockpuppet accounts which I discuss further below. I reported Skyring for 3RR reversion - I did not block - I am not sure why my report is considered inappropriate I have stated elsewhere I will report any violation of 3RR promptly - and have done so in the past. I am also not sure why I am being judged for Ed Johnston's decision (not in this thread but elsewhere) - his decision not mine and I don't believe I mislead him with any information in my report.
Gnangarra and others object to my two times reversion of Skyring and it has been alleged that I "goaded" Skyring into a 3RR breach. Firstly they (OiC and Gnangarra) have very strongly failed to assume good faith - I will assert again that I had no intention of goading Skyring. Gnangarra seeks to for all to abide by WP:1RR - in particular in relation to the John Howard article. While I think the idea has merit - he spoke to me about that after my two time reversion and I was operating on <3RR - I don't see two times reversion as edit warring - I am not trying to be a wikilawyer - that is what the policy says and to assert otherwise as Skyring (supported by OiC, Gnangarra and others) is not in my view justified.
I observed Skyring was using sock puppets to disguise his editing. I raised the matter with him [30] - as I see it I had a legitimate interest in seeing whether he was drafting his RfC (and to call that interest stalking is in my view inappropriate) but in fact I didn't search for it, I found his editing quite by accident and it gave me a very nasty turn to find my username linked to his sandbox when I knew he hadn't edited there in the last week or so. He responded - not in my view satisfactorily - but I left him to it. Once he had completed the RfC I tagged the accounts as sockpuppets - he has used sockpuppets quite frequently in the apst and they have not under any circumstances been regarded as compliant with policy. I noted the tag said "and blocked indefinitely" and I blocked them. I did not escalate to an uninvolved admin as I did not wish to escalate the issue at all. Inadvertently on my part the autoblock function blocked one of the IP addresses he used - but not the other. Skyring raised the matter at WP:ANI. I note that others thought the sockpuppetry on Skyring's part was not a breach of policy - though I cannot see the allowance of it at WP:Sock. Moreover the admin who made that comment said to Skyring I don't think the accounts violated policy, but I meant what I said on the ANI thread; I think it would have been wiser not to have created them, due to your past issues. I noted also advice from Shotinfo Matilda, in all honesty, you should have taken this to AN/I to have an uninvolved admin act on the information rather than unilaterally act on it yourself. . Sarah said at ANI (and I didn't see until today because her comment was more than 10 hours after I had left my comment) Matilda, can I suggest that perhaps it might be best to ask someone else to block the accounts in this sort of situation in future? You blocking an account being used to build an RFC against yourself could be seen to be a tremendous COI and thus a misuse of the tools. She has reiterated that statement in this thread again above, and it is in part in reponse to her that I have decided to reply here. As far as I was concerned the account was no longer in use as the RfC had been lodged. Skyring had been warned that I regarded his account as an illegitimate sockpuppet account and as far as I understand he had no difficulty with the block, merely the inadvertant and unintended consequences of the block. I had chosen not to report him for sockpuppetry - after all the message I received was reporting Skyring was not OK - as I saw it at the time I was damned if I did and damned if I didn't. I note and will follow in future the advice to the contrary.
I am very concerned that Orderinchaos repeatedly suggests (including suggesting in this discussion) that editors not previously involved should not / need not be participating in the discussion [31][32], or those that are recently arrived have some improper motive [33] - I disagree strongly that limiting the number of editors involved will help. Specifically outside editors have in effect been invited to the page and to give their views by the BLP notice and the RfC.
Wikipedia:Administrators states while correct use of the tools and appropriate conduct is considered very important, the title of "administrator" is not a big deal . Wikipedia:Administrators#Administrator conduct gives some quite specific guidelines - including the prefacing caveat Administrators, like all users, are not perfect beings. However, in general, they are role models within the community, and must have a good general standard of civility, fairness, and general conduct both to users and in content matters . The RfC on Talk:John Howard raised by Skyring is allegedly about policy - in reality it is about my conduct. Gnangarra and Orderinchaos by endorsing Skyring's RfC have called into question my conduct as an admin - and moreover they have done so elsewhere (for example OIC has repeated that assertion in this discussion above).
At Wikipedia:Harassment#Assistance for administrators being harassed it states In case of problems administrators have the exact same right as any other user to decline or withdraw from a situation that is escalating or uncomfortable, without giving a reason ... I thought by taking a wikibreak I would allow the situation to de-escalate - it didn't :[34] - or at least not in a way I found acceptable. Following the advice on WP:Harass , I have emailed OTRS for confidential advice - that email was more than two days ago and as at this morning (in Australia) I had not heard back :-( (Note I only have intermittent access to my email)
In conclusion then - I am seeking advice - I undertake to heed any guidance offered. I would really appreciate univolved non-Australian admins reviewing the situation - there is an outstanding policy RfC to focus on if nothing else and also the article has been raised at the BLP noticeboard. Why non-Australian - because the Australians have all worked with all of us before and have been watching and therefore do not come without prejudice notwithstanding their lack of editing of the article or on the talk page. I am looking for somebody who has not looked at it before to come and see.
Just for the record I have no political allegiance (Orderinchaos infers above that many regular editors on the page do but does not clarify who and what allegiance). --Matildatalk07:09, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
As I've been named above - I don't need to clarify who has what allegiances, as firstly it's well known amongst the editors on that page (and FTR I never suggested you had one), secondly just because I know doesn't necessarily mean they want me to spill it all over the page in one place, and thirdly it may just fuel the trolling which is taking place there right now. I have no problem with your conduct generally - like I've said on at least three occasions now, I think you're one of the better admins on the Australian project, and it saddens me to end up on the other side from you, but your actions and choices have left me with no choice. Thirdly, as an admin I have a duty, as do all admins, of upholding and enforcing policy. When a group of clearly organised editors arrive on the page out of nowhere on the day a dispute arises which did not arise by natural means on the page, and engage in far-left activism, and on investigating a couple of the editors I find serious problems with their history which I have had to make other admins aware of (anyone who wants to know more about that is free to contact me for details), I would not be doing my job if I did not oppose it in the strongest terms and stick up for core Wikipedia policy. Orderinchaos07:25, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Well, Orderinchaos, if you are talking about my history being questionable. I would like to have a copy of the report you are willing to share with anyone? DockuHi16:14, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
I have no idea where these clearly organised editors have arrived from - I did not solicit their presence, I am unaware of any problems with them and I have taken their comments and conduct at face value - I have not investigated further. I believe it has confused the talk page discussion that OiC has had those discussions with them on that page (at least in part)instead of on their respective talk pages. If the article talk page focussed lss on conduct and more on content we would be much better off. A user has made a suggestion concerning formatting of comments on the talk page (opt in) which I thought was very useful - unfortunately using <small>...</small> tags makes it unreadable for some so that bright idea will have to be reconfigured somehow. The principle however of concentrating on content not conduct would limit the personal attacks, whether real or perceived and probably lead to faster article improvement.--Matildatalk07:35, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
I think the main problem we have is noone there is actually looking to improve the article. The vast majority of editors are protecting it from one incidence of irresponsible conduct after another, which does not promote improvement as it reinforces a current deficient form of it simply because it does not contain the relevant addition, and of course the users engaging in that conduct are not at all interested in the article and more whatever trivial point or grievance they wish to have aired within it. In the end it's the article that suffers, not whichever side loses. This has been going on for more than a year, I even wrote an essay about it a month or so ago but haven't had time to post it in my userspace yet. Orderinchaos10:31, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
I came to the article after adding the 9/11 evac section, thuis putting it on my watchlist, where I watched this edit war unfold with some dodgy reasoning being made to justify removal of sourced content. If orderinchaos wants to use that fact as a reason to make all sorts of accusations and insinuations about me because of it, well he clearly will. MickMacNee (talk) 19:45, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Matilda, I'm not sure what you're looking for at OTRS as I haven't looked up your email, but OTRS generally does not get involved in on-Wiki content disputes, instead referring users back to traditional dispute resolution and it is likely for this reason that you have not yet had a reply. Further, you should probably be aware that OIC, Gnangarra, myself, and many other Australians are on the OTRS team. Sarah08:23, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
I would expect that Australians would proabably recognise my email address and would stay away. At Wikipedia:Harass#Assistance_for_administrators_being_harassed it states contact the Arbitration Committee or OTRS if needed. I chose to do that and am disappointed not to have had the support I was seeking, notwithstanding I acknowledge the support is given by volunteers who are not obliged to do anything. --Matildatalk08:54, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm not trying to be obtuse so apologies if it seems that way, but can I ask who is harassing you and where? With regards to the RFC you mentioned in the above extended statement, I don't think the RFC really belongs there on the John Howard talk page. The stuff about you should be moved to user conduct RFC or a user talk page or someplace but the issue of content is okay there. I'm assuming Peter posted it though because you kept asking him to do so. I didn't really get the impression it was something he was otherwise all that keen on doing. Sarah10:21, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
response to Matilda since I have been specifically mentioned, in endorsing the RFC I said that I endorse Skyrings reasonings as laid out, the BLP issues are justified and his action were within the guidelines of BLP. The admin that blocked him for[3RR] 24 hours should have applied that to all edit warring parties equally[ie Matilda 2 reverts]...Matilda as an admin should never have reverted Skyring twice she has experience(community trust) to realise that it was inflamming the situation. The correct course of action would have been to request the article be protected until the issue was resolved on the talk page, WP:RFPP not WP:3RR.diff. After the block occurred I contacted Matilda directly via email and made some comments there over her actions as an editor, noting that as "an admin with her experience" she should have realised that her actions in reverting were inflamming the situation. A couple of days later I was also approached on my talk to comment about two edits made by Skyring and explain BLP and UNDUE concerns, one I was asked if it was a PA the other whether it was inline with WP:TALK. In response to the PA I said I presume your talking about the specific comment on Matilda's editing(Matilda has made herself scarce, so there's probably little point pursuing her for starting and mismanaging this farce.), in short that to me wasnt a personal attack its more an olive branch to move the discussion along. Matilda did make a couple of questionable admin actions in relation to Skyring these should have been left to outside parties to addressdiff the action was in relation to the blocking of the alternative account and calling it a sock, again the action wasnt helping to defuse the situation. The discussion has since moved on the original text and source that was the point contention are not being used because of the BLP/UNDUE concerns raised. As I said when endorsing the RFC I think the best result for the article is for all editors to be restricted to 1R for 12 months, which is the normal ARBCOM ruling for similar contentious subjects. Gnangarra13:02, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Summary I agree that Matilda should not have unilaterally blocked the sockpuppets of User:Skyring but rather sought the advice of some uninvolved editors. Everyone makes mistakes and I am sure every wikipedian here must have made some type of mistake at some point of time during their wikipedia career, it is only natural as human beings. I guess Matilda was reminded of her actions and to refer to that one instance over and over again and blow it out of proportions only embarass her and is not going to be helpful. I feel like she is being pushed to the wall and we all know that people have difficulty responding positively when they feel that way. We all need to forget the past, forgive her and move on. Now, none of Matilda's past actions justify any of the personal attacks by anyone and therefore I hope some neutral administrator (preferably a non-Australian as Matilda requested) will look at the personal attack complaint noted in the first paragraph in this thread and will respond in an appropriate way. Thanks. DockuHi15:00, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
While personal attacks are never justified, reasonable questioning of actions is expected and not to be discouraged at all. It's only in questioning actions that in some cases one becomes aware that what one has done is not in accordance with community norms. As an administrator of 17 months standing myself, I've been questioned plenty of times, and on some of those occasions have realised from the vantage point of what amounts to a third opinion that I was wrong and conceded or made some effort to rectify my actions. In my opinion, wantonly lighting a fire in a flammable area then denying all responsibility while the inferno burns is very serious behaviour, and so out of character in my long experience of the individual's behaviour that, as I said to one of their uninvolved supporters by email, I really hope this proves to be an isolated incident. Orderinchaos20:15, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Response from Skyring
I'll endorse the charges of trolling already raised. This incident has long since consumed more space and more words and more individuals than the whole of the world's media devoted to it. Consensus amongst long-standing editors on the page was quickly found, which, considering the often long and heated disagreements in the past is truly remarkable. I think admin Matilda made some serious errors, not least edit-warring over contentious material after a WP:BLP notification had been raised with discussion ongoing. The effect of her actions, beginning with adding the contentious material, has been continued disruption. Over recent days trolling from previously unheard-of editors, including the raising of this section, has been blatant. There was never a consensus for inclusion, and the continued wikilawyering and petty personal attacks did nothing to generate any move in that direction.
I'd be interested to see some high-level scrutiny on this incident. I'll add my voice to others calling for some change to the way things are done in Australian political articles. 1RR limits will help, but they won't be needed if we can enforce a policy of requiring consensus for inclusion of contentious material.
As for me, I know I've got a history of being snarky and snakey when attacked, but I've pulled my fingers back from the keyboard dozens of times over the past few days. Not wanting to feed the trolls. --Pete (talk) 14:21, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Here is a demonstration of what we are talking about. When you say you resisted feeding the trolls, you intend to mean that someone was trolling. As far as I remember, I was one of the persons involved in talk page discussion in the past few days and that makes me assume that you call me a troll. Anybody who can have a cursory look at the talk page can find out that I am trying to get a consensus. In fact I am very happy that both Orderinchaos and Surtuz have agreed that including Mahathir's comments are acceptable to them. You can see that here and here. While I am genuinely trying to get a consensus, calling me a troll is not helpful. DockuHi17:08, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
To reply specificaly to this post from Skring,
"I'll endorse the charges of trolling already raised. This incident has long since consumed more space and more words and more individuals than the whole of the world's media devoted to it." - i.e. others are not listening to your political viewpoint that the contested edit is a political stunt from Howrad's enemies, and as such should not be allowed in the article. End of discussion apparently.
"Consensus amongst long-standing editors on the page was quickly found, which, considering the often long and heated disagreements in the past is truly remarkable." - i.e. agreement was reached by less than 5 editors, who by virtue of having had disputes between themselves in the past, and being 'regulars' on the article, their decision trumps any other 'new' (i.e. automatically suspicious) opinion. There was a quite irrevelant discussion about everbody's stated political affiliation and comments over external factors and who thought what about Howard/the action group in question, but frankly, precious little attempt to defend the other side as the recognised way to test their reasoning about the specific text with regards neutrality, objectivity, relevance and meeting BLP,RS etc.
"I think admin Matilda made some serious errors" - and you have not let up on the personal attacks against her to show it, in addition to launch what was supposed to be a content Rfc but was essentially, a user Rfc, placed on an article talk page (that everyone had to suspend discussion to wait for you while it was prepared offline in your own time)
"not least edit-warring over contentious material after a WP:BLP notification had been raised with discussion ongoing." A BLP notification at which you persistently ignored repeated posts that is was not a BLP issue subject to ignoring 3RR. You were subsequently blocked.
"The effect of her actions, beginning with adding the contentious material, has been continued disruption." - discussion is not disruption. Asking you to stop personal attacks is not disruption. Talking on the talk page after the issue is resolved in your miond is not disruption.
"Over recent days trolling from previously unheard-of editors, including the raising of this section, has been blatant." - as has your personal attacks and insinuations against them. With your posts you are attemtping to deter new editors by owning the article.
"There was never a consensus for inclusion, and the continued wikilawyering and petty personal attacks did nothing to generate any move in that direction." - Your continued statement of having consensus is untrue, see the survey (currently 4-5 in your favour). This is not consensus. Your only response to this was to attack the taking of a survey, and repeat that there is consensus.
"I'd be interested to see some high-level scrutiny on this incident. I'll add my voice to others calling for some change to the way things are done in Australian political articles. 1RR limits will help, but they won't be needed if we can enforce a policy of requiring consensus for inclusion of contentious material." - Your suggestion of 1RR was almost universally rejected, showing just how far out your assesment of the situation is.
"As for me, I know I've got a history of being snarky and snakey when attacked, but I've pulled my fingers back from the keyboard dozens of times over the past few days. Not wanting to feed the trolls." - there does seem to be a background issue with australian articles affecting your conduct at this article, frankly, that's no excuse, and of no interest to the people on that page. (until you use it as a blanket justification to act as described in the original complaint here) MickMacNee (talk) 19:40, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
See what I mean? misrepresentation the whole way, in the hopes that I or someone else will bite. I don't know how my accurate comments that "there was never a consensus for inclusion" could genuinely be understood to read "your continued statement of having consensus is untrue". Ooops. I bit. --Pete (talk) 22:02, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Looking further at the comments above, I find that I am continually misrepresented. For example, I am accused of calling User:Matilda's contribution "farce".[35] The link given shows nothing of the sort. I said "Matilda has made herself scarce, so there's probably little point pursuing her for starting and mismanaging this farce."[36] This whole thing is a farce, a battle over trivia, and I hope that I am not alone in wishing that the admins involved could have worked together to find an earlier and more satisfactory solution. --Pete (talk) 15:34, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
We are writing an encyclopaedia. When editors do not tell the truth, and then fail to acknowledge this when it is pointed out in a remarkably public arena, I wonder just how suited they are for this project. Do we want to give our readers useful information? Or untruths, evasions and waffle? --Pete (talk) 21:35, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
More personal attacks, but without the bravery to name who is being attacked. You want to give readers the information you agree with, nothing more, nothing less. This is useful information: legal papers re. Howard were filed to the ICC<reliable source> Here is an untruth: There exists consensus/this is a BLP issue/the inclusionists are cranks/a cabal/there is support for 1RR/I am the only one who is being constructive here/there is nobody in the world that has called Howard a war criminal. Here is an evasion: I am going to write an article Rfc on the material which will show the source to be unreliable (followed by a user Rfc which shows nothing of the sort mixed with more personal attacks) / we can't allow material that calls Howard a war criminal / we can't accuse Australian soldiers of being rapists / if xyz happens then it can be added / we didn't write about xyz so this shouldn't be included etc etc etc. MickMacNee (talk) 23:04, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
The ICC is not being cited as a source, as their site contains no information about this claim (or the other two allegedly made against the Australian government over the last two years). Orderinchaos01:05, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Back to the original issue
I don't think this was a particularly edifying spectacle on the part of any of the editors involved - nothing below (either by myself or others) adds anything to the debate or gets us anywhere closer to resolving the issues which exist, and merely serves to reinforce existing divisions. As one of the parties is presently unable to respond, it seems this would be a good time to end it and let it go to the archives. Orderinchaos13:13, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
Just to get back on track, as there have been no admins looking at the page in question, can we be clear then that nobody thinks Skyring has done anything wrong per the original post? Is what he did the recognised standard on this article?
Now for the rest of this post, other comments from today. To quote the involved Surturz above - "He is merely responding to strong POV from (me)". Well, for one, that's no excuse, for two, where is my POV, three, Skyring argues exclusively from POV about what should be in the article based on what he thinks of editors/outside groups/his political view of Howard/opponents of Howard. He has barely assessed the specific disputed text at all wrt to policy when compared to his POV commentary. He also repeatedly insisted on calling it a BLP violation despite others disagreeing many times, sheer willfull ignorance.
Orderinchaos is now making repeated assertions that somehow this article is offlimits to anyone but the regulars, how he doesn't see that as wrong I don't know. He, and Skyring, are making insinuations about other editors. Skyring is insisting here he is enforcing consensus, well he clearly can't count the results of the survey (or as per Orderinchaos, is discounting the non-regulars).
Orderinchaos is also even disparaging the taking of the survey, calling it unnecessary because the regulars know the deal, or newcomers can see the situation from the (massive) talk page. As per Skyring, he is either ignoring or miscounting the survey. He has even basically said, the people on the one side know policy, the other side don't. He also stated there has been multiple poll taking in the discussion, therefore it is disruption, (not true - he can point out any other attempt on the page if he likes). None of this behaviour is a content dispute as Order is suggesting, and none of it is justified because Skyring gets angry when he doesn't get his preferred version of articles preserved. MickMacNee (talk) 19:06, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
I have never argued that it is off limits to anyone but the regulars. I have opposed a particular phenomenon where a group of previously uninvolved people show up at an article within a day or so of each other without any interest in its development but simply to make a point. This is an in-principle violation of consensus and really rankles with me for the primary reason that it is not behaviour which is in any way designed to produce an encyclopaedia with a neutral point of view. The careful avoidance of reliable sources, and the hysterical reactions of those involved when asked to provide them (which proves that the addition is based purely on an appeal to emotion and not reason), confirm my belief that this is a campaign rather than anything in good faith. Theoretically, it would be possible to ram-raid a whole stack of articles in succession pushing an extreme left, or extreme right, or a particular philosophical point of view. It's been done before. Thankfully, most of the editors on that occasion about a year and a half ago are banned now... they caused an awful lot of disruption and drove a lot of very good editors off the encyclopaedia during their reign of terror though. When one reads ArbCom proceedings regularly enough one sees that it's not a phenomenon limited to Australian politics articles, and can theoretically occur anywhere where there could be advantage in pushing particular ideological, religious or nationalist barrows - the names change, but the game is very much the same. As for your "survey", that in itself was a blatant and wilful violation of WP:GAME itself in my opinion, as the positions were already very clear, and polling is not a substitute for discussion as you well know. Orderinchaos20:07, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
You haven't said anything new here, just reinforced your bang out of order views. You are labeling me a left wing campaigner because of what has happened on the article previously, which has nothing at all to do with me. This is a clear souring of the discussion, it seems you simply cannot accept that a new editor could come to that discussion and disagree with your group of regulars who think being pally with each other despite having differences absolves you from the most basic behavioural and procedural undertakings. Face it, you are owning the article. If you have evidence of any hysterical views from me in the discussion, be my guest and substantiate (as requested from the regulars many times when handing out accusations). Similarly, if you wish to explain how the consensus in a talk discussion with going on 30 discrete headers is "clear to anyone", and that the starting of the first and only attempt to survey it is "a blatant and wilful violation of WP:GAME". Your poisoning of the discussion and the editors who disagree with you based on your previous experiences is frankly disgusting, and certainly not becoming of an admin. If this is how you act in all Australian politics articles it is no wonder that people feel justified in acting badly, you are hardly setting any kind of example. Why don't you just drop any pretence that you are acting in good faith, and that you have any intention of engaging on that talk page with the editors who clearly disagree with your removal of a sourced piece of information, and have not done anything except say why they disagree. The way you talk about neutral point of view just takes the biscuit, given the numerous political POV assertions made that have absolutely nothing to do with the disputed text. It is yourself that are turning that page into a politiclal blog rather than a discussion about how to improve the article with a neutral and sourced piece of information, or with arguments as to why it is not to be included. If you are so sure of your interpretation of policy, why have you not sought third opinons, why are you so unwilling to mediate, why are you doing anything and everything to distract the discussion from discussing the actual text and its merits/faults. In fact, why don't you just open a checkuser case for the four of us who are clearly in league as part of a leftist campaign to wage war against your five editors who are the only editors who are right, because well, you own the article, you've been through bad experiences before, you like each other, we are mad, yader yader yader. MickMacNee (talk) 21:38, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
One thing I do have to thank you guys for, you know - you've made the administrators' job in the future a lot easier. There were people on the verge of taking each other to ArbCom with multiple failed RfMs and whatever else, who are politically and in just about every sense divided in a way which has been compounded by repeated conflicts over a long period of time, and your activism has actually united them, some of them for the first time ever. At least one contributor's posts suggest he is almost in disbelief that certain other editors agree with him. As for your rhetorical questions - there is nothing to mediate, there is a behavioural issue. Additionally, you and I both know a checkuser would be meaningless - the users involved are on different continents and I have no doubt they are three different people. I much wish it to be otherwise, so we could clear the non-productive users out (as at least one other has suggested) and maybe have some hope of actually developing the article, something none of you are at all interested in, based on contributions. AGF is often misused to stifle proper and appropriate criticism - the general principle however has a caveat, "one does not need to assume good faith in the face of clear evidence to the contrary". Orderinchaos21:48, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Too right behavioural issues, you in one breath claim all opposers are left wing campaigners in league on the article, in the next concede with have nothing to do with each other. Of course you think there is nothing to mediate, because you are blind to the clear oppostion to your view about the text. You know full well that ownership works to exclude as well as include, I don't know why you are being so purposely dumb here (well I do, but it appears no-one here is that bothered to do anything about it). Anyway, your sarcasm and non response to the requests to clarify your bad faith and bad manners accusations and statements speaks volumes. "something none of you are at all interested in". You know what my first edit to the article was, I have had to explicitly tell you under your bad faith accusations, so in response to that comment, your just a basic liar and an obvious troll. MickMacNee (talk) 23:28, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Actually, no, I didn't "concede" anything of the sort. People are perfectly capable of coordinating without using the same computer - which is all checkuser can verify - we saw that with the CAMERA business a while ago, and have seen it more recently with the Parliamentary matter. There is no "clear opposition", so there's nothing for me to ignore. The fact that such usually persistently opposed editors on the page can agree it should not be included suggests to me that, had the activists not arrived out of nowhere to use the article talk page as a soapbox and a moot court opportunity, this argument would have ended almost two weeks ago with the material not being included. Oh, and on your instigation above - let's look at the history of this. Matilda made her edit at 15:25 on 28 July. At 21:55, Carbonrodney, an editor who had never edited this article before, had only 18 days of active editing history and none of it substantial, with some oddities thrown in, reverted its removal. 23:09, you arrive to add more info to Matilda's edit (keeping in mind this was something which allegedly happened 7 weeks earlier so could not be excused by it being a recent event and various people rushing to update). By 29 July the whole situation, previously calm, is a full-blown edit war between the three of you and the usual editors (which for the record, didn't include me until late on 30 July, when I made my one and only edit to revert while discussion was in progress.) Orderinchaos08:40, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
Well, if you think we are in league as per CAMERA, why haven't you got the brass neck to back up your opinions with action, instead of contiunaly slighting editors. It is no wonder the 'regulars' have such a bad attitude problem, if this continual smearing against newcomers to the article is accepted by "admins" like you. I don't give a damn what you think is happening on the article and how you use that to justify your actions, I have given my explanation as to how I got there, so either you prove it or you shut your hole and respect other's right to post on the page. I would prefer you had the deceny to stand for re-election, but that's obviously beyond your comprehension. MickMacNee (talk) 17:12, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
Firstly, I owe you and a few people an apology, not so much for what I have said, but how I have said it. I think I have made the mistake, as we're all prone to do on Wiki, of taking things a bit too personally when people do things that to me are utterly unconscionable. The most obvious course of action is simply to react. A more considered course of action would be simply to deal with the edits and bring in third opinions. As it turns out, a third opinion admin, who has accused myself and most others on the page of "acting like children", which I'll take on the nose, has concluded there is no consensus to add the material, and that as consensus is needed to do so (irrespective of whether it can by policy), the matter is at an end. I think we should abide by that, I certainly intend to.
As for your belief I should resign (irrespective of the fact that I have at no stage at any time in this dispute used the tools which I have been granted, nor do I intend to, as it would be a violation of several policies), I don't think you'd have held that belief several months ago when I stuck out my neck to undo a really bad block on you over the Betacommand business by an involved admin, and had to put up with some really intense questioning on my talk page about it. Some people then were suggesting much the same thing as you are now, but the action taken was in complete violation of our policies and acting in the spirit of them was something very important to me, just as it is today.
I do what I believe to be right, rather than from some set ideological position. That is what the community expects me to do, no more, no less. Personally speaking, I wouldn't be unhappy to see people like Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz in The Hague answering lots of difficult questions and facing a life sentence, just as those involved in the various Yugoslav wars are today. That is something I might well argue for on a blog. But that isn't a sound academic perspective such as we're expected to adopt here, we're meant to work based on the facts of the case and also from a "big picture" view which emphasises what is important and what is not. I am also a graduate and a second year undergraduate student, I am almost mechanically familiar with the mores and rules of academic editing. And that position, from which the Wikipedia policies also emanate, requires us to put our own ideological preferences aside and edit with a neutral point of view. I am also an educator, and I have dealt with students of my own - both young and adult - and for years worked in corporate customer service.
So I have seen a lot in my relatively short life, and I take lessons away from all of it. Anyway, this is going to be my last word on the topic - I realise that I cannot sway you, I'm very unhappy about the manner in which certain users have chosen to further an agenda, but the matter is basically over now and by arguing here all we are doing is furthering drama. I have nothing against you personally. Orderinchaos18:54, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
At least an apology at last. Not a lot of good when the behaviour it relates to is long in the past and has meant the discussion went south long ago. The addition of irrelevance about beta isn't appreciated, as again I point out something you should know as an admin, we don't change our actions here based on personal favours, and again that is a worrying aspect of this article, editors letting outside issues between them influence their actions. The current teamwork on an unrelated text is a case in point. The "big picture" approach is being misapplied in this instance as it only seems to apply to a western world view, and the continued justification of edits based on your political beliefs is a) not proveable, b) not relevant to policy, c) not relevant to whether or not the text meets policy. MickMacNee (talk) 23:16, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
Actually, it's the addition which is not provable, is completely contrary to policy, and the points made with regard to reliable sources, synthesis, original resources, undue weight and etc are *entirely* relevant to the text not meeting policy. Your views about the western world are entirely irrelevant here, policy is pretty straightforward on this one. A saying which comes to mind here is "when in a hole, stop digging", and that would be my advice at this point. Orderinchaos01:14, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Another interesting question is as to how I can "own" an article that I've repeatedly argued has chronic flaws and practically needs to be rewritten. Ownership, according to WP:OWN, would imply I was "possessive about material" which I have repeatedly alleged to be inferior. It is not the fault of any one person that it is so - it's actually the fact that there's no structure or plan in place for managing additions or content, and that those on the article spend more time fighting over single sentences than taking a big picture view. It's an ongoing and long standing issue at all leader articles on Wikipedia - I did a survey of major world leader articles a few months ago to see if I could happen upon a formula which could be used to improve Howard, and Brian Mulroney stood out from those as a passable article, but none of the others I looked at were structurally sound in any sense - even one that had formerly been an FA. Orderinchaos22:09, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
God help us. Now we're all being described as "pally". I hope that anyone else who knows the true situation sets down their morning coffee before reading the above. Let my keyboard stand as a warning to my pals. --Pete (talk) 22:13, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
You are wilfully ignoring the consensus process which is taking place in the talk page. Let me make my point clear to you, I am not pushing for an inclusion of anything which is not consensual. I hope you will have this sentence in mind when you seek to form your next sentence. DockuHi20:35, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
There are editors who support and and there are some oppose the inclusion of the text. Therefore, there is no consensus. I guess your belief is that the consensus is unachievable. My belief is that it is achievable by taking the process along based on discussion (without name calling) and reach a consensus which may eventually even involve the omission of the contested material (while the supporters are still not so unhappy) or inclusion of a modified text (while the opposers are also not so unhappy). This process can be reached only by good faith and policy oriented discussion and also by making sure that it does not violate any wikipedia policy. Do you not agree with me? In fact, I have a feeling that we are slowly edging towards it unless some people object to such a good faith process. DockuHi20:52, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
No, there is four newcomers who support the content, who cannot justify its inclusion. Consensus opposes its inclusion. I argue it has been achieved and is being gamed by yourself and others. There is no process taking place in the talk page as you suggest. If you disagree, show me the evidence - most of the threads there seem to have died as you guys insist on starting new ones every time you find that everybody disagrees with you. Orderinchaos21:44, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Your warped interpretation of the word consensus means only the five people who regularly edit the article are right, against the four who don't. And you claim above to not have a clue how you are owning the article? As for starting a new thread everytime, are we looking at the same page? Skyring started at least ten sections, with just nonsensical titles and containg general ramblings, when he could just as easily have kept them in an existing section. If you honestly think you are the one applying good process here, by your own actions or by the support of Skyring's, then I suggest you reconfirm, your actions are inadequate. You haven't even had the good sense to show exactly how taking a survey was tantamount to the accusation you levelled at me, you have ignored it completely. You are right, you have a lot in common with Skyring, willfull and deliberate ignorance, coupled with extreme bad faith and an attitude problem to those you don't agree with, or failure to even acknolwedge they have even typed anything on a page. MickMacNee (talk) 23:28, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
My "willfull (sic) and deliberate ignorance" does not extend to putting aside our reliable sources guideline or our original research policy. You keep saying five, I count eight, or possibly nine depending on how you interpret the remarks of one of the people involved. Even so, it's not about the numbers of people involved, it's about the strength of their arguments, and even a majority would never be able to make a high-visibility article defy policy. Orderinchaos23:55, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Make your mind up, either you want to count editors or you don't. Quite obviously you are going to ignore editors that don't agree with you, that is a given from you by now. If you want to talk strength of argument, then let's discuss the removal of a sourced piece of text based on the editor's belief that the sourced event is not relevant as it has been raised by "cranks". No? I didn't think so. MickMacNee (talk) 17:12, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
It wasn't reliably sourced. That was the whole problem. Anyway, I think we've taken up quite enough of the long suffering AN readers' time, and should let this drop. Orderinchaos18:54, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
Well, I guess I will leave it for others to decide. I am not angry with you like you may be with me. DockuHi23:09, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
No worries, and no hard feelings. I get annoyed I think mainly because I spend a lot of time and effort trying to develop Wikipedia into something that an educator could actually use rather than something they instruct their students to avoid, which is the case at present. It's the field I work in and I've had many, many conversations with other educators along these lines. My own course books (I'm also a student) have big bolded warnings about using Wikipedia for anything, and that's something I'd obviously like to rectify. I suppose as a result I do take some of these issues, which I see as detracting from that aim, a bit more strongly than I otherwise would. Orderinchaos23:55, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Why don't you just concentrate on applying the basic conventions of talk, agf, npa, npov and the rest, before you start editing as if your goal is to single handedly improve wikipedia as a reference work. I don't know what texts you read, but the ones I read sure don't exclude information based on the political opinion of the originator, as supported on this page. It was frankly quite amazing to see the argument made that excluding comment from opposition politicians is acceptable on a bio page because "it's a given", as if legal papers about the ICC is as routine as a Sunday paper headline. Simply astounding. MickMacNee (talk) 17:12, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
When people are not even subtle in showing that their edots are made based on their political views of irrelevant matters rather than consideration of the content and its merits per policy, then the word "improve" becomes a completely subjective concept. MickMacNee (talk) 23:16, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
How can anything I have said be used to suggest that my political views influence my view of the content? If anything one would think it is almost the other way around. My views as a student, and as someone reasonably well versed in Wiki policy, are far more relevant here to my reasons for opposing the content. The content addition fails on four policy grounds. The saying "strong claims require strong evidence" applies here. We can't even prove from the ICC site that they're not just making the whole thing up. Furthermore, no consensus to add. My red herring alert is going off here, I don't think you're seriously interested in engaging on anything other than your own, rather removed from policy, terms. Orderinchaos01:02, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
Magibon article
Help is needed for the article about Youtuber Magibon. There are constantly people who try to make it impossible to write this (already difficult) article by deleting or tagging or using methods of slight vandalism. I was not on Wikpedia for a few days and now the article looks worse than before.--Firithfenion (talk) 08:26, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Oh thanks for your advice. What kind of reference do you expect for a video overview? The reference is the channel where the videos can be found. The overview describes what can be found there.--Firithfenion (talk) 08:51, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
References as in reviews, criticism, etc. published in reliable, third-party sources. If it's just a "video overview," it doesn't belong on Wikipedia. Given that the article is about the person, not the video(s), an overview isn't necessary. I'm more concerned about the fact that there doesn't appear to be enough information here to satisfy WP:BLP. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite13:04, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Hi, user: 82.2.236.210 continues to disrupt categories. He/she has several warnings on his page. Please have him/her blocked out. He is VERY persistent in removing categories. Other users seem fed up with him/her too. It seems that Wikipolicies for dealing with this type of determined user are not working. What can you admins do about this person? It does not seem appropriate to just sit back and let him waste everyone's time. Please block him. Thanks History2007 (talk) 19:21, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
The user seems to have been helpfully removing some redundant categories and doing other cleanup. Do you have any particular diffs of concern? -- zzuuzz(talk)20:11, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
Would an administrator please look at the article on SWAT. An IP editor ( 140.232.150.91) keeps adding info back in that is WP:OR and making disruptive edits. I have appealed to him to discuss the issue several times, but he is refusing. He is also making the article point to military references instead of strictly law enforcement ones, such as calling them special forces. I don't want to get into an edit war, but this is becoming disruptive. Niteshift36 (talk) 10:42, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
To add to this, I'm coming at it from the military side, the IP does appear to be pretty dogmatic about associating SWAT with military SF, despite the significant differences. A review of contributions indicates an unwillingness to discuss contributions across a range of similar articles.
My contention has been simple: SWAT in and of itself is notable. There is no need to prop it up with terms to make it sound like SF or Seals. He seems to want to over-emphasize the counter-terrorism role. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:01, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Of course you're right, not an IP, but a new user. I lack the equipment to deal with it, but the sooner someone puts a stop to it, the less work afterwards. Jayen46614:21, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm pretty certain this deletion by Fut Per needs review here. I'm not looking for DRV, I want some commentary on the actual use of tools by Fut Per. It seems out of line to override the fact that both commenters recommended "keep", and supported their recommendations with valid commentary, and delete anyway, citing the admins own view of NFCC (which was contradicted by both commenters, and is disupted at WT:NFCC)as the only reason seems a clear misuse of tools. S.D.Jameson03:26, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
I wouldn't classify it as "abuse", nor would I necessarily classify it as an "incident." I simply wanted some commentary on this administrator's use of his tools to simply enforce his view of hos policy should be interpreted over the discussion at that IfD. This seemed the best place for it, as there was no urgent action needed or anything like that. S.D.Jameson03:48, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
If it is neither an abuse nor an incident, then it really is just a disagreement over Fut Per's decision to delete. WP:DRV is the proper venue to challenge the deletion. Resolute03:53, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I don't see any abuse misuse of the tools. Fair use policy always trumps consensus, so at most this is a disagreement over interpretation and borderline calls like this are not easy. I do think it belongs at WP:DRV. Gwen Gale (talk) 03:58, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
I would say that the two views of NFCC enforcement are so different, that calling it a difference in "interpretation" is probably underplaying it a bit too much. I'd say that it's basic enough that a policy disagreement is the best way to describe it. In that case, the question becomes something on the order of "Is it appropriate, when there is a clear lack of consensus about how a policy is to be enforced, for an administrator to use his or her tools to follow a specific and extreme version of enforcement?"
As an aside - I don't really understand the conceptual difference between what should go to WP:AN and what should go to WP:AN/I. Can someone give me a thumbnail version? Thanks. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz)(talk / cont)05:33, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
The short-short version: ANI is (ostensibly)for issues requiring immediate admin attention (massive vandalism, abuse of admin tools, hacked accounts, etc.); AN is for things needing a more broad discussion, and possibly action using admin tools, but not necessarily something that has to be responded to "OMG NOW!"
In this case, neither is really appropriate because the NFCC policy is just plain vague. There have been recent debates on the subject here & on DRV and consensus seems to be that we're stuck with a vague policy that can be loosely interpreted. Until the Foundation clarifies NFCC, there's not much that can be done about it. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite12:54, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the AN-ANI lesson, which makes perfect sense. About the vagueness of NFCC policy, I agree, and I understand that it creates problems for admins trying to enforce it, but I note that for Fut Per, there is clearly (from the evidence of his comments on the DRV that's been opened) no problem whatsoever, and that his/her understanding of NFCC is precise and strongly-held. The difficulty with that is that he or she has substituted their own ideas about NFCC enforcement for the non-existent general consensus, hence the existence of the complaint made here. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz)(talk / cont)21:11, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
My question for this noticeboard (given your above commentary) is whether or not Fut Per's substitution of his draconian interpretation of such a vague policy for the measured recommendations of the commenters is appropriate. It is definitely admin-related, as he used his tools to delete the image in direct violation of the guidelines set for IfD-closing administrators. S.D.Jameson14:23, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
This noticeboard isn't really the place for that debate. As I said, the problem is with NFCC being as subject to interpretation as it is. People have already debated FP's methods, and came to no conclusion other than "Foundation will need to reassess the NFCC policy." At this point, there's no real consensus other than that. It is not clear that FP's deletions are inappropriate, much less "draconian." If this really bothers you, your best bet is to open a WP:RFC on the topic (not necessarily FP himself, though that may be appropriate as well). The problem being, even if it goes to ArbCom, there's not a whole lot they can do. FP might get sanctioned if he's overdoing it, but the fundamental problem with NFCC is beyond their control. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite16:48, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
I've opened a deletion review on this image. I completely concur with Ed's assessment above. Fut Per takes his/her NFCC interpretation to extremes, and uses the tools to enforce this view. I don't personally upload non-free images, but this type of admin deletion really needs to stop. S.D.Jameson05:37, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Could I have another admin look at LifeGuard Medical Solutions, please? It's been a bit of an adventure already - I tried to tag it as a G11 speedy with Twinkle, but Twinkle decided to just delete it without confirming with me, then it was recreated, so I tagged it manually, the creator removed the tag, and I've now tagged it as an advert and would appreciate someone sanity-checking for me. It has what appears to be an attempt to indicate notability, but I don't find much in searching about, and it's written entirely in marketspeak. I've done more than enough to the poor thing already, I'd appreciate someone else's view. Tony Fox(arf!)19:09, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
I was about to try a rewrite, when I realized there wasn't enough inside of that market-speak for me to tell what the company actually does. So I G11'd it again, ignoring the removal of the tag by the author (they're not supposed to do that anyways). Company might be notable, but it's extremely hard to tell from what I've seen so far. Cheers. lifebaka++19:19, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
No, it's what's called a double redirect. The first page (Shree Swaminarayan Sampraday) redirects to Sahajanand Swami (Lord Swaminarayan), which in turn redirects to Bhagwan_Swaminarayan. To protect you from potentially ending up in an endless loop, however, the Wikipedia software will only follow the first redirect. If it hits another one, it stops. That's what you're seeing there - you click on Shree Swaminarayan Sampraday, then you end up at Sahajanand Swami (Lord Swaminarayan) where you only see the code to take you onto Bhagwan_Swaminarayan, not the page itself. It's fixable by pointing the first page directly at the third, cutting out the middle-page. GbT/c20:36, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
That's not what I saw before I reverted it; I saw a huge page full of something added by Maelgwnbot, whom I have now notified. Seems to be a rare glitch. --Rodhullandemu20:41, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Ok. *coughs*. Well, erm, you can have that lesson on double redirects for free, anyway...GbT/c20:43, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
User:Bandsofblue has been indef banned for vandalism way back (and appropriately too). However, (s)he is still editing a lot on their talk page User talk:Bandsofblue, basically looking like they are creating articles that mimic the season pages for many reality TV shows, exception that they are complete false w/ fake(?) participant names, episode descriptions, and soforth, and that the user seems to cycle through a new one of these every three or four days, erasing an existing one to restart a new page on a different show.
There's been no obvious IP/different user attempt to merge these changes into WP, so I doubt there's an issue of sock/meatpuppetry going on, but I wonder what the heck this user is doing and if its something that we really should be worried about. I can't trace it easier to any off-WP activity, but it could be a "fantasy" league of some sort, but if the user is using WP to "track" the results, that's obviously against WP:NOT. Am I just being paranoid about this? --MASEM21:15, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This discussion has slowly progressed from an initial proposal (which I suspect was expected to be rather "routine") for community-based banning, to a "support / oppose ban" stage, through to a forum for providing evidence, and eventually into a thread mainly containing general commentary on the consensus for / against the proposal, bartering on alternative proposals, and presentation / rebuttal of evidence.
In amongst all this, I can't safely say there is any sort of consensus, let alone consensus for the community ban. To that end, I am closing this thread as "no action taken", but with a number of recommendations:
PalestineRemembered has gained for himself over the years a "cloud over his head", whereby he is clearly not regarded well by substantial volumes of the community. Indeed, that may be for good reason -- PR's past conduct has not been exemplary, to say the least, and the fact he has recently ran through 4 mentors (one of whom has actually filed for a community ban) is not exactly heartening. Whether formal action is needed by the community or not is difficult to gague (as noted by several editors in the below discussion, strong evidence in support or opposition of the community ban has not been clearly presented (there has been evidence, but presented mid-way through the thread: ie., the situation changed) -- although the lack of evidence is, one supposes, sufficient evidence in itself). Therefore, from here on in, a more detailed deconstruction of evidence (requests for comment may be an appropriate forum), with opportunities for structured presentation (sans the chaotic backdrop an AN/I thread often provides), discussion, and analysis (with a view to whether PR does deserve sanctions).
Future proposals to install a community ban (whether specifically related to PalestineRemembered or not), regardless of forum, should involve detailed presentation of evidence in support of the proposal. No matter how infamous a name is, it is simply not acceptable to pass a sanction on the grounds of aura alone: hell, if Grawp was hauled up here, I'd still like to see some evidence -- if only to allow folks who haven't handled that case before to review the case and case an informed vote.
I note that the initiator of this thread attempted to present evidence in support of his proposal -- fair enough. However, the limitations of AN/I as a forum (read: things may descend into madness quite quickly, and there's often no recovery for a thread from that) mean that any detailed analysis of that evidence was nigh impossible. Short of restarting the entire thing, or moving to a forum that supports presentation, deconstruction, and analysis of evidence (the arbcom case model springs to mind, as does RFC to a lesser degree), there wasn't much that could be done.
New forum needed?: at present, the arbitration committee seems to have the most superior model for rational consideration of a case (in contrast to the rest of the Wikipedia-space model, at least). Parties and editors have the opportunity to present detailed evidence; community input is solicited and reviewed; evidence is analysed, with problem editors identified as necessary; remedies to combat the problem editors' conduct are drawn up; remedies are whittled down (via voting for the Committee) to the most "beneficial-to-the-project" models, with all others discarded; eventually, after sufficient pause and deliberation, and a notable amount of 'room to breathe', a decision is made -- and, although not always perfect, it does work at least. Naturally, as a community we don't wish to rely on a Committee forever: the Wiki model simply prefers community-based decision making, through consensus-building discussion. Yet, we have little hope of graduating to such a model, when any attempts to police our editors conduct through the passing of (sadly, necessary) community-based sanctions, are hampered by a lack of an appropriate forum? RFC is the closest we have to offering any opportunity for a calm environment with room to present evidence, discuss at length (but without clutter), and move to a decision. Perhaps a new forum, or a review + rethink of our existing forums, is necessary. Let's learn lessons from the failure of this thread to reach a consensus simply because too many people commented. Decision-making should be scalable.
Problem editors: obvious here, but editors who are problems need to be kept in check. Whether a removal from the areas in which they are driven to be a problem is in order, or a removal from the project all together, or any similar remedy is passed... We need to ensure that editors who poison our editing environment are quickly remedied, and their influence re-balanced.This is not a comment on this case specifically, but a general reflection.
Apologies for the length of the closure statement, but I had a few thoughts I wished to 'air'.
Hopefully we can proceed from here and make some good progress.
I'd like to propose a community ban of PalestineRemembered(talk· contribs · deleted contribs · logs ·filter log· block user ·block log). He's been through numerous mentors trying to curb his behaviour and yet he still continues to push his pro Palestine POV on numerous articles. I actually blocked him a few days ago because he came back after four days off the project and made three article edits, all of which were reverts. He's well known to edit war to get his point across. He was subject to an arbitration case because of a habit in using extremely poor sources to push his POV - the arbitration case was closed with no action, but there's still a problem with this as shown in his block log. Numerous users have tried, and failed, to lead him on the right path, but he continues to make poorly sourced contributions, and edit wars to keep them in place. Thoughts would be appreciated. RyanPostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter23:58, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
I'd support an indefinite and broadly interpreted topic ban on all articles related to the Israeli-Palestine conflict--if only because judging by his edit history, it would have the effect of a siteban. Blueboy9600:38, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
I will support such a topic ban. I don't think he needs a siteban, and he might decide to contribute constructively to other topics. However, he has demonstrated an inability to adhere to NPOV editing on PIA-related articles. Horologium(talk)00:48, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
While I think that a topic ban will certainly become a de facto site ban, it does look like there are no options left to keep the warring down. — Coren(talk)00:54, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
Normally we do topic bans when an editor has a problem with one area and a productive track record elsewhere. No opinion on the proposal (due to my mentorship of another party PR has been in dispute with), but suggest PR's productivity in different areas merits review since both options are under discussion. DurovaCharge!01:49, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
Oppose community ban Not everyone is knows all the details. Therefore, I oppose community ban unless and until the proposal details what are the objectionable edits (recent diffs, please) and what non-objectionable edits have been made. The prosecutor (person wanting the community ban) should present the material in a neutral fashion and not slanted toward community ban. There is mention in the beginning of this thread that the ArbCom case was closed with no action. Thus, banning may be bucking ArbCom.
I could change my mind if the proper background is described. Based only on the information above (and not doing extensive original research), I must default to oppose.Presumptive (talk) 06:48, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
I have to agree with Presumptive. Can we have some actual evidence of disputed conduct, please? I'm a little concerned that we seem to be rushing to a topic ban without any discussion of specific issues. I couldn't in good faith support such an action merely on the say-so of an admin (sorry Ryan, nothing personal!). -- ChrisO (talk) 07:25, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
Sorry guys, I thought this was an extremely well known problem with his editing. Numerous admins have been involved with him before. I'm at work today, so I won't be able to provide more details until after work, but I'll certainly get the diffs out when I've finished. RyanPostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter07:35, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
OK, thanks for that. I've seen mentions of his name before on AN/I but I would imagine that most of us won't have much awareness of what's going on with him at the moment. If you could cite specific problems that would be a great help. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:32, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
PalestineRemembered is, I believe, precisely the kind of editor who the arbitrators had in mind when the idea of broadly constructed topic bans was developed. A textbook case of an agenda-driven account. If he wants to contribute productively to other areas then fine, but his involvement in articles related to Israel and Palestine is, as far as I can tell, a substantial drain on everybody else concerned and serves to perpetuate the state of dispute on those articles. I'd be prepared to rethink this position if anyone can show me evidence of PR proposing a moderate compromise in any dispute, and that compromise achieving consensus. Guy (Help!) 08:28, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
Of his last 100 edits, most are not in article space. He seems to be involved in many discussions on talk pages and noticeboards, but isn't editing articles much. What's the specific problem? --John Nagle (talk) 15:48, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
The specif problem is that his article-space edits are either reverts, or tendentious editing based on bad sources, and that his Talk-space edits are soapboxing, which does not improve articles. In short, he is a net detriment to the project. Canadian Monkey (talk)
Since joining wikipedia, PR has been blocked 13 times, by 9 different administrators. He has been assigned mentorship as a result of an ArbCom case against him, but has exhausted the patience of 4 different mentors, of whom Ryan p, the nominator of these sanctions, is the latest. I don’t believe I’ve seen any other editor on WP with a block log quite as long as his – almost all of which is related to disruptive editing on I-P articles. I find myself in agreement with Guy on both points he makes – that this is precisely the kind of editor who the arbitrators had in mind when the idea of broadly constructed topic bans was developed, and that this is a textbook case of an agenda-driven account, which PR himself admits. I would support a topic ban from all I-P related articles, and if PR wants to be a positive contributor to the project, there are 2 million other articles for him to work on. Canadian Monkey (talk) 18:06, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
Apart from the history, could someone please explain what spurred this move recently? I understand if people think that in the past PR was uncivil. I do think s/he takes a harsh and unconciliatory tone. However, in recent months I have mostly encountered him/her at Battle of Jenin, and I guess other than taking a harsh tone, I can't see what the problem has been recently - s/he has not engaged in edit-warring there.LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 18:21, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
support topic ban Given that he has gone through 4 different mentors and that the latest is now calling for a general ban on this user, and the length of PR's block log, I really don't see a reasonable answer. PR makes occasionally good edits, but most are just POV pushing. Also I have some hope that a topic ban might teach PR to work better within the community framework so that he can eventually return to these articles. JoshuaZ (talk) 20:03, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
Support topic ban per everyone else. PalestineRemembered's edits are largely disgraceful. He has been guilty of calling Zionists "proud of their murderous racism,"[[38] spreading Zionist conspiracy theories,[39], comparing Zionists with Nazis,[40] comparing Israeli historians with Holocaust deniers,[41][42][[43] and basically committing logical fallacies and spreading disinformation left and right. Enough is enough. --GHcool (talk) 20:46, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
GHcool, I just took a look at the links you inserted re: the nazi comment and "murderous racism", thinking that if indeed PR said these things, s/he should have been blocked at the time. However, forgive me, but I did a search on "nazi" and "murderous" and did not see the comments. Could you please specify where the comments are? Thanks much, LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 23:53, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
For that first diff, scroll down to the section on Norman Finkelstein, open it, and then take a look at PR's comment (the last one in that section). He does indeed use the statement GHcool ascribes to him. I've not looked at the others, but if they are similar to the first, the search function will not find keywords inside collapsed comments. Horologium(talk)02:12, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
I just spent 15 minutes more than I should have to try to find a single one of the alleged comments, and did not.Please link directly to the relevant page when quoting incendiary comments of this sort. In fact, if you could do so here and now that would be appropriate. Thanks, LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 23:24, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
Comment: GHcool's links are from December 2006 to January 2008. People may prefer to look at the diffs Jayjg provides below, which are from July 31 to August 1, 2008 (besides the SPA link of 13 May 2008). Some of GHcool's links are not diffs. Here's the "murderous racism" diff: 31 December 2006; PalestineRemembered was blocked the following day. Here's a diff from the 3rd link GHCool provided: 29 December 2006. Coppertwig (talk) 15:04, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
Comment. It would help to give links to the ArbCom case, which I believe required that PR be placed under mentorship, and the main AN/I's etcetera about PR, esp those dealing with mentorship. Note also that the Ryan himself has been PR's mentor for some time. The specific history would help put concerns over editing in context. Thanks. HG | Talk03:08, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Both GHcool and Horologium are adducing evidence from an exchange between a certain Rubin and PR that took place in December 2006. Rubin was wrong, and PR was right in that exchange, since the former was trying to bracket the fact that Finkelstein is a descendent of Holocaust survivors. The remark about 'Zionist racism' in that specific exchange, refers to 'Zionist politicians' not to Zionists, and in this regard PR has been intentionally misrepresented, apart from the fact that evidence from two years ago should not be dredged up to push a complaint regarding contemporary behaviour. It should not have been said, but that the allusion is to Israeli politicians whose pages had been strongly defended from any attempts to annotate both their racist beliefs, and murderous past is evident. PR's point was that Finkelstein, a son of Holocaust survivors, had been subject to relentless attack because he was critical of Israel's record on human rights, whereas Zionist politicians with a past <BLP vio removed> have pages less prone to editorial assault. Ryan must have good reasons, on contemporary evidence, to make his complaint. That evidence will no doubt be forthcoming, and it is that which must form the basis for an eventual judgement. It should not be contaminated by evidence from prior cases (like the misrepresentations used here). The remark that troubles me in Ryan's charge is this:'yet he still continues to push his pro Palestine POV on numerous articles.' Off the top of my head I could think of a dozen bad editors who push, in edits, a singlemindedly pro-israeli POV, and have records expressing disdain or contempt for the other party that is supposed to be represented. They have overall enjoyed far more hospitality than people who are said to mirror their bias on the Palestinian side. They are edit warriors pushing an extremist pro-Israeli POV, cripple pages and making life difficult for serious contributors, and no one moves a finger. Perhaps they stick around because their opponents do not complain as much as they do. Nishidani (talk) 16:28, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
Hi. Just wanted to add a note or two. GHcool and Horlogium are absolutely not edit-warriors in any sense of the word. That term needs to be used with a little more care. you can bet that I will not We cannot allow this proceeding to degenerate into name-calling of any sort.If action is desired on Palestine Remembered, I urge the committee or other ruling body to issue a strong statement on his actions in regards to proper procedures. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 18:52, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
Comment to Sm8900: I believe Nishidani was talking about "a dozen bad editors" and not GHcool and Horlogium when he was mentioning mirroring PalestineRemebered's alleged bias and getting away with it. I disagree with his "one-sidedness of wikipedia" assessment but do agree that some of the diffs have been a bit old and more of a reminder of why he was assigned forced mentorship than examples of recent misconduct. JaakobouChalk Talk19:48, 3 August 2008 (UTC) clarify. 19:49, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
It is a good point. I would add, however, that Nishidani appears to have done exactly what PR did years ago, except he named a specific living person as "murderous" and "racist." I'd like to request that he immediately refactor those remarks. IronDuke22:28, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
Oppose ban. Due to the very heated nature of this subject, I propose that ALL parties in this discussion and everyone involved be banned for 5 days effective 4 August 2008 until 9 August 2008. No block would be made in the record but if there is ANY editing, a formal 5 day block would be placed. Since I have commented here, I would be included. Let's all stop fighting. Spevw (talk) 21:20, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
Oppose ban. The "violations" cited by Jayjg are painfully mild, and mostly occurred on talk pages. Considering that PalestineRemembered has pretty clearly been targeted for intensified scrutiny for wrong-doing in the past, the weak evidence suggests that he/she has truly given very little cause for complaint. Ryan Postlewait clearly should not be mentoring her/him, however. Tegwarrior (talk) 14:44, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
Further discussion
Support. I don't understand the issue to begin with; User:PalestineRememberedwas an admitted SPA whose every edit is propaganda and every Talk: page comment is a typically irrelevant soapbox, often with WP:BLP violations thrown in for spice. In other words, the editor behind the "PalestineRemembered" account is saying that the account is a secondary account used only to edit I-P related areas. I say was an admitted SPA because the fact that he has started to edit articles outside of the I-P area indicates that User:PalestineRemembered is now merely a garden-variety sockpuppet account, rather than an a supposedly legitimate WP:SPA. As for examples? A quick glance through his past week's edits show a BLP violation against "the likes of Ayaan Hirsi Ali", a BLP violation against Mitchell Bard, and some sort of weird attacks on Paul Bogdanor[44][45] in which he claims, inter alia, that "everyone agrees that [Rudolf] Kastner collaborated with the Nazis - and almost everyone thinks that, late in the war, he tricked some 450,000 of his fellows to go quietly to the ovens". This is the kind of tendentious nonsense User:PalestineRemembered liberally spreads on Talk: pages and articles. In reality, historians don't agree on this at all, and the latest book on the subject concludes that he was a war hero who saved 12,000-18,000 lives.[46] The book, by the way, won the 2007 Nereus Writers' Trust Non-Fiction Prize, and was shortlisted for the 2008 Charles Taylor Literary Prize for Non-Fiction. As for 3 months, if one thing characterizes the editor behind User:PalestineRemembered it's his dogged and dogmatic persistence; he waited out previous lengthy blocks, and returned from them completely unchanged. I see no reason to think a lengthier block will produce a novel result. Jayjg (talk)23:53, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
I urge everyone to read the diffs posted by Jay - that's exactly the behaviour that's problematic. He summed it up when he said PR uses WP to soapbox - to me, it looks like one of his only aims here. RyanPostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter01:24, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
Entirely possible that your interpretation of PR's behaviour is true. However, that does not emerge from Jay's diffs in the least. For example, attempting to trim overuse of the very marginal Paul Bogdanor, who has compared Vietnamese land reform to the Holocaust and Noam Chomsky to Holocaust deniers, is hardly problematic. Quoting what was close to the standard view of Kastner, a man for whose tragic story I personally have tremendous sympathy, is hardly grounds for a ban. Tendentious nonsense is not, of course, limited in this area of WP to PR. --Relata refero (disp.)22:05, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
Oh, fucking please.“He was subject to an arbitration case because of a habit in using extremely poor sources to push his POV" – what a load of hogwash and balderdash. PR was subject to an arbitration case because a rogue admin made bogus claims about his sources – claims which were unanswerably discredited within an hour. His accuser lacked the decency and honesty to retract his fatuous accusations, and Ryan lacked – and continues to lack – the competence to understand what happened in the first place. Take Ryan off PR's mentorship and keep an eye on Jayjg, who has a troubling record of harassing PR and lying about his editing. PR has a bit of a WP:SOAP problem, but it is nothing next to the deceptions of his accusers.--G-Dett (talk) 04:46, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
I was going to congratulate the community for not attacking anyone daring to defend me. This makes a startling and very welcome difference from everything that has happened before on countless absurd and evidence-free "disciplinaries" raised against me. It's no wonder that not one of those people (ie everyone who has known me here longest and found me a careful and cooperative editor) dared to speak earlier. PRtalk06:52, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
GHCool, I’m not sure what you mean here by tu quoque. I do not think PR’s transgressions – which consist chiefly of a querulous, windy, SOAPy style of talk-page engagement – merit a permanent ban. If he were doing this in an area of the encyclopedia where quiet, polite, high-quality collaborative editing were the norm, it might be justified to move thus against him – but he’s not. He’s editing in an area of the encyclopedia where hackery, demagoguery, policy distortions and even large-scale hoaxes are the norm, where the most talented and energetically fair-minded admin finds himself article-banned for a month, and where the most prolific and influential editor – an admin and former arbcom member, no less – is a full-time propagandist. It is this latter admin whose thoroughly (and I do mean thoroughly) discredited charges against PR last year resulted in the snarled web of litigious pseudo-drama of which this thread is only the latest example (see Jay’s deliberately deceptive posts about PR on Ryan’s talk page in recent weeks, which Ryan appears to have taken at face value). Had Jay done the decent thing and retracted his spring-2007 accusations once they were thoroughly exploded, the matter would have been cleared up and we wouldn’t have so many editors and admins still stumbling around in a fog. But he didn’t. Instead he repackaged his accusations as insinuations, thus throwing a cloak of deniability over his ongoing crusade against PR.
It is this snarled web, not PR’s talk-page speechifying, which represents the real drain on the community’s resources. Notwithstanding his guilelessness, PR is very well-read in the subjects he edits. His occasionally breaches of citation etiquette (things he finds in secondary sources he seems to want to cite to primary sources, I don’t know why) could ‘’easily’’ be cleared up by good-faith editors; instead, his detractors pounce upon innocent mistakes and rev up the engines of insinuation in an effort to get him banned. The reason they want him banned – make no mistake about it – is that he is pro-Palestinian and they are pro-Israel. Sadly, there are a number of good-faith, neutral editors and admins who have had the wool pulled over their eyes. As with 80% of the editors on I/P articles, including you and me, PR’s edits come from a discernable point of view. But there is an oft-forgotten yet absolutely essential distinction between editors who make POV-edits (bad partisan edits justified by spurious policy arguments) and editors whose good edits reveal, in the aggregate, a partisan point of view. PR is the latter kind of partisan, and he wears his politics on his sleeve. He is the target of an ongoing campaign of harassment by the former kind of partisan, who disguises his politics in a high-concept, even baroque form of WP:GAMEsmanship, with all of the predictable consequences.--G-Dett (talk) 15:33, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
Exasperation shared. Ryan evidently is exasperated, with mentorship, and is in his rights to complain. Many are exasperated by the nonsense adduced to sustain his suit, particularly by Jayjg. Jayjg, every edit of yours I have observed over two years looks like a defence of a national image interest, and the mastery of wiki rules you display evinces an instrumental use of them to keep out material you think damaging to that interest, and, in my experience, is rarely employed to the advantage of creating a comprehensive and reliable encyclopedia. If I've broken some rule in saying what most editors on my side of the line believe obvious, by all means take the requisite action.
Are those who rush to judgement familiar with the intricate literature on the subjects PR alludes to? Jayjg clearly isn't, his screed and diffs are a travesty, with a certain specious gesture towards evidence, but which, read against the historical literature, are just that, a clever piece of selective culling of highly partial evidence. It is a matter of context, and one's instincts about where editors are pushing things in defiance of broad historical knowledge. All one need do is wonder why he, otherwise so insistant on links, does not link us to Rudolf Kastner, or to Paul Bogdanor, or Mitchell Bard, etc. Jayjg holds to ransom a large number of potential edits I or anyone else could make on numerous pages Baruch Goldstein, Israel Shahak, Israeli Settlements, or Judaism, and his refrain is, you need an area specialist on every occasion to qualify as a reliable source. Thus I cannot cite a book that was not shortlisted for a minor literary prize but shortlisted as one of the best books of 2007 on Slate, because its author David Shulman, one of the foremost academic experts on Dravidian languages, a peace activist fluent in Hebrew and Arabic, Israeli academic, with years of work in the Occupied Territories observing settler violence, is not a qualified expert on settlers, according to Jayjg! Now neither Paul Bogdanor nor Mitchell Bard are anywhere near reliable sources (they are people without a proper academic grounding it the subjects they airily descant on), and PR's dismissal of them was a correct call. For Jayjg to hold Pr to ransom on this is to question the quality of civil language employed in order to obstruct an appropriate edit on content, as is usual. It is, in Jayjg's case, a matter of the pot calling the kettle black, to challenge PR's dismissal of sources like those, and yet challenge, as Jayjg invariably does, academic sources critical of Israeli policies whenever they are no compatible with the strictest reading of WP:RS. The same for the Nereus book winner book on Kastner. What PR says is what Eichman said in his memoirs: '(Kastner) agreed to keep the Jews from resisting deportation. if I would close my eyes and let a few hundred or a few thousand young Jews emigrate illegally to Palestine. It was a good bargain.' (for Eichmann and co, who got $1,600,000 in exchange for allowing 1600 Jews to survive out of the 750,000 listed for extermination. Anyone who was not Orthodox, Zionist, prominent, an orphan, a refugee, a paying person, a member of Kastner's family or a revisionist had no chance).PR, like the large majority of historians on this figure, and like Judge Halevi at his trial, is appalled by someone who, privy to the doom awaiting hundreds of thousands of fellow Jews, 'sold his soul to the devil' by not giving them at least the chance to know what awaited them, to allow them to flee, resist, fight, and kept them in ignorance of their fate while getting out a few, including his relatives, 'useful' for Zionism.
Neither Bogdanor (whose viciously bitchy and mendacious nonsense on Shahak's page Jayjg apparently supports) nor the Hungarian lady in question meet Jayjg's criteria for reliable sources. Neither is a qualified historian or area specialist, in the sense he invariably adduces before allowing an edit on a sensitive subject where Israel's image is concerned. I happen to disagree with PR on many things (while wholegheartedly sharing PR's view that a very large number of I/P articles are disgracefully unbalanced), but there is absolutely no doubt that for some years Pr has become a standard target for many editors who desire a permanent ban. It is irresponsible to run to administration every time PR returns, over a small number of edits (and the material cited is extremely thin), and scream 'raus'!!! Form is increasingly what trumpts substance in these altercations (ChrisO's recent problems egregiously underline the absurdity. Vassyana's criticism of Eleland, on unbelievably narrow grounds another. Look at his recent florligeium of remarks made by many respected editors from the Jerusalem Talk page, and judge the material PR is accused of in the light of the harshness of their remarks and insinuations). Once more appeal to proper 'form' is snuffing out content. PR indeed has a problem with the exacting wikiquette forms (who doesn't?). It is true however that on more than one occasion in the past, good (adversary) material PR has come up with is not wanted by many on those articles, and PR's deficits in 'attitude' are the excuse employed to block the material PR might post. I say this as someone who has reverted PR, supported people like Tewfik against some of PR's edits, and as one who thinks PR's failure in the past to learn not to lead with one's chin is disappointing. Nishidani (talk) 12:04, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
PalestineRemembered speaks:User:Ryan Postlethwaite has urged everyone read the diffs posted by Jayjg, a most excellent idea.
Examine the light-weight source with which Jayjg seeks to defend Kastner - a man who undoubtedly deceived to their deaths some 450,000 (400,000?) Hungarian Jews on behalf of the Nazis. (For profit according to most people, and at a point in the war when many of the Jews could almost certainly have saved themselves).
Examine the way Jayjg defends the blogger Paul Bogdanor, and the (apparent) propagandist Mitchell Bard. So much for writing an encyclopedia to WP:ReliableSources. (Where shall we discuss many more examples?)
I have no problem with Ayaan Hirsi Ali (as I said at the time). But people could be very interested in the discussion that Jayjg references. Again, I'd seem to be on the side of WP:POLICY, scholarship and good writing.
I attempted to deal with the broad sweep of these allegations (eg the claim that my 3 or 4 real mentors had any problems with my conduct) on my TalkPage, have people missed it? I have more offers of a mentor - even the shocking experience of those who went before doesn't stop brave people and lovers of this project coming forwards.
Lastly, please ponder the logic of these accusations of sock-puppetry. If we didn't know better, we'd think people were desperately casting round for any excuse to get rid of a really useful and scrupulously honest editor, with a strong preference for good sources. PRtalk06:30, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
Its a shame that PalestineRemembered chose to defend himself largely by using tu quoque logical fallacies. I hope he doesn't expect the Wikipedia community to be swayed by this ill conceived tactic. --GHcool (talk) 07:04, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
My fellow editors might like to know that "tu quoque" is Lation for "a hypocritical accusation". They will have doubtless realized by now that I don't lie, I don't cheat, I don't sock-puppet and I have a passion for good sources. Nor do I edit-war, make false accusations of vandalism or tell people that a highly regarded and very well-cited son of Holocaust survivors "is an unreliable source at best and a malicious one at worst" - what price RELIABLE SOURCES when this goes on? GHcool's objections were dealt with above - his attitude to WP:RS and BLP appear to be the diametric opposite of mine.
I'm sorry that User:GHcool's UserPage has been deleted and re-created by administrative action without warning, it's long survival over all protests might have been a useful precedent to name and shame cheats. All assistance to put integrity back into editting will be very welcome. PRtalk08:18, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
Support topic ban for user to review and understand what is required of wikipedia editors For the record, I am the editor who suggested the mentorship that prevented PR from being indef banned last time. Since that time, I am aware of enough times where PR has deliberately skirted, or outright ignored, policies, guidelines, and the advice of his various mentors in order to continue a pattern of POV posting and subtle user harrassment. I have been in contact with his mentors, most recently Ryan, regarding these issues, and, to my chagrin, have never seen anything remotely like remorse, a desire to do better, a desire to work with other users, especially those with whom he has fundamental disagreements. As one who deals with the Israeli/Palestinian conflicts as a mentor and one who tries to defuse inter-editor issues behind the scenes, I have had little other than frustration from the direction of PR, and I have lost the ability to believe that his edits are in good faith and meant to better the project. Rather, I believe he has acted as a self-employed agent provocateur and POV warrior, and his continued presence in Palestinian/Israeli articles will serve no other purpose than disruption until such time as the community and project can be assured that PR will edit in a manner befitting and becoming of the encyclopedia. -- Avi (talk) 13:57, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
Well, where is the new evidence, Avi? Without substantial new evidence, this is beginning to look like a very odd scalp-hunt for an old target, using pretexts to rid a good researcher, albeit with a loose tongue, whose outlook others dislike, simply in order to thin the ‘opposition’.
I have reread all of GHcool’s diffs, and fail to understand how his description of them corresponds to their real content. I was totally unaware of what G-Dett now remarks on, the evidence-gathering campaign by Jayjg waged on Ryan’s page recently. but if so, then I suggest Ryan ignore it, drop the mentorship and leave it at that.
The only evidence raised so far is a shabby hodgepodge of trivia, in part trawled from ancient archives (2006). The rest is Jayjg's handiwork, patently instrumental and question-begging, since he demonstrably employs the same techniques he gives out as deploring in PR recently. If PR is a 'pov-warrior', what is Jayjg, now his/her main accuser? Had Ryan pressed the case on his own, instead of delegating the 'proof' to such a completely unreliable source as Jayjg, this complaint might have warranted respect. Not one of you lift a fingers in editorial activity to emend the disgraceful state of a page which Jayjg has done much to reduce to a medley of vicious innuendo, a page smearing a Jew of great learning, humane passion and critical witness (according to all those who knew him personally), something which PR has consistently drawn attention to, a wiki page not one of those who wish for PR to be banned cares to improve beyond its present state of being a savage indictment by innuendo and vicious whispering of an honourable and distinguished Jew, a page which should not be tolerated on an encyclopedia. How easy it is to pick off fellow-editors by formalstic cavilling, while preening oneself in insouciant disregard of the substance at stake. As long as many persist in jumping at editors for 'tone' and 'civility' while airily waiving aside the substance of that editor's complaint, or refusing to improve the pages whose disgracefully unbalanced quality that editor protests, all of these calls for a ban will sound hollow. You are all supposed to be wedded to an idea of encyclopedicity, which means, precisely, forsaking national gamesmanship in order to secure comprehensive neutral articles. Where is the new evidence? So far we have nothing other than Ryan's fatigue with mentorship and a patchy screed by a 'POV warrior' on the opposite side, who watches his p's and q's meticulously while objectively stacking texts with a partisan slant, in contempt of the ideals of encyclopedicity. Where is the appropriate wiki link for the practice of schadenfreudlicher scalp-taking?Nishidani (talk) 16:16, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
Nishidani, Did you see the links that Jayjg gave out? I don't think July 31, 2008 is old news. I have not taken the time, nor do I have the time to go through it all and look at the whole situation, but please don't say there is no new evidence without mentioning the stuff that folks have put forth. You can claim that those links are not valid evidence, or that they are not the whole story, but lets not ignore them. Doing so only makes the waters muddy. —— nixeagle16:30, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
If you don't have the time to check through all the links, and can't remember a thousand unsaid things from past conflicts which relate to how all participants here read what's going on, there's little point in making the remark you made.Nishidani (talk) 17:50, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
There is very much a point. You seem to be telling me and everyone else watching that there is no new violations, but above I see people saying there are new violations, they even provide diffs. What I was telling you above was to make sure you saw those diffs, as it appeared to me you had not seen them. Doing so only muddies the water. —— nixeagle18:01, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
I enjoyed the stylistic variation between your two posts. 'makes the waters muddy' and then 'muddies the water', but the aesthetic frisson was somewhat spoiled by reading 'there is no new violations'.Nishidani (talk) 18:56, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
You are free to assert that, however you are not explaining why what some people are asserting are violations, are not violations. Anyone can say there are or are not violations, but just saying that does not make it so. You have me confused, you said there were no recent violations, yet I'm seeing posts from July 31 being offered as evidence. I don't think that is "old". If it is not evidence, please explain why it is not, concisely. —— nixeagle19:16, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
A general point. Most of the problems in the world arise from communities consolidating their identity by trusting in the in-group hearsay. Democracies survive when there are a sufficient number individuals dedicated to questioning the commodified clichés of groupist thinking/ideology/ whatever, who actually check things out with their own eyes, reason by their own lights, and measure the world by their real as opposed to hallucinated experiences of it in circulation. This tempers the irrationality of hearsay, and collectivist imaginings. So, like others involved, read through the diffs, when you get the time, preferably look at the page's whole context also, then make notes on each diff within its context, check the inferences made about what PR is said to be violating in those diffs, and then form your own judgement. Do not rely on what I, or Jayjg, or GHcool, or anyone else says. Form your own judgement and then report back.Nishidani (talk) 19:27, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
That is a valid point, however I was hoping for some kind of backup to your assertion that there is no new evidence. A starting point so to say for others to see what you mean. I see plenty of cited recent evidence from those saying there are violations, but I'm seeing nothing but wordplay from those that say there are not any violations. All I'm asking is someone point out why the diffs as presented are wrong. If I have missed the counter evidence amongst the sea of text, I'd appreciate someone pointing me at it. Thanks :) —— nixeagle19:41, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
User:Nishidani, I have been in contact multiple times with Ryan via e-mail, as some of the issues relate to other editors. You may check Ryan's talk page history for some of the more obvious and open issues. Regardless, this is my opinion based on the time since August 2007, when I prevented PR being banned then. I do not believe he has taken the proper advantage of the mentorships he was afforded, and the chances he was given; I believe he continues to edit in an openly POV style; and I believe that his edits detract from wikipedia significantly more than they add. While I was cognizant of the positive edits that he has made back in August 2007, my reasoned opinion based on the intervening time, the number of times I had to be approached by person(s) I mentored, and the contradistinction between edits of people that I know are trying to act in accordance with our policies and PR's edits, have convinced me that the mentorship experiment was a failure at this time, and that PR needs to take a long-term break from anything like Palestinian/Israeli articles, if not the project as a whole. -- Avi (talk) 16:47, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps then most should take a long holiday, because in human terms, these I/P articles have little to show after several years of intensive work. Who's to blame, a few people like PR? Come now. PR's behaviour is merely an infinitesimal part of what is problematic in this area. You can drive him or her off, and the structural impasse, which is one of diffidence, suspicion, and refined edit-warring while keeping mum on motivations, will remain, and wiki articles in this area will retain the reputation for slipshod tendentious amateurishness they have in academic circles.
I'm familiar with the record you allude to. I am also familiar with something missed here. I've tangled with PR on several occasions, and thrown the weight (in nanograms of course) of my judgement against PE and in favour of her opponent, who was a strong pro-Israeli editor while active. Now PR was no doubt perplexed by this, but did accept that my judgements were not grounded in some 'bias', and took note. I have my biases, as do we all. PR flags his/hers: many of PR's opponents go out of their way to finesse their obstructive editing by meticulous care for the rulebook. The result is, PR, leading with the chin, has copped a large number of administrative raps on the knuckles (mixed metaphor), whilst many of those editors whom both PR, I and many others regard as destructive editors in terms of the criterion of 'encyclopedicity' have a clean police sheet. If there were a minimal regard by many of these editors to revert bad edits made by peers from their own side, much of the frustration that PR displays, and the rest of us more or less hide, would wither away. There isn't much of that around. There is a very strong tendency to stay silent, and leave the management of conflict (a conflict on POVs) to respective members of opposing sides. That loud silence lends substance to a sense that a collegiate atmosphere is operating here on one side, solidly determined to ignore the old Jewish dictum, expropriated by Christianity,quid autem vides festucam in oculo fratris tui et trabem in oculo tuo non vides. I regard that as a recipé for disaster, and, in the I/P area, one reason why so many articles languish in a deplorable state. I have had severe problems with Jaakobou in the past, and it was with relief that I had occasion to note, before my withdrawal, one or two occasions where, unprompted, he reverted a bad edit by a poor contributor on his own side. This is the spirit that should be cultivated by experienced and reliable editors on both sides (and I addressed my remarks to you because you qualify, as far as I have interacted with you, as a rational editor of considerable experience). It is the edits not dutifully made by so many editors that disappoint, as much as the pettifogging obstructionism. The problem is not PR, who increasingly looks like an example with which to illustrate René Girard's theories: the problem is a lack of will to monitor I/P articles for encyclopedic quality by reining in anyone, from whatever side, editing out of a nationalist perspective, rather than an NPOV perspective. An embattlement mentality will persist in the political area for decadess to come. It should not be reflected here: Israel has no more to lose by a clear-eyed impartial approach to history than its communities had by moving out of the shtetl under the auspices of the haskalah. Indeed the gains to be gathered in are enormous. The genius and generosity of spirit of Judaism's multitude of scholars, thinkers, poets and writers is absent from these articles: there is almost no trace here of the wit, intelligence, acuity of refined judgement one instinctively associates with that tradition, and that is alive whenever Jewish people argue with each other. This is soap-boxing, irrelevant, a violation of WP:this and that, no doubt, the useless drivel of at least on editor who has given up on wiki articles (as opposed to an occasional critical kibitz). If only one had more interlocutors that mirror this heritage, so much of the frustration that blocks the expeditious drafting of I/P articles would fade away, and these incessant recourses to arbitrative sanctions over trivia would die on their feet. Regards Nishidani (talk) 17:47, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
Nishdani, I apologize for my lack of time, and thus inability to continue this discussion at length. I do not argue with you that there are systematic issues with P/I articles in toto, but I do not see how allowing editors whose methods seem to be more uncivil than is the norm serves to help the situation. I think that most everyone who is heavily involved should sit back for a while and take a break, and then approach the articles with the idea to make them truly NPOV, which is to have the major points of view described in proportion to those points of views proliferations; to remove WP:UNDUE-class statements from the articles where they are sued solely to further one side or the other, to use respectable, reliable, and verifiable sources, with indications of what those sources are, to try and remove any overly-colorful adjectives, and to allow the reader to follow proper source links to the original information to allow the reader to make up their own opinion. There are shades of color within the Palestinian and Israeli sides, and, mirroring the real world, the articles may be contentious for a number of years to come. However, there is no possibility of a working consensus (Avi's definition #22: A working consensus is the version of an article that is the least offensive to the greatest number of editors) unless the back-and-forth and discussions are performed with exaggerated civility and cordiality. We have to do our best to minimize (as prevention is impossible) the ideological struggle using wikipedia as its battleground, on both sides. Which is why, I return to saying, that from my recollections, PR has not acted in this manner and I have had more than one editor complain about what they perceive is a double-standard when it comes to PR's ability to seemingly be less careful about WP:CIVIL than other editors. PR is a very intelligent editor, that is obvious. I only wish that he used some of that prodigious talent to work with people as opposed to against them. -- Avi (talk) 19:52, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply, Avi and I apologize for having unfairly drawn on your time, since I am no longer involved in editing. One point however, which perhaps you can explain to G-Dett by email. I have disposed of most of Jayjg's charges, which is what Ryan advises us to consult. The Ali Hirsi remark is on a Talk page, as is the remark, which I fully endorse and find innocuous, that 'Bard comes across as a serious propagandist with a particular interest in denial'. That is true, by any objective standards. In any case, wiki articles should be seriously sourced, and he should never be cited on those grounds alone.
PR here is not editing into the page on these people the judgement expressed. She (sorry PR but it is not obvious to me that you are male). The Ali Hirsi remark should have, out of pure curiosity, drawn requests for sources that justify PR's suggestion that Hirsi admitted to lying (if this is improper on a talk page, please review the Saeb Erekat archives for repeated suggestions he is lying, not sanctioned, and in my view rightly so because what is said on talk pages must be distinguished from what is edited in on articles. On Talk pages all kinds of material and suggestions should be broached, and not be subject to sanctions). Secondly, the Ali Hirsi contrast is made against what occurs, I insist on this, with the shockingly violent treatment meted out to Israel Shahak's memory in the meat of his article. That page is full of irresponsible trash, by half-baked polemicists who conspicuously and mischievously misrepresent the truth. Jayjg is holding PR's fortune's hostage to a judgement about Hirsi which he considers a 'violation of BLP' (on a talk page), while, at the same time, defending vicious crap about a dead person widely regarded by many eminent Jews and goys who knew him personally, some of whom I have corresponded with, who find that page infamous, and wiki beneath contempt because of this kind of editing. So, pal, this particular suit does look ugly. There is so far, not a skerrick of evidence to warrant the extreme measures requested. Much here is racking over a few bits and pieces and reading them in the light of past ANI records. Best wishes for your work. I do hope, sometime in the future, wiser minds prevail to secure working conditions that allow present and future editors to stop frigging about with personal battles, and enjoy working here, instead of feeling as though they were colleagues of Tantalus and Sisyphus. You, and many others, have more stoicism than I can afford to muster. If I stayed on in I/P, I'd only be lynched for being tempted into exclaiming 'fuck!' with a more colloquial colour than the exquisite G-Dett allows. Regards Nishidani (talk) 20:41, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
(outdent)Avi, I have a great deal of respect for your editing and am a little taken aback by this, but would genuinely reconsider my position if you were to provide some concrete evidence of bannable offenses in PR’s work for me to look over. I would be especially impressed by evidence supporting the claim that (a) what he does is out of the ordinary on I/P pages, and (b) that his contributions cannot be productively modified and absorbed by editors keener on collaboration than score-settling.
I wonder if meanwhile you might also consider the possibility that mentorship has had negative consequences for PR. There are a lot of passionate and, shall we say, colorful characters on I/P pages; he doesn’t strike me as out of the ordinary on that score. He was treated with malice and bad faith in many of his early encounters with relatively powerful editors on Wikipedia, and these encounters left a taint on him for editors only glancingly familiar with the background. His editing and etiquette could certainly stand some improvement, so the case for mentorship seemed to make sense, but insofar as it has tended to codify an undeserved taint, he understandably chafes at it, perhaps resulting in worse behavior.--G-Dett (talk) 17:53, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
G-Dett, I will try and respond with instances for you, but via e-mail to spare all involved, within the next couple of days, and if I do not, please remind me. Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 19:39, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
G-Dett, I've been gone for a while, but if the ordinary for IP pages is what I'm seeing here, then the ordinary needs putting to rights. There is no excuse for bad behavior, from anybody. If the behavior in this area has deteriorated so badly, I suggest that you guys consider moveing up the dispute resolution chain and go to arbcom. —— nixeagle18:05, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
Oppose ban. PR's attitude toward editing may not be ideal, but we need to put his behavior into context. Let me give my experience with editing some of the Israel/Palestine articles. I need to give some details, so I can't be brief.
I was involved in editing the Hamas and Hezbollah articles until last year but I left because of the attitude of the editors, which is very confrontational. Almost everyone sees editing these article as a game to get as much of their POV included in the articles, the rules of the games are the wiki rules such as the one on reliable sources which can be bent almost as far as you like. I did briefly edit the Hezbollah article this year in March when I saw a very strange statement, saying that Hezbollah has admitted being responsible for the terrorist attacks in Argentina, in that article that every regular editor should know was wrong (if true that would be breaking news, so you wouldn't expect it to read about it somewhere burried in an article on court proceedings).
To my horror it was GHCool who had edited in the sentence. Although GHCool and I had disagreed on many things, I did have the feeling that GhCool was more reasonable than most other editors. I argued a bit with GHCool about that edit, but GHCool told me that the edit was allowed (quoted from a reliable source). I was disappointed about this attitude and I decided never to return to these articles as that is clearly a waste of time if even the best editors are behaving in this way.
Now, I actually decided to stop editing these aticles a bit earlier after two frustrating incidents last year. On the Hamas page I tried to find a compromize on a sentence saying that "Hamas is best known for suicide attacks". This sentence is problematic because the source isn't clear about how this was determined to be the case, it is just the opinion of the author and after some time passes and the suicide attacks become more of a thing of the past. Who knows, perhaps Hamas is now "best known for being in power in Gaza"?
So, I tried to argue that it would be better to write a sentence that conveys a hard fact, like "Hamas is responsible for suicide bombings against Israel". There are plenty of sources that back this up and it will remain a fact forever, no matter what happens in the future. So, you don't have the problem that the fact changes while the sources are lagging behind.
To my horror, most of the pro-Israeli editors opposed my move. Only Avi supported me. Humus Sapiens accused me of vandalism when I reverted back to my version, because I was removing "sourced information" (of course my version was sourced as well). Anyway, at first it wasn't clear why my stronger statement was not welcome in the article. Later it became clear to me what was really going on. Both sides are playing a game in which they want to have as much freedom to use sources to edit in dubious statements. So, if such statements get removed in favor of hard facts it constrains the freedoms of the editors, and they don't like that.
The final straw for me was when finding a compromize on the Hezbollah article by me was considered to be edit warring and I was refereed to this ANI board. I as not banned, but I was asked to stop behaving in that way by SlimVirgin. What was I guilty of? Well, some editor (forgot his name, he was not a regular on the Hezbollah page) included some facts on the Hezbollah page. Nothing wrong with that, but it was all under a new section called "Terrorism". Although terrorism is a "word to avoid", we can certainly call an acts of terror "terrorism". But the section contained more than terror acts alone. So, I made some changes, but I did keep all the facts that were edited in (I made a new section in which I mentioned the things that are not, by definition, terrorism).
But this is considered to be "edit warring", "violation of 3RR because of multiple complex partial reverts" etc. etc. Well, I guess that if one sees editing through the narrow window of defending/attacking Hezbollah, then that may well be the case, but then I'm not going to be involved anymore. So, I left, only to briefly return on March this year.
So, it should be clear that my opinion about the way the Israel/Palestine articles are edited is very negative. The fact that PR is being attacked by other involved editors who, with the exception of a few, are not any better themselves speaks volumes. The problem with these articles is huge. There are many Admins with problematic behavior as well, so the entire Palestine/Israel sector of wikipedia is a big corrupt mess that has to be sorted out. But banning PR will do noting to improve the situation, as that would be similar to Al Capone tipping off the FBI about rival mafiosi to improve his strategic position. Count Iblis (talk) 23:20, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
Absolutely no effing way, we all know how this discussion goes: Those on the other side of the fence to PR cry bloody murder, and bring up his block log (take a look at it: The first few are completely over the top, and were placed by involved admins; after that, there are a number associated with the ArbCom case). They'll bring up the ArbCom case, which I urge everyone to read: It was not a case of PR coming oh-so-close to being banned; he was accused of something he clearly didn't do. Jayjg's and Ryan's actions in and around that case can be described as nothing short of disgraceful.
A number of PR's supporters will claim that PR has never done a single thing wrong, and will defend his actions to the hilt.
A few moderates will point out that PR is far from perfect, but that anything he does wrong can be sorted out with blocks.
This is never going to be anything but a partisan debate, and is yet another attempt to get rid of a thorn in the side of some editors that happen to have a different (just as extreme) POV. -- MarkChovain01:12, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
As I have said above, and I will say again here, I propose that those involved consider making an ARBCOM case on this article if the editing is really as negative as you guys imply it is. However I must point out that PR is a role account (this is admitted back 6 months ago at the initial community ban thingie. I've been gone so long I don't recall exactly when that was :S ), and not the main account of the editor. If that means anything at this point I'm not sure. However I'm dismayed to see that this much dispute and namecalling is the norm for this area of the encyclopedia :( —— nixeagle01:31, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
For those opposing further admin action, would you suggest that PR be placed with a different mentor than Ryan, or that the mentorship requirement be dropped? Perhaps you could clarify or, better yet, make a cogent counter-proposal, since the current arrangement with Ryan seems to have run its course. Thanks. HG | Talk04:24, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
I think nixeagle's suggestion is right from the dispute resolution side of things (take it to RfArb). As for mentorship, I think this thread kind of puts a bit of a hole in the current arrangement. IMO, PR seems to work much better with a mentor, so I think it'd be worth finding another. That said, I think he should be able to keep editing in the meantime, perhaps with a 1RR restriction until a mentor can be found? -- MarkChovain06:21, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
RFC?
I'm making a new section here as this is a new idea. My suggestion to you all is to open a request for comment on PalestineRemembered. I think its better to attempt to come to a resolution there, rather then here on WP:AN. Should the request for comment fail, there is always arbcom. Unless an administrator acts on the above conversation (the above 3 sections), I think it will do the community better to continue this discussion and put alternatives forth at an RFC. —— nixeagle13:23, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
I suggest the whole case be dismissed as a piece of roguish abuse of wiki policies, prompted by one user whose evidence Ryan, who is busy, evidently hasn't checked. I will open a section below with a complete review of the evidence, or rather the mockup of pseudo-evidence to settle old vendettas and get a scalp. What, in short, nixeagle requested me to do. There is simply nothing here (Avi may have evidence which is far stronger than what we have here, so my remarks are limited to the material on which everyone who has participated here has made their respective calls). Gentlemen, this has been a disgraceful operation. Nishidani (talk) 15:59, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
Ryan ends his complaint by a request for comment (what has occurred here is an informal RfC). There have been many comments, and 2 sources documenting the reasons why a ban should be made. GHcool's evidence is ancient history, a few diffs from two years to eight months ago, and so wholly irrelevant to a complaint about PR's recent behaviour. His whole effort to get at PR is an abuse of appropriate evidence and proper process. Jayjg's evidence consists of innuendos about SPA accounts and sockpuppetry, blather (WP:SOAP per tu quoque) over Bogdanor and Kastner which is neither here nor there, since Jayjg, as shown, misread PR's remark; plus two elements of evidence of violation of BLP recently. All we have then, is two putative instances of violating BLP to secure checkmate, a permanent community ban. What do they consist in? Ayaan Hirsi Ali's public record is compared, on a talk page, to Shahak's, to illustrate by analogy bias in that I/P article. Mitchell Bard is contested as a proper source, correctly, since the remark quoted from him is obvious nonsense not fit for a serious encyclopedia article: and it is on a talk page. So what's the problem? So far we have these two bits, and the points made by PR would never form the basis for an ANI complaint had anyone else made them. Nishidani (talk) 17:41, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
A Review of the evidence. What evidence?
1.Ryan calls for a community ban. His complaint is that mentoring Palestine Remembered has failed to stop PR from push(ing) his pro Palestine POV on numerous articles.
This is startling. The majority of editors who underwrite a permanent ban will not be offended, I think, if I remark that they ‘push their pro-Israeli POVs’. No one on the other side regards User:Jayjg as anyone other than an edit-warrior with a powerful pro-Israeli POV. That is attested in every edit I have seen from him over the past two years. In the rules, as far as I understand them, there is nothing wrong with pushing a POV, most I/P articles are compromises (messy) made by parties with opposed POVs, which each side pushes. To deny this is to deny the obvious. Therefore, Ryan’s complaint, expressed thus, suggests a misapprehension about how I/P articles are written.
(b) He's well known to edit war to get his point across. This is vague. Does it refer to past reputation or to present behaviour? If the latter, then this must be documented. Anything to do with PR's past behaviour is wholly immaterial to the ban requested, which must logically relate to recent behaviour.
(c) He was subject to an arbitration case because of a habit in using extremely poor sources to push his POV - the arbitration case was closed with no action. G-Dett replied to this in the following terms, and no one has challenged their veracity:-
'what a load of hogwash and balderdash. PR was subject to an arbitration case because a rogue admin made bogus claims about his sources – claims which were unanswerably discredited within an hour. His accuser lacked the decency and honesty to retract his fatuous accusations, and Ryan lacked – and continues to lack – the competence to understand what happened in the first place.’
Since no one has challenged G-dett's recall of the instance, Ryan's remark self-cancels, and can be thrown out of court. In fact if anything it testifies more to the behaviour of the 'rogue administrator' who happens here to be the chief prosecutor for the case now under consideration against PR.
(d) he continues to make poorly sourced contributions, and edit wars to keep them in place. This repeats (b) and is unsubstantiated by recent evidence. Ryan’s point is also that numerous editors have failed to get PR to toe the ‘right path’. Perhaps true, but numerous editors who appear to enjoy hauling PR under administrative sanctions, have no idea of what the ‘right path’ is, since they are happy POV pushers themselves.
2.Ryan calls for comments. One comment was that Ryan’s own complaint comes after Jayjg had worked Ryan’s page to raise, for the umpteenth time, apparent problems with PR’s return to editing. I haven't checked it, but then again, no one has protested the veracity of the assertion. Ryan himself did not produce evidence for his claims, but, subsequently, when Jayjg made his own case, Ryan underwrote Jayjg’s suit, as containing more or less the gravamen of his own charges. Thus functionally, Ryan’s complaint is a proxy complaint authored by Jayjg.
Administrator Blueboy96, Horologium, Administrator Coren, JzG (Guy), JoshuaZCanadian Monkey all immediately supported a site or topic ban, though no evidence has been forthcoming. They trusted Ryan’s description, or recalled PR’s archival record. Durova is commendably neutral.
Presumptive, asks for evidence, as does ChrisO. John Nagle checks 100 recent edits and can’t see the problem. LamaLoLeshLa asks why at this particular point is PR’s past beinfg raked over? Where is the new evidence for this old complaint?
Only with GHcool is an attempt at supplying evidence made. The evidence is:
(a)Ghcool’s opinion that PalestineRemembered's edits are largely disgraceful.
This emerges as the only reason GHcool has to press for PR's ban, personal dislike.
(b) He has been guilty of calling Zionists proud of their murderous racism[[8]
The link takes us to December 2006 where in reply to Robert E.Rubin’s attempt to discredit the fact that Norman Finkelstein is the son of Holocaust survivors, PR replied:
'There's a serious problem protecting the BLP of anyone who has criticised Israel, even if they have credentials as good as Norman Finkelstein. It's very, very wearing to take out, over and over again, these unsubstantiated and utterly pointless edits.Meanwhile, of course, it's impossible to insert any evidence against Zionist politicians, no matter how well referenced and indeed proud they may be of their murderous racism. PalestineRemembered 20:32, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
Ghcool thus distorts the record. PR had it in for Zionist politicians (one presumes Menachem Begin, Yitzhak Shamir, Ariel Sharon <BLP vio removed>, not Zionists(potentially all patriotic Israelis). The remark was in any case duly punished with a 24-hour ban, which was fair enough, though it should have been longer for the solecism in PR's remark. This is again evidence from 1 and a half years ago.
(c) spreading Zionist conspiracy theories[9]
The link refers to a comment made 8 months ago, to Jaakobou:
'I trust you'll not present yourself as having any understanding of the developing situation. The Saudi inititative is a two-state proposal that leaves Israel intact within the Green Line borders, but it does have to abide by International law (as mostly written or re-written by the US in the aftermath of 1945). And the Saudi proposal has more support amongst Palestinians than does the undefined 'two-state solution' they were offered in that poll. It might be time to start writing this article to WP:policy and reliable sources. PRtalk 20:56, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
What on earth this completely acceptable statement has to do with the crime of spreading ‘Zionist conspiracy theories’ is unclear. This is a howler, and no one picks it up.
(d) comparing Zionists with Nazis,[10]
Again, the link goes through a time-capsule back to December 2006, and in reply to an editor who asks ‘why no mention of terrorist attacks on Jews’, Palestine remembered wrote:
You could probably write a number of very good articles on oppression aimed at Jews. Unfortunately, most of your allies will either be Zionists (who are provably a lot nastier and more dangerous than anything we've seen since 1945) or anti-Zionists (who are appalled that the Holocaust is used as justification for the crimes of Israel). I'm not sure how you'll get round that one - you could start by expressing your outrage at Zionists who, whatever crimes are alleged against Israel, immediately blame the Jews. They fail to recognise that the Jews have suffered quite enough from false allegations in the last 2000 years. PalestineRemembered 23:27, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
This again is malicious misrepresentation, since there is no equation of Zionists with Nazis. However you wish to construe what PR is saying, note that PR writes 'Zionists who..' not 'Zionists, who...'
This now becomes a pattern with Ghcool’s evidence. None of these diffs support the dramatic tabloid titles he supplies them with in glossing their ostensible content.
(e) comparing Israeli historians with Holocaust deniers,[11][12][[13]
(e.i)Note 11.Takes us to an innocuous exchange of views that are far more nuanced that what Ghcool would have us believe. It dates to September 2007
Ghcool is satisfied with the state of the ‘causes of the 1948 Palestinian exodus’. PR replies.
'I think it's terrible, gravely distorting what historians say about this business. We seem to have quotations in there from "historians" even less credible than David Irvine. We have historians who believe one thing quoted as if they believed the opposite - and editors claiming that that is a perfectly proper thing to do. PalestineRemembered 18:29, 9 September 2007
I.e. David Irving is not a credible historian, since he is a denier. Neither is Schechtman, since he, in a different vein, denies obvious facts (and creates malicious untruths passed off as historiography)
There are two David Irvings. One was the highly regarded historian of the German military praised by all academic specialists in the 1960s, the other is the Holocaust-denier. PR is referring to a number of Israeli historians of the early postwar period who were responsible for creating a completely false mythical account of the reasons for the exodus, a myth exposed as early as 1961 but which was repeated right down to the 1980s, and which found honourable mention in the aforesaid article.
(e.ii) This refers to an exchange on Jan 14 eight months ago. PR writes:-
Yet again, we agree. But I worry the ArbCom don't know what appalling souces get rammed into I-P conflict articles. We quote Joseph Schechtman in that article saying "Until ... May 15, 1948, no quarter whatsoever had ever been given to a Jew who fell into Arab hands." I'm confident (and User:GHcool has never denied) that that clip, alone, is worse than anything ever seen from David Irving. While illiterates stalk our articles, the I-P conflict articles, and the conduct surrounding them, will disgrace us. This is a problem we can fix - but only when the ArbCom protects scholars like User:Tiamut. And also User:Nishidani, recently hounded from the project when his patience and good-nature was trashed. PRtalk 16:38, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Apart from the lather, PalestineRemembered again considers Schechtman worse than David Irving. Both deny or affirm absurd things. Pr quotes a notorious piece of propagandistic nonsense by Schechtman, with no basis in the historical record. No one there confuted this. What Schechtman wrote was crap, and Ghcool is only offended at the comparison with David Irving. So?
(e.iii) Again Ghcool takes us down the time tunnel, January 2008. He complains of this remark on the talk page of ‘Jewish Lobby’:-
I'm somewhat handicapped discussing hate-sources because I avoid them like the plague. But I'd be surprised if David Duke is as bad (either on grounds of hate or grounds of "gross historical fabrication") than two sources we seem to use a lot, Joseph Schechtman and Shmuel Katz. The former is even quoted in a WP article with this astonishing nastiness: Until the Arab armies invaded Israel on the very day of its birth, May 15, 1948, no quarter whatsoever had ever been given to a Jew who fell into Arab hands. Wounded and dead alike were mutilated. Every member of the Jewish community was regarded as an enemy to be mercilessly destroyed. (From his book The Arab Refugee Problem) Prove to me that David Duke have ever come out with anything so outlandish. PRtalk 16:51, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Again, PR, though guilty of hyperbole (actually Katz and Schechtman can, with extreme care, be harvested for information, as I once noted, though one must keep in mind their partisanship for terrorism) is expressing contempt for Irving and Duke, but saying to pro-Israeli editors, if you can’t stand lies against your community by holocaust-deniers, why push rubbish by Schechtman and Katz (both associated historically with an organization, the Irgun, that used terroristic methods to achieve statehood) that fabricates vicious untruths about Arabs comparable to the vicious untruths fabricated by Holocaust deniers against Jews. This is the rhetorical strategy. It may be fervid, ineptly put, but the technique is normal in persuasion by analogy.
(f) committing logical fallacies and spreading disinformation left and right. -GHcool (talk) 20:46, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
I don’t think this needs comment. Most of the newspaper sources from mainstream press that, for some, form a staple of I/P information, don’t stand a moment’s scrutiny for logical coherence. If logical fallacies were the basis for including or excluding editors, wiki would lose 95% of its regular contributers, from the most brilliant to the average editor. The information on PR provided by Ghcool therefore is void of substance, full of thin historical reminiscence of past behaviour that, in context (don’t read the bolded green patch in the link: read the whole flow and all comments for each diff) has not been exceptional on I/P articles in the past. Strongly worded, opinionated, but to the point, and often rationally argued or sourced reliably.
Then, LamaLoLeshla notes that his tabloid headings are not backed up by the diffs. Horologium tries to be helpful, but his indications in no way clarify Ghcool’s bad diffs. Since Ghcool’s charges are ancient history, Coppertwig twigs us to a copper in the wings, as Ryan did, by telling us to at Jayjg’s forthcoming evidence based on PR’s recent editing.
I in turn make a point about the vagueness of these charges, all old history, no evidence. Jaakobou, also notes that the diffs are insufficient. Both PR and I have had a past record of conflict with him, and his remark at this point is to be thoroughly commended. He is judging this case on the merits of evidence, reading what is said closely, and making his own call. Our differences are enormous, but here is an editor who, though he has a very convinced pro-Israeli point-of-view, is measuring the evidence, against the claims, by his own lights. PhilKnight agrees with Jaakobou's call, but suggests a 3 month ban, nothing as drastic as that originally proposed.
(3)As the case for a community ban wobbles towards a crash, Jayjg finally shows his hand.
(3.a)Palestine remembered is a self-confessed SPA, a propagandist and soapboxer. Like Ghcool Jayjg has a perfect memory and can testify that PR has never made, even once, an edit that is not propaganda.
(3.b)A technicality allows Jayjg to raise a specious impression that PR is guilty of sockpuppetry. It is nothing more than that, a play on words, used for the subliminal effect 'sockpuppetry' has on administrators. Wink,wink, nudge,nudge
(3.c)Here we finally have contemporary evidence from the last week. WP:BLP violation against "the likes of Ayaan Hirsi Ali". Jay jigs up the following tremendously damning smoking gun from PR's recent edit.
'Shahak did less to Judaism (in far more measured terms) than the likes of Ayaan Hirsi Ali do to Islam. Compare the two for reliability - Hirsi Ali is known to have lied (she's admitted it publicly) about what Islam did to her life, re-inventing great portions of it even including her name and date of birth. (That was in order to leave the perfectly safe Germany and settle in Holland). She's either chucked up or mysteriously distanced herself from the plum think-tank job she landed in Washington .... safer back in Eurabia than Washington? Whereas Shahak is more respectable in every way, surviving Belsen (1943 aged 10), going to Palestine, serving in an elite regiment of the IDF. He went on to become a professor of chemistry at Hebrew University. I think it's only in 1967 he came to question his faith. Nishidani proves again (above) that Shahak's criticisms of his religion (while hard hitting) bear no resemblance to those of Hirsi Ali, they're veritable models of reason in comparison. Now compare the two for the tone of our treatment - we quote Ayaan Hirsi Ali enthusiastically (as do all sorts of blatant Islamophobes and racists) seemingly delighted to have her say of Islam "Violence is inherent in Islam, it's a destructive, nihilistic cult of death. It legitimates murder". In Shahak's case, we ignore the points he has to make, pour scorn on his testimony, and quote his critics saying "world's most conspicuous Jewish antisemite... Like the Nazis before him". Then we further defame Shahak because his words were picked up by racists - even though we know it's completely irrelevant. Moshe Sharrat, 2nd Prime Minister of Israel is also extensively quoted by the antisemitic - so? It's almost as if we're writing the Great Soviet Encyclopedia on Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn. PRtalk 17:45, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
So, what is the enormous crime by wiki criteria in this first piece of evidence for PR’s horribly recalcitrant propagandistic editing?
Jayjg, read the whole Shahak page and archives, has it in for Shahak. Shahak was a Popperianliberal, a Holocaust survivor and secular critic of the ultra-orthodox threat to the development of Israel as a modern democracy. You cannot even begin to understand his critique unless you are familiar with Popper's 2 volume masterpiece, 'The Open Society and its Enemies' and Hadas's theories about Platonic influence via Hellenism on certain currents of rabbinical thinking. He wrote several books on the oddities of rabbinical halakhic and doctrinal traditions. Because he translated and divulgated extensive swathes of opinion from rabbinical sources that will strike most secular minds as bizarre, in a state where Judaic religious identity is still not disentangled from Israeli Jewish identity, Shahak came in for a huge amount of flak. Jayjg has supported cramming the page with poor sources that smear, insinuate and slander the man. Many, myself included, have given up and allowed the mess to stand as a monument to the kind of editing Jayjg rides shotguhn over, while he jumps at people like PR for not respecting Wiki ideals, and retailing 'propaganda'.
PR simply said that proIsraeli I/P editors are enamoured of what Ayaan Hirsi Ali says of Islam, yet hate what Shahak says of Orthodox rabbinical thought. Both often say the same thing, that these respective religions shackle human liberty with the queerest of mystical theories. Hirsi Ayaan Ali is hailed as a heroic figure because her enemy is Islam. Shahak is despised as a Jewish antisemite because his enemy was a mode of rabbinical doctrine and thinking he thought tyrannical and totalitarian. Hirsi Ayaan Ali is known to have lied (PR says) and this does not alter the esteem in which she is held. Shahak is said by his bitter enemies to have lied, and this is showcased on his page. The point PR makes is the point made with Irving. I.e., pro-Israeli editors get on their high horses when Israel or Judaism is attacked, in this case by a Jewish critic, and allow the page to carry a large amount of preposterous insinuations from unreliable sources, whereas figures like Hirsi Ayaan Ali critical of Islam (Israel’s putative enemy) are left untouched, when not hailed for their critical boldness in taking on religious obscurantists. To entertain both positions is hypocritical, the duplicity of double standards is disturbing among editors of I/P articles, because one set of criteria is used with regard to Israel, another set used with regard to Israel’s putative enemies or antagonists, even when the situations in both cases are strikingly analogous. PR is thus vigorously deploring nationalist bias in I/P articles. Jayjg thinks this, apparently, deplorable, as deplorable as a man like Shahak, whom the Council of Foreign relations in Washington thought highly enough to consult with regularly over the 1990s. This is, finally, an analogy, of considerable merit, made on a talk page to illustrate what is wrong with Jayjg's editing, and not a violation of Ayaan Hirsi Ali's biography.
(3.d)'a BLP violation against Mitchell Bard'
Again as before the following comment occurs on a Talk Page (Arab Citizens of Israel). The contested remark is:-
Bard comes across as a serious propagandist with a particular interest in denial. His "Myths and Facts" contains such gems as MYTH: "Settlements are an obstacle to peace." He should try and persuade Condoleeza Rice of that. CAMERA's single-mindedness and attitude to integrity doesn't need further discussion, there's been an RfC on it and other action. PRtalk 06:56, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
Well? Bard is not a reliable source. The remark he is cited as making is a nonsense, since every Israeli government (bar Netanyahu’s perhaps) has, in its negotiations, allowed that there is a problem with settlements, and every world body consulted thinks so too, since they are not on land legally belonging to the state of Israel. With comments like that, one can only reply: ‘Non c’è trippa per gatti’. PR’s remark is innocuous, and a correct call to boot. It is not a BLP violation of Mitchell Bard to say, on a talk page where his irrelevant views are pushed, that he is a ‘serious propagandist’ who denies what Israeli negotiators admit to be the truth, i.e. that settlements are the central issue of contention, and an obstacle to be overcome, in peacetalks. Talk pages are full of such comment, whenever bad sources from second raters in the commentariat are being pushed in.
(3.e)'some sort of weird attacks on Paul Bogdanor[14][15]'
(3.e.i) refers to a long discussion agreeing with another poster, on technical questions of branding people ‘deniers’ of genocide. It concludes:-
Lastly, there are other examples which must look perilously close to denial - it's difficult to imagine that the claims made in this republished 1962 leaflet (?) are taken very seriously by anyone who know anything of this case. PRtalk 09:22, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
Hi Relata - I came across this from Paul Bogdanor's web-site - he's re-publishing a 1962 pamphlet (?) that looks pretty much like gross historical distortion to me (everyone agrees that Kastner collaborated with the Nazis - and almost everyone thinks that, late in the war, he tricked some 450,000 of his fellows to go quietly to the ovens). I then discovered that his reliability was recently discussed here. From the WP article on Bogdanor I found and checked The 200 lies of Chomsky, much of which also appears to me to be gravely distorted. I wondered if this discussion should be taken to the board again. PRtalk 13:42, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
So, what’s the ruckus about this, where's the huge violation of wiki policies involved here. A note on Paul Bopgdanor asking for a second opinion. Bogdanor is a hack writer, without any competence on Kastner, or anything else to do with I/P articles (in Jayjg’s own severe standards on WP:RS) and PR asked for advice to confirm her own reasonable impressions. Those who track and sort out who’s saying what to whom on I/P articles have clipped this out as damning evidence, of what? That PR, like a large part of the serious commentariat, thinks anything Bogdanor has to say can be safely ignored without drastic loss of wisdom?
Jayjg protests at PR saying 'Everyone agrees that Kastner collaborated. He thinks, evidently that some people do not agree that Kastner collaborated with the Nazis. But Everybody does agree, however, that Kastner collaborated with Nazis, since he did. And to say he didn’t would be to controvert a huge mass of contemporary documentation. It is not a claim, it is a matter of fact. In the second part of PR's remark to which Jayjg takes exception, we read:
almost everyone thinks that, late in the war, he tricked some 450,000 of his fellows to go quietly to the ovens.
What Jayjg ignores, crucially, is that almost. Ignoring that almost wilfully then allows him to make a Mountain out of a non-existent molehill, a fuss about the ostensible exception to PR's generalization. i.e. Anna Porter’s 'Kazstner's Train: The True Story of Rezsö Kasztner, Unknown Hero of the Holocaust', which argues that Kastner was a hero. So? PR said almost, not everyone. Almost, Jayjg, in English usage here, means, contextually, almost everyone (except Anna Porter, for example). I won’t go into the Kastner case, and the large literature on that episode, as, I think, Relata refero redmarks, that it is a very complex case (the tradition behind sacrificing a large community to save a few however has been studied, not least by Israel Shahak, a taboo he and Raul Hilberg worried over all their lives, and for which many have never forgiven them for having voiced their malaise publicly) but I would suggest that Jayjg instead of whipping up froth and foam out of PR’s truism, meditate on the interview his link directs us to where Anna Porter is quoted as saying:
'He's the only Jewish Holocaust survivor who saved lives. There isn't anybody else really.'
I.e. Porter who shouts her ignorance in this remark, is also saying that of the 2 to 4 million Jews who survived the Holocaust, no one, except Kastner, lifted a finger to save a fellow Jew. And you have the brashness to assert, after reading this extraordinary generalization, that PR makes remarks characterized by tendentious nonsense?
(3.f)Jayjg concludes his shabby brief with the following ex cathedra judgement:'Tendentious nonsense . . characterizes the editor behind PalestineRemembered it's his dogged and dogmatic persistence; he waited out previous lengthy blocks, and returned from them completely unchanged. I see no reason to think a lengthier block will produce a novel result. Jayjg (talk) 23:53, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
To use that language on the strength/weakness of the ostensible evidence, rigged up out of a few lame diffs, against another wikipedian is probably a violation of WP:CIVIL. All I can see here is an attempt to finish unsettled old scores, a vendetta, personal dislike, and factitious material jerryrigged to waste another editor, whose faults, acknowledged by many, are venial, and certainly not conspicuous, in the record placed before us here. Nothing adduced here warrants such comments on PR's recent behaviour as both GHcool and Jayjg have attempted to document it. This is, therefore, a farce.
But, in fine, Jayjg, examining this travesty of evidence, one can only sigh with a slight infraction of metrical proprieties, with Horace (Serm. Lib,I, 1, 69-70), in parsing the intemperate language and characterisations of congenitially poor editing you have brandished here against PR: Quid derides? Mutato nomine, de te fabula narratur.Nishidani (talk) 15:59, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
Palestine Remembered's edits are frequently out of proportion to the sources which he cites. he often writes with clear political predilections and agendas. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 19:54, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
But these topics are politically very sensitive and there are equally valid but completely different opinions in the reliable sources. Compare PR's behavior to your own behavior some time ago on the Global Warming page. In that case the reliable sources (i.e. the peer reviewed sources and not the unreliable blogs) are very clear, yet we have to put up with editors who refuse to recognize the basic facts. See here for a recent RFC on such a problematic editor. Count Iblis (talk) 20:42, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
gee, thanks. not only do i get a whole new editor casting aspersions on me, it's on a whole new topic to boot. thanks so much. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 21:04, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
Count Iblis, your insertion of irrelevancies and non sequitirs here, in order to throw aspersions at me, seems a bit uncivil and not completely appropriate here. We are trying to discuss specific topics here. (By the way, if your armada reference was meant to be humorous, I can take some wry humor here as well as anyone here, but it did not appear that way, and seemed like an unfriendly act. I don't mind some off-topic conversation, but it seemed like some sudden negative material unrelated to the topic at hand. if you are trying to strike a light note, I feel you should try to do so differently.) --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 13:20, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
Ok, let me exlain this a bit better then. You wrote "Palestine Remembered's edits are frequently out of proportion to the sources which he cites. he often writes with clear political predilections and agendas". My reply to you, based on your conduct on the GW page can be found hereCount Iblis (talk) 21:34, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
Your remarks ARE AD HOMINEM AND TOTALLY INAPPROPRIATE. I would appreciate it if you would please try to stck to the point. Your remarks have no relation to the topic under discussion. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 02:59, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Ok, let me stick to the point then. If you think it is ok. to invite editors from the "Conservatism in the US" page to come over to the Global Warming page, which is primarily about the science of Global Warming, not politics, and then defend that by saying "I guess our main difference is that I don't view this only as a science article, but as a societal/political topic as well.", then what is PR doing wrong when he brings the Palestinian POV in articles about the Israeli/Palestinian conflict? Count Iblis (talk) 14:14, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Gosh, it sure is great to see how well-expressed you are...(sarcasm). your entire approach to this is completely counter-productive. you are beuing extremely contentious. ok, I have no desire to reply to anything which you have stated. are you trying to send the message that you disagree with my action? ok, you win, since I have no desire to reply to your questions which are phrased in a completely non-productive and contentious way.
you have completely ignored the issue here, and brought up concerns about my past actions in a way which is completely counter to any norms of productive discussions. I find your approach completely unhelpfu, and decline to reply. Ok, you win. Yay! --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 15:59, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
By the way, to answer your question, the two situations are NOT ANALOGOUS. So your points do not in any way refute the valid concerns which I raised. your method of discussing this is totally one-dimensional and contentious. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 16:06, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Further discussion
I'd like to bring us back to the criteria for a community-wide or topic-ban. What are indeed the criteria? Cheating, and edit-warring, PR says. I'd have to agree with him/her that I don't see evidence to that effect. So, please, as someone who's only been here for a few months, could someone explain to me, with an emphasis on recent concerns, first, what the specific charges are here which merit permanent banning, and second, offer support. LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 23:52, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
Holy mother of pearl, that was long Nishidani. I'll try to be much briefer:
I actually do know a fair bit about Kastner and the allegations raised regarding him, having written most of the Malchiel Gruenwald article and contributed significantly to the Rudolf Vrba article. No, not "everyone agrees that Kastner collaborated". Kastner negotiated with the Nazis, trying to make a deal to trade Allied goods for Jewish lives. Whether or not this negotiation ever had a chance of succeeding is a matter for debate amongst historians, and there are some writers who think that Kastner knew they had no chance, and was only in it for himself - Vrba and Gruenwald primary among them. However, that is certainly not the consensus among historians, far from it. Yehuda Bauer certainly does not agree, nor does Martin Gilbert. But if Nishidani thinks that "almost everyone" thinks that Kastner was a collaborator who betrayed hundreds of thousands of Jews, and that Porter's award-winning book is bunk, let him produce the many reliable historians who say so. And no, despite your citing Adolf Eichmann as a reliable source on Kastner, I nevertheless do not consider him to be one.
Aayan Hirsi Ali, Mitchell Bard, and Paul Bogdanor are all living people, and Wikipedia discussion regarding them is covered by the WP:BLP policy, regardless of your personal opinions regarding them.
PalestineRemembered claimed that his account was a "legitimate" SPA, used to edit I-P articles. Since he is now using the account to edit other articles, it is no longer a legitimate SPA, but instead, merely a second account, which in Wikipedia terminology, is called a "sockpuppet". It no longer possess the alleged "legitimacy" it once claimed.
Jayjg, In regards to point 3, could you possibly point out where the evidence is that:
PR uses multiple accounts; and
simply having multiple accounts is considered sock-puppetry? My reading of WP:SOCK's lead suggests otherwise.
It seems a pretty big leap to go from "What used to be an SPA is now editing other areas of Wikipedia" to "The user is deceptively abusing sock-puppet accounts". Even if PR did have another account, I would see no problem, as long as never the twain shall meet.
You are correct, I had always believed from his statement that he was an SPA editing only I-P related articles that he was declaring PalestineRemembered to be a secondary account, as per Wikipedia:SOCK#Segregation_and_security, reason #1. I see now that it was an assumption on my part. Perhaps he can clarify. Jayjg (talk)03:38, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
Uh... he said he is (or was) a "single-purpose account", which is what we call people who show up only to promote their band, categorize railroads by state, or block bad usernames. It says nothing about having another account. --NE204:23, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
Short-version. Judging by the evidence so far, to file for a community ban on ANI without evidence that stands up to scrutiny looks like barratry to me.
Long-version. Reply to Jayjg I'll answer in Hysteron-proteron sequence, for convenience.
'(My) powers of observation do not appear to be very good'
Perhaps. What I do have is a fair competence in construing sentences in a few languages to determine what they mean, and how, in a sequence of discursive exchanges, the logical content of the respective sentences flows. You make the same mistake above as you did with PR's comment on Kastner. I said, addressing you, 'every edit of yours I have observed over two years' . You now list many edits you have made which I haven't observed, in order to disprove a generalisation made strictly in terms of my own experience. Since I don't track you, but merely note what you do on pages I edit, I restrict myself to that. So, as is, unfortunately, normal in low-key banter, there is little trace of logical coherence between what I stated, which remains true, and what you argue in a specious reply, which addresses something I never said. The hypothetical statement, which by your misprision, you attribute to me and then rebut, takes the form, 'Every edit you have made on Wikipedia, Jayjg, looks like a defence of a national/ethnic interest'. Since I never said this, your reply, while interesting, does not answer to what I said.
I know a lot of people here hunt each other, check each other's logs, email around, etc. I don't. I make my calls strictly (if naturally subjectively) on the evidence of what I see. Permit me to add. That you enrich wiki with many contributions on Jewish topics is something you can justifiably be proud of. That your edits on anything regarding Palestinians overwhelmingly strike many others as bordering on a pretextual (i.e.wikilawyering) censoriousness that seriously damages the highest aim of this collaborative endeavour, (encyclopedicity) may equally yield a sense of self-satisfaction. It would be ungenerous to deny the justifiable pride with which you document your contributions to the Jewish side of wikipedia. It would be dishonest to hide one's feeling that the satisfactions of impoverishing otherwise good work on Palestinians are to be deplored. To illustrate (hmm.tracking me?), since Fiamma Nirenstein makes films for Italian TV, and endlessly dominates talkshows here on Palestinian terrorism (is it a violation of BLP to say here that she never allows anyone to get a word in edgewise?), that edit I made months ago on her page, indicating that she lives in Gilo, on the West Bank, is pertinent. It simply allows the reader who may check, to know that Nirenstein happens to be, herself, a 'settler' on Palestinian territory. I see last night you have eliminated it, I can imagine with, let me be ironical, a mow of triumphant schadenfreude?. Nirenstein will thank you. People who know nothing of her background will now check wiki and not know that when she speaks of settlers, she has a conflict of interest. Good job.
Kastner. Collaborate? Cooperate? In the first edition of his masterpiece, Raul Hilberg uses the words interchangeably. Later, he preferred 'cooperate', because, I presume 'cooperate' lacks certain wartime nuances associated with 'collaborate'. Substantively, however, c'est la même différence.
Your remarks on PR's sparse comments re Kastner make up (since they gather in Paul Bogdanor etc.) almost half of your comments, which were supposed to supply serious evidence. They are (a)immaterial to any brief on PR's putative violations of WP rules, except if one wishes to raise a comber's lather over WP:SOAP. (b) You are contesting the veracity of a generalization made by PR on a talk page. That's within your rights, but on the relevant talk page. At least half of those editing pages I am familiar with do not seem to have any background knowledge of the subject, but simply take off from reading preexisting links on the page. That's why one needs extensive comments on Talk pages, such as, in this case, PR provided, esp. with Ayaan Hirsi Ali.
You will differ with PR on Kastner, as, in major key, Raul Hilberg differed with Yehuda Bauer on these issues. To make a challengeable, historically questionable, generalization (were this the case, which is arguable) on a talk page does not constitute a violation of wiki rules. (Sir Martin, an extraordinary historian, is a generalist on this, and not pertinent, by the way). You did make a major error in construing almost everyone as everyone, and in generalizing from a statement that syntactically allowed for the very exception you then adduced to rebut PR, you committed a serious oversight of construal and logic, which sunk your subsequent argument about Paul Bogdanor and Anna Porter. You now say, standing corrected, that even almost everyone is not true. Even were that so, nothing is altered. PR was entitled to make that judgement on a talk page.
Therefore, though it is absolutely immaterial to the question under review, and should never have been raised in the first place, I'll respond to your remarks on Kastner. The point is indeterminable, since it depends on a subjective value judgement, how third parties view the decision of one Jew to save himself, his family and 1600 other Jews, in exchange for collaborating/cooperating with Nazis (because deemed inevitable) 450,000 other Jews to die unwittingly. A variation on Sophie's Choice. Jews who descended from those he and the Judenrat saved, will thank him. Non-descendents of the 450,000 Jews (Jewish Communists and the poor were often the first to be sacrificed) are not around to express their aborted feelings. More than 1 in 40 or 50 would probably have survived had the Judenräte dropped their age-old 'Am Yisrael chai' outlook, and told everyone, rich and poor, affines and strangers in the Jewish communities alike, to scram, shoot back, refuse to make, let alone wear the yellow star, since they were to be murdered, instead of conning them about new prospects for emigration in the East. Kastner's choice bartered several thousand for half a million. Some think one should refuse to play god, if asked to do so by the scum under Satan's hegemony in a topsy-turvy world where hell rules paradise. Kastner's choice is understandable, to some, perhaps. But there is nothing heroic in it, as it appears Porter's book argues. Faced with this dilemma, Adam Czerniaków blew out his brains. I wish he had not wasted the shot, and asked for a final interview with, and killed, Hans Frank instead. The result would have been the same, but had the likes of Kastner shot at the Eichmanns of this world, they would have set an heroic example for their communities, instead of deceiving the overwhelming majority to march in lockstep towards that 'elsewhere' the Kastners they trusted knew to be Auschwitz. It has been often argued by eruditely reasonable men that, as a consequence, in Israel, extreme overcompensation for that fatal error of compliance under conditions of Holocaust is what has shattered every prospect for a wholly uninvolved people, the Palestinians, in their struggle for statehood (yes, WP:SOAP).
As for Bard and Bogdanor, this is an encyclopedia that aspires to quality. Neither of them even nudges the midget's calypso bar for intelligent analysis of I/P issues. If PR saw efforts to use them on general articles, (s)he did well to protest, on Talk, at the use of factitious, blindly partisan sources. You are, rather exquisitely, hoist by your own petard here: since elsewhere you refuse to allow any citation from any academic, even of world-wide repute, on a topic he hasn't appropriate doctoral qualifications for, you cannot hold PR hostage over BLP for applying exactly the same criterion (which you yourself insist on) when PR notes someone pushing Bogdanor or Bard. You roast PR for dismissing quarter-baked minds in a tiresome commentariat on some pages, and, with what looks like a theatrical volte-fa(r)ce for bemused onlookers like myself, exclude first-rate minds (David Shulman, Ian Lustick to cite just two examples) on others. You are culpable here of pushing WP:BLP to defend bad sources (on a talk page discussion), that favour Israel, while availing yourself of WP:RS, in the strictest imaginable definition, to keep eminently good sources from being harvested for other (Palestinian) articles. One should not, as here, use the wiki rulebook as a convenience tool, to be cherry-picked for strategic advantages, according to what you yourself want to see, or not see, on a page. PR's analogy of Shahak's disgraceful treatment, which you support, with Ayaan Hirsi Ali, was a very intelligent piece of talk commentary, ìlluminating for the way it brought out the scandalous partisan nature of ethnic-interest editing on I/P pages. People should not have the rulebook thrown at them when they make intelligent remarks. Wiki is not a democracy, but it ain't Aldous Huxley's morocratic dystopia, with the intelligent comfortably enisled off the soma-doped mainland, either (so far). Nishidani (talk) 15:13, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
Re your comments to Avi further above and to Jayjg here: I suggest sticking to verifiable facts only and avoiding colourful language speculating on editors' motives or emotions. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 23:39, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
Nishidani, I guess I should thank you for following up your previous 4,200 word post with a comparatively terse one of only 1,500 words. I'll also try to be even more brief that before.
"Co-operate" and "collaborate" are indeed different, and Kastner bargained to save 1 million Jews in return for Allied goods, not 1,600 Jews in return for 450,000. The claim that Kastner's true goal was the latter rather than the former was advanced by Vrba, an incredible and heroic figure, but one nonetheless wedded to views that most historians reject, including both Bauer and Hilberg; when confronted with the fact that his estimate of the number of Jews killed in Auschwitz was twice that of respected Holocaust historians, Vrba replied "Hilberg and Bauer don't know enough about the history of Auschwitz or the Einsatzgruppen." More to the point, PalestineRemembered's claim was demonstrably and obviously false, exaggerated soapboxing and hyperbole made solely for the purpose of demonizing Zionists, particularly those who had a hand in creating Israel. You have not "corrected" me in any way, but rather have been corrected yourself. There is no getting around these simple and irrefutable points, even if you post another 4,200 or even 42,000 more words.
WP:BLP is serious policy, and it applies to all living people, including Ali, Bogdanor, and Bard. One can certainly challenge their validity as sources for Wikipedia articles, but that does not mean PalestineRemembered or you can simply insult them. Stop defending PalestineRemembered's abuse of the policy, and stop abusing it yourself in defense of him.
PalestineRemembered has now burned out how many of his mentors; three? four? This is not the fault of his mentors. Jayjg (talk)01:39, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
In general you’re right, the problem is not with the mentors per se. Rather there are a host of other problems, mostly arising from the fact that mentorship has put PR under a level of scrutiny other I/P editors are not subjected to – indeed, a level of scrutiny under which, frankly, they would not fare any better than he has. This peculiar situation has been abused in several ways, but most egregiously by other editors funneling disinformation to PR’s mentors.--G-Dett (talk) 17:36, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
On the contrary, the egregious abuse here is on the part of PR's enablers, who, rather than firmly insisting he use reliable sources and make neutral edits, instead defend his every soapbox comment and indefensible action as part of some "disinformation" plot against him. Jayjg (talk)02:35, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
I may not be able to complete my participation here, if this drags on, because I have a computer with a cracked hard disk, and technicians are all on vacation. Every time I request a page, having jiggered my way into windows past numerous warning signs and software rejections, I must wait anything from minutes to an hour. This in case I fail to reply to further comments.
Jayjg . PR has been, in this case, 'burned', irrespective of whether mentors have been burned out or not (There is more than anecdotal evidence that some of her editors have been pestered by complaints aimed at unsettling the relationship). It appears she has been burnt rather maliciously. Ryan's frustration is the only evidence I respect, but I note that, apparently, prior to his making his complaint on ANI, you had plastered some protests about PR on his page. The only evidence for malefaction, infringement of wiki rules we have came from GHcool's exercise in fossicking in the archives for dead and buried (and sanctioned) behaviour, and what you then came in to supply. What you supplied has been systematically shown to be factitious.
(a) You now admit the sockpuppetry gambit reflects a misunderstanding on your part. Thus it must be discarded.
(b) You complained about infringements of WP:BLP re Mitchell Bard, Paul Bogdanor, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, and PR's remark on Kastner's posthumous reputation.
(b.1) I showed that your complaint about Pr's dismissal of Paul Bogdanor and Mitchell Bard is improper. Neither is qualified to comment on I/P articles according to the restrictive reading you use, on occasion, of WP:RS. PR's dismissal of them as RS is perfectly consonant with your dismissal, elsewhere of Ian Lustick and David Shulman as reliable sources. Your approach to wiki rules is incoherent, not PR's. We are asked, optimally, to edit articles using sources of the highest quality, and avail ourselves of screeds written by partisan panjandrums (William Safire's words) from the lower gironi of the commentariat.
(b.2)Ayaan Hirsi Ali, you argue, was described by PR in a way that violates WP:BLP. You take exception to the fact that PR noted AHA admits to having lied about her past. In saying this on a talk page, she is violating, in your view WP:BLP, and thus must be sanctioned with a permanent community ban. This 'piece of evidence' is absurd to the point of outrageousness. This is what the wiki page on Ayaan Hirsi Ali notes:-
'Once in the Netherlands, she requested political asylum and received a residence permit. It is not known on what grounds she received political asylum, though she has admitted that she had lied by devising a false story about having to flee Mogadishu . .'
In other words, you, Jayjg, are requesting that PR receive a lifetime ban on wiki (I/P) articles for, among other things, having quoted in paraphrase on the Israel Shahak talk page, what the wiki page on Ayaan Hirsi Ali says. Your imputation to PR of a gross violation of WP:BLP consists, unbelievably, of evidence which shows PR simply paraphrased what a wiki page dedicated to that woman records. Bref. PR is to be eternally exiled because she cited a documented fact registered on a consensually edited wiki biographical page. What's your game here? What's all this about violations of WP:BLP from someone whose editing on the Israel Shahak page, a distinguished Jew, consistently supports the retention of frivolous gossip by many kibitzers without his talmudic learning and philosophical acumen, that trashes and slanders his memory. Oh yes, Shahak's dead, so anything can be said, and he was a secular critic of a certain politically-potent vein in messianic Judaism.
As to Kastner, it is, I repeat immaterial. The only difference here, is that you dislike PR (and my) views of Kastner. Twice you misread our remarks, and made a huge to-do out of this misprision. So be it. You seem to be endeavouring to get a person you dislike banned because of a reasonable judgement that person made on a talk page, one shared by many respectable scholars, about a controversial figure.
All I have seen in this long complaint against PR is barratry. Over the past two years, PR has had registered against him/her numerous complaints, some serious, several frivolous, and, on my side of the border is considered to be a 'scalp' the 'opposition' seems to regard as worth taking, not because PR's actual editing is deplored (what pages has PR's editing despoiled?). But because of his/her attitude. PR has suffered several suspensions (I four, for that matter, many arising, coolly viewed, from exasperation at poor (tagteam)editing and harassment). Outside editors and admins, reviewing the log at speed get a poor impression, and, now that we have a fresh complaint, scour the names of the plaintiffs (old hands) rapidly check the diffs, and miss virtually all of the subtextual and contextual play. If I had to sum up what has occurred in one word, it is barratry.
With Avi, and PR, I have discussed the larger problem in depth quietly on our respective pages, with none of the veiled politeness or wikilawyering that runs through this page. Though Avi will not agree with me that what we have here is barratry, since his eye is focused on what is, admittedly, PR's exasperation, and the influence of that exasperation on his/her functional productivity on I/P articles, and I agree with him that PR is exasperated (only I tend to sympathize with the reasons for that exasperation), we have asked PR to consider a rest period, to withdraw voluntarily for a few months. PR, (though Avi and I disagree on this) appears to be innocent of anything charged against him/her here, has agreed to this. I.e. though innocent of the charges made against him/her, PR has taken advice from two editors, one with high standing on both sides (Avi) and my own disreputable self. I think that acceptance of advice she has received from both sides, a painful thing to do under the circumstances, proof of PR's integrity and respect for the community, and that we should, at this point, simply lay off arguing with each other, and let PR, Avi, G-Dett, and administrators etc., mull either this, or as Avi has with exemplary generosity offered, vet the possibility of a fifth mentorship, where he has offered to assist. I personally think PR should lay off for 2 months, and then come back to ask, preferably Avi, and some other admin, to assist his/her editing, and to restrict the focus of editing to one or two pages at a time.
This is no longer a matter of 'evidence': it is a matter of finding a way to improve the conditions under which PR might return to editing I/P articles, with a more refined awareness of what Pr should learn to avoid in order that excuses for barratry or, alternatively, reasons for serious complaint as in the past, arise in the future.Nishidani (talk) 13:01, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
I must commend you, Nishidani, managing to produce yet another 1200 word tome, and with a cracked hard disk! In response:
Regarding the sockpuppeting, in my experience the only time people self-declare an account to be a SPA is when they have another account for editing in other areas. PR stated his account was an SPA, and I assumed that it was also an admission that PR was a second account, but he did not state his account was an second account. That is all we know. And there was no "gambit", nor any "barratry"; if you must write at such length, at least have the courtesy to avoid this kind of hyperbole.
You keep missing, or ignoring, the point about Ali, Bogdanor, and Bard. I'll repeat it; they are living people, and one therefore cannot insert unsourced or poorly sourced material about them anywhere on Wikipedia, including Talk: pages. That is the only relevant point here. And that applies to calling them "quarter-wits" too.
Since you keep bringing up Shahak, rather than comparing his article to Ali's, a more apt comparison would be of Shahak's writings on Judaism to Robert Spencer's on Islam.
You claim that "prior to [Ryan] making his complaint on ANI, [I] had plastered some protests about PR on his page." I did indeed make one comment about PR on Ryan's Talk: page, in May, after PR was blocked for again adding material sourced to jewsagainstzionism.com, which PR still (after many, many months, and many explanations) insists is a reliable source by Wikipedia standards - a personal website run by an anonymous religious extremist, whose only contact is a Post Office box. You do go on about reliable sources, but this absurdity somehow escapes your comment. Also notable is your rather obviously inaccurate description of my actions. If someone had so inaccurately described PR's actions as you described mine, you would no doubt be instantly writing 5,000 word essays in his defense; the contrast is startling.
I did not develop a lengthy case against PR, but merely made a brief comment pointing out some recent and troubling Talk page comments of his - comments which are still quite troubling, regardless of your lengthy, but unsuccessful, attempts to defend the indefensible. However, there are plenty more edits to choose from, if one were to want to; for example, his fairly recent edit-warring on behalf of an IP editor to insert this obvious hoax quote into the Menahem Begin article. A google search finds it mentioned only on these two websites:[47][48] - if it were an actual quote, it would have been prominently displayed on hundreds, perhaps even some reliable ones. Not only did PR re-insert the "quote", but he then petitioned his mentor, Ryan, declaring its removal to be "vandalism" even though he stated the quote "may or may not be true", and asked to be released from his I-P editing restrictions so he could revert it in again.[49]That is the kind of action that rapidly burns out a mentor.
Too long, but did read. The argument that PR has done nothing - at least nothing mentioned by his "opponents" - worthy of a ban is pretty persuasive. The problem is that everyone involved has a strong opinion, and it may be hard to avoid having one after reading enough to contribute to the topic area.
As he was mentioned above, I read about Rudolf Kastner. It's an interesting story, and I can honestly say that I cannot judge him, at least based on what's presented in the article. Whether it's wrong to sacrifice many to save some is a very complicated moral question. But I also found that the article concentrates too much on that moral question and other unanswerable questions and not enough on what he actually did (or what people say he did), and that hurts its quality. For instance, the "assassination" section contains this weaselly sentence: "But the idea that the killing was a government cover-up has been described as "absolute nonsense" because the head of the intelligence service was a close personal friend of Kastner."
What's really needed is a committee of people with no strong views but the desire and ability to learn more about the situation to get involved, and possibly arbitrarily make decisions to improve the quality of the articles. Unfortunately, we don't have something like that, and I really have no suggestions. --NE202:43, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
NE2's notion of a "committee of people with no strong views but the desire and ability to learn more about the situation" is a good idea on its face, but it won't work in this situation. There are literally two mutually exclusive bodies of "truth" regarding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, each with its own library of "reliable sources," etc. Any effort at getting to the bottom of things will inevitably convince the subscribers to one or the other perspective that the party making an objective assessment of the facts has become compromised, whether it has or hasn't. Tegwarrior (talk) 14:36, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
PalestineRemembered comments Thankyou for the careful attention you've paid to the evidence and details of this case, the project would benefit hugely if others were doing the same.
Regarding "a Committee", unfortunately, WP is currently structured on no interference with "content disputes". However, all is not lost, because each of the discussions above demonstrates that editors care passionately about "cheating" (even if there is wild disagreement over what it covers and the word itself is very much frowned upon). The project has proved that it can (sometimes) deal with at least one form of cheating, abusive sock-puppetry (unfortunately, its record is less than perfect even there).
My opinion is that the project needs to take cheating much more seriously - the problem is so serious that even declaring one's own integrity (as here) is the very must unpopular thing one can do. It leads straight to calls for total muzzling (as here) even from those who are not personally implicated in this lying and cheating and covering-up. Well, I say there is no element of cheating in that example - a call for the most severe sanctions possible on an editor clearly being witch-hunted would turn the stomach of at least some people. PRtalk08:17, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
PR. We are not here to argue for our respective integrity, however embattled in talk skirmishes. We are here (I was here) specifically to improve articles. I/P articles are, notoriously, among the hardest to edit. Precisely for this reason, to edit fruitfully, one must simply decide, whatever the nonsense one may observe on the opposed side (from whichever perspective) to plug away stoically, master one's natural sensitivities, and look to the articles' wellbeing. I have done my best to show that, in this instance, there is no substance to the evidence supporting calls for a community ban. But I have not mentioned that I have considerable regard for Ryan, and for several other editors and admins in here who, though they straddle the frontier, do appear to feel that when someone has his or her fourth mentor throw in the towel with exasperation, that person should pause to reflect instead of sitting down to watch the outcome of a spectacle and feeling vindicated, and then rushing to evoke words like 'lying' 'cheating', 'cover-up' 'muzzling' etc. I think at this point that, while I, for one, regard you as wholly cleared (others will disagree) of the charge made, I think you have not reflected sufficiently on the aims of wikipedia, an encyclopedia which requires editors to sacrifice their time in order to write articles, and avoid like the plague abetting the inevitable poisoning of the well caused by insinuation.Nishidani (talk) 16:52, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
Avraham's comments to PR As regards your characterizations of my initial comments as "total muzzling," please remain intellectually honest and take into account both my re-description of what i believe would be appropriate, as well as my in-depth discussion with Nishdani. What is both slightly humorous, as well as sad, is that for the past year, I may have been one of your most vocal defenders from the non-Palestinian camp. You are obviously intelligent and well-read; it makes it all the more so disappointing when you seem to "skirt" the line of civility, or in this case, almost, but not quite, misrepresent my current opinions on the matter through selective quotation. Perhaps you did not notice my changing my stance; understood. But when making "charged" statments, be it about users or about issues, the onus is on the statement maker to ensure that the statements remain accurate. The old saw of "extreme statements need extreme sources" applies everywhere, not just places like the JewsagainstZionism sourcing issues.
PR, you are usually not guilty of gross trolling or open name-calling. However, for better or for worse, you have exhibited an editing style and behavior that has rubbed many people the wrong way; has exhausted the patience or ability of a number of mentors, and has you in the community spotlight on a regular basis. As I have told you in the past, were you to channel your energy, efforts, and ability away from ideologically-charged editing and into more neutral editing, you would be a very valuable editor. But now, your efforts are wasted in the constant frictional battles that arise, and your editing style does not beget you many supporters outside of your ideological camp. I continue to maintain that a break from P/I articles for, let's say six months, wherein you focus your abilities elsewhere, and then a return to these articles, under guidance, where you can show how you work withall other editors to reach acceptable compromises and consensus, will stand ALL of us in good stead for the long term. Trying to apply your ability to craft intelligent phraseology to minimize ideologically charged issues as opposed to trying to find the most extreme cases to magnify the issues would be my suggestion. -- Avi (talk) 17:22, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
I am not going to opine on the specific situation, which people who have read all the evidence have done above. (Though as an uppity woman who sympathizes with uppity palestinians who also get spanked for being uppity, I may have my little prejudices.) Anyway, it just occurs to me from a comment about the intractable differences between the two sides that perhaps each disputed article (or section) should just have separate sections of approximately equal lengths/# of footnotes with whatever WP:RS info people wanted to enter and some third neutral parties would decide what is or isn't WP:RS. Just a crazy thought!! PS: If only administrators are supposed to post here, the top of page should make that clearer. Not sure now. Carol Moore 18:19, 6 August 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc{talk}
Carol, anyone may post here. The purpose is to have a centralized area to bring items to administrators, but anyone may do so, as well as comment on the proceedings. Personally, I disagree with your suggestion, as that starts us down the slippery slope of having ideologically-based articles and not neutral articles. We ares supposed to be en encyclopedia, not a debating forum. However necessary the latter may be, there is a place for it in life and on the internet; however, wikipedia is not supposed to be that place. Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 18:42, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
Avi (and others): Nixeagle suggests above an RfC about PR. Or, should another mentor step forward to replace Ryan? Or, if mentorship is dropped, how should the divisive situation be handled? Thanks. HG | Talk22:18, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
An RFC would be asking for trouble/drama. And well you are not going to get another mentor. PR's opponents will simply see any mentor as a weapon to use against PR or if the mentor does not allow themselves to be used as such as an obsticle that has to be removed. Your best bet for keeping the situation quiet for a bit would be to topic ban all sides but you would need an arbcom ruleing for that.Geni03:32, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
My time is spread extremely thinly as it is, so I do not know how much it would help, but I will extend the same offer to you, PR, as I have with others, in that I would be willing to act as a co-mentor. What this entailed in the past was that communication was copied to both mentors simultaneously, with both mentors having the ability to act independantly, if necessary. Perhaps this would assuage some of your concerns, Geni, as I am naturally ideologically disposed in a manner different than PR, I am less likely to be "used as a weapon" by any opposition. A situation similar to the method Isarig's mentorship was handled may be appropriate. Two mentors (Fayssal and I), whose backgrounds were sufficiently different as to neutralize perceptions of impropriety, who had demonstrated the ability to work together in an atmosphere of respect, and who (hopefully) were viewed by the community as being able to act impartially notwithstanding background and upbringing, may allow all participants to come away as best as possible from the situation. The editor receiving the guidance could feel that s/he was not forcibly placed with someone with whom they did not feel understood them, and the other project members could not claim that the mentor would be too likely to overlook any issues due to too much similarity. Unfortunately, in Isarig's case, the mentorship was unsuccessful, and he has left the project. If there is someone else willing to take the primary role in attempting a fifth go-round with you, PR, who would be willing to work with me and work out some primary guidelines, perhaps that may be an all-round acceptable solution. If I personally am unacceptable to you, PR, perhaps another willing volunteer may be found. And if the joint mentorship is unsatisfactory to you, you are no worse off than you are now. -- Avi (talk) 04:26, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
How about a pair comprising a relatively "centrist/moderate" involved admin and a completely uninvolved admin? An uninvolved mentor is likely to give more objective advice, but an involved admin will understand the context better. -- MarkChovain06:05, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
That is also a fine idea, and I am actually involved in another mentorship now of that form as well (I'm the centrist in the pair, I guess). The idea is not to penalize, but to prevent further disruption to the project. -- Avi (talk) 13:53, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
This AN/I case, the latest of a long series of cases against PR, is seemingly headed in the direction of no action, or possibly worse - relaxing PR’s editing restrictions from mandated mentorship, to a voluntary one, in which PR gets to pick his own comfy-cozy “mentor”.
I have already commented on the case, but I’d like to offer an additional insight, which may act as a red flag for those commentators who have recently been swayed to oppose any sort of sanction. Seemingly under the impression that Nishandi is already his mentor, PR indicates the direction of his future editing, in a request for comment on which parts of a source he has come across are appropriate for inclusion in the biography of Elie Weisel. The source in question is ‘Culture Wars”, a private, partisan magazine dedicated to the dissemination of a rather extreme brand of Catholic fundamentalism. It has been described by one of its ex-editors as a magazine that is ‘increasingly becoming a journal of psycho-sexual conspiracy theory.”[ http://www.johnreilly.info/olem.htm] It’s editor, one E. Michael Jones , has been described as someone who “runs through all the usual anti-Semitic canards -- the ideas that "Jewish media elites" run the country, that Jews are "major players" in pornography, and that Jews are behind Masonry and the French Revolution -- but that's only the start”[50]. He is also a man who believes that “every Christian, insofar as he is a Christian, must be anti-Jewish.”[51] The article in question, written by a rather obscure Professor of French Literature from Georgia State University, describes Weisel as ‘a con man’. The author makes an ideology of his refusal to use the word “Holocaust”, preferring, instead the euphemistic “Jewish Ordeal of World War II” (while at the same time having no compunction describing actions of the Jewish Irgun as “extermination of innocent Arabs”). Echoing the aforementioned anti-Semitic canard espoused by Jones, the author also complains that ‘Hardly a day goes by without the Judeo-corporate media producing an article, report, TV show or movie of some kind on the subject of the Holocaust and the dubious “lessons” we are supposed to draw from it”.
PR’s verdict on this source? Why, it’s “relatively calm and fact-orientated (and is apparently stacked with references).” [52]
Don’t say you weren’t warned when this pops up at the next AN/I. I give it about 2 weeks. Canadian Monkey (talk) 22:05, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Yep, both author and editor of Culture Wars sound like charlatans.
Let’s briefly note what Canadian Monkey omitted from his summary:
PR’s “verdict” on the source in question begins with misgivings about how “these ethno-identifying tracts always make me uncomfortable,” and ends with his stated concern that the author might even be a Holocaust denier.
PR did not insert the source into the article in question or even on its talk page; rather, he tentatively asked his defender Nishidani what he thought about it on his own user talk page.
This was just hours ago. Sit tight for Nishidani to say – in his inimitably labyrinthine way – “No, PR, this nutjob doesn’t look like a good source. Whatever legitimate material may be in this article will surely be found in the work of serious and reputable critics of Weisel, such as Norman Finkelstein.” That, at any rate, will be the lightbulb at the center of whatever verbal chandelier Nishidani is currently building.
Dearest G-Dett, Wiesel-PR-Nishidani exactly, except I simply did not think it worth commenting on. For once I thought, silence would speak volumes. I think, generally, you've seized the bolt (as in stuffing) by the nuts(as per myself), and we get to the real gist of this AN/1, something I think all parties on all sides would underwrite. Were I ever to return to editing (improbable) could I be assigned you as my mentor? You may not have hands-on experience in decongesting wind-bags, but your paring abilities on the conceptual lathe surpass those of Robert Hughes, and would stand me in good stead were I to resume carpentering on the ramshackle Gormless Gormenghastlypalaces of gestaltzheimer-afflicted memory out of which I jerryrig my contributions. Affectionately Nishidani (talk) 10:03, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
For the record, I like your verbal chandeleirs (all the more so after the nod to Frances Yates and Mervyn Peake) and wouldn't dream of dismantling them. Also, I do think if the PR-mentorship malarkey is to continue you'd be the man for the job.--G-Dett (talk) 16:52, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
If my prediction holds, this will be evidence in support of “cozy-comfy” mentorship of the kind Nishidani could provide.
Would it be too much to ask of editors calling for PR’s banning that they be thorough, circumspect, and forthcoming about their evidence?
For my part, if I were to find Jayjg asking if some scurrilous nonsense he found on FrontPageMagazine would be appropriate for the article on Israel Shahak, and a fellow pro-Israel editor responded “No, Jay, it really wouldn’t” – I would do cartwheels of joy and award barnstars to both boys.
CM is right about one thing: this will almost certainly be dragged up in whatever stupid banning discussion is in store for us two weeks from now.--G-Dett (talk) 02:39, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Unsurprisingly, G-Dett has missed my point completely, and topped it off with some misrepresentations. PR did not end his post “with his stated concern that the author might even be a Holocaust denier.” – but rather with the claim that since he was concerned that the author is “one of the Holocaust Deniers we'll have rammed down our throats” (note the eloquent phrasing of the concern – not that the man might turn out to be a Holocaust denier, but that he might (“horror!”) be rammed down the throats of those who choose to quote him) - he’s checked, and concluded that he’s the "professor of French at Georgia State University in Atlanta" that the article says he is”. So much for PR’s famed research skills, which are constantly bandied about by his supporters. And so much for G-Dett’s shabby attempts at discrediting my evidence – which, of course, included a link to PR’s entire missive, so that people can judge for themselves about it’s nature.
But as I wrote above, this is missing the point. The point is not that this was posted at PR’s Talkpage rather than in Weisel's bio or that article’s Talk page. And indeed, I wouldn’t be surprised if Nishandi did counsel PR that is not the “calm and fact-orientated” source he imagines it to be. The point is that after editing Wikipedia for nearly two years, after being mentored by no less than 4 different individuals, and after being repeatedly cautioned about BLP violations and the need for high quality sources, this highly intelligent editor who possesses great research skills apparently still can’t tell a virulent hate site from a scholarly source, can't differentiate between a BLP-violating screed and a “calm and fact-orientated” neutral presentation, or identify a “charlatan” as G-Dett mildly put it (other sources have described the same as a “hard-line anti-Semite”[ http://www.dailyestimate.com/article.asp?id=10372]) from a respectable academic. Canadian Monkey (talk) 05:15, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
CM, the point as I see it is that PR clearly expressed his misgivings about the source, while wondering if there might be something factually salvageable from the article. You cropped out the misgivings, extracting his one positive phrase and presenting it as his "verdict," and neglected to mention that PR was asking for advice on a user page, not inserting or justifying on an actual article page. Yes, you provided a blue link. These frequently go unclicked, and in the case of charges against PR it appears to be a virtually universal wiki-custom to ignore the evidence and go with the allegation. See the very first post in this entire banning thread, by PR's current mentor, for a striking example of this.
I did not choose "charlatan" as a euphemism, but on the contrary precisely because of its resonance in a dispute about sources. The source in question indeed appears to be a "hard-line anti-Semite," but the trouble with that phrase is that for literate people it has lost much of its meaning after widespread application to Jimmy Carter, Stephen Walt, John Mearsheimer, Noam Chomsky, Norman Finkelstein, and others, by hacks, propagandists, and charlatans.
Once again, there are a great many regular editors of I-P pages, many of them in good standing and with admin privileges, who do not have a good sense of what makes a source reliable and encyclopedic. PR does not stand out in this regard. He does stand out in that he has a healthy sense of self-doubt, tends to ask for advice and to follow it, and does not resort to endless wikilawyering and dispute-resolution stall tactics when his bad ideas are cogently rejected.--G-Dett (talk) 16:52, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
G-Dett, I do not intent do get into a blow-by-blow argument over this with you, as I believe the evidence speaks for itself. Anyone can read what PR actually wrote, using the link I gave, and see if he had “misgivings about the source” or if he pronounced it a “calm and fact-orientated” one, as I claim. I will correct one misrepresentation, though, because you have now repeated it twice: I made it clear that PR was asking a presumed mentor for advice on the suitability of this source. Reread what I wrote:” Seemingly under the impression that Nishandi is already his mentor, PR indicates the direction of his future editing, in a request for comment on which parts of a source he has come across are appropriate for inclusion in the biography of Elie Weisel”. I will assume that your repeated false claims that I “neglected to mention that PR was asking for advice on a user page” are based on careless reading - rather than a deliberate attempt to mislead, but ask that you not repeat it again, and consider striking out these claims. The main point still stands: what you and I correctly identify as something coming from a "hard-line anti-Semite’ source, PR, master of research that he is, can’t see, despite having been repeatedly cautioned about his sources.
As an addendum, I think it is instructive to look at some further PR contributions related to this AN case. Recall that PR had been offered an olive branch of sorts by Avi, one of the most patient and accommodating admins who have commented here, including a suggestion that no further sanctions be imposed, and that PR get to choose his next mentor [53]. PR responded very negatively to the suggestion, and treated Avi with incivility, as several editors noted[54][55] and as even he concedes[56].
All of this is perfectly in-line with PR’s known editing style and is not surprising in the least. What is quite interesting is the rationale he has given for this behavior – which is, that he was under the (mistaken) impression that he had once been engaged in a content dispute with Avi - and that Avi had persuaded him to compromise. One really has to read this a couple of times to believe it: In a cooperative project such as Wikipedia, built on notions of consensus and compromise, the fact that he had been persuaded to compromise was in his mind legitimate grounds for bearing grudge against the editor with whom he had compromised, to the point of uncivil treatment a year later. Is this the kind of editor we want on the project? Canadian Monkey (talk) 17:33, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
As far as I can tell, FrontPageMagazine is not used as a source for the Israel Shahak article. By the way, could you please point out the last time I used FrontPageMagazine as a source? It's entirely possible I used it as a source in my early editing days, when sourcing standards were considerably more liberal than they are now (and I was far less experienced), but I can't recall using it in the past couple of years. Speaking of "scurrilous nonsense", what do you think of this insertion? And by the way, if you want to describe me as a "pro-policy" editor, feel free to do so, but don't use any other description, and don't describe me again as inserting "scurrilous nonsense" into articles, thanks. Jayjg (talk)03:12, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Off-topic
Just noticed this (via Nishidani's comment). Please remove or strike out these comments, or allow me to. Thanks. HG | Talk23:16, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Hi HG. I’d prefer you didn’t strike this out, since (per my comments below and above) I definitely see this as a conflict involving not only PR’s behavior but Jay’s. If you insist, however, I’d ask you to begin your deleting or striking from Jay’s question above – “By the way, could you please point out the last time I used FrontPageMagazine as a source?... I can't recall using it in the past couple of years" – forward. It would not be appropriate to leave in place that challenge, along with the implied challenge that I provide evidence that he's added "scurrilous nonsense" to articles, while deleting the post in which I satisfy both challenges.--G-Dett (talk) 15:48, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
For further refreshment, here's where you add scurrilous nonsense from an interview in FrontPageMagazine about how Israel Shahak "was a disturbed mind who made a career out of recycling Nazi propaganda about Jews and Judaism." In the same edit, you add some other guilt-by-associations slurs ("David Duke mourned Shahak," etc.), sourced to the inestimable Paul Bogdanor. And here's where you describe all this scurrilous nonsense as "well and reliably enough sourced." Oh, and here's where you source material about Shahak's "fabricating incidents, "blaming the victim", distorting the normative meaning of Jewish texts, and misrepresenting Jewish belief and law" to an unpublished writer, who in between time spent on Usenet threads and writing entries for Urban Dictionary (look up "k0nsl") typed an online essay in the hopes of winning a $1000 reward offered for material discrediting Shahak. Don't know if he won the bounty, but he's still in the Shahak article, even though the link to his self-published essay is dead.--G-Dett (talk) 17:14, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
PR notes: I have another example of User:Jayjg repeatedly using FPM within the last 2 years. I have a big list of questions for him over his version of policy generally and wholesale reverts he's made of mine in particular. However, I also know that any word from me will be used as a platform to attack me in ludicrous and often completely false ways.
So I'll restrict myself to asking - how long before the project deals properly with articles concerning the I-P conflict? How long before internal critics of Israel such as Shahak are treated properly? Is there anyone who thinks I'm even a small part of this problem? How long can we ignore the real elephants in the room? PRtalk11:11, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Back to topic
For what it may be worth, the following may be relevant to this discussion:
Two observations. (1) There is no consensus for the proposed topic ban on PR. (2) The current mentor has expressed a strong lack of confidence in PR, as have some other folks who are moderately uninvolved in I-P issues. Unlike the last AN/I, it looks like a new mentoring team has not jumped in to volunteer. Even if you disagree with these obsevations, we need to figure out a course of action. It's been suggested that we do an RFC/U or go to another ArbCom case. However, those would both be a drama and a drain. (As a fairly neutral player, I was thinking about proposing the RFC/U for the sake of moving the deliberations forward. But the recent Elonka RFC makes me wonder whether the RFC is such a helpful mechanism.)
Perhaps we can figure out a compromise proposal -- something acceptable to PR and his supporters, yet also meaningful to PR's critics. For instance, what if PR's editing was restricted, not banned? Here's a proposal but we could certainly entertain other versions until we find the right formulation.
Proposed: PR would be allowed to continue editing in I-P topic area, but PR would be restricted to 6 articles over the next 30 days. Each article would be subject to the discretionary sanctions for I-P articles, so PR would be subject to potentially rigorous admin oversight. Hopefully, 2 fairly uninvolved people (e.g., Avi) would volunteer as mentors. At the end 30 days, the mentors (at their sole discretion) could reduce or increase the number of articles by, say, 3. Repeat every 30 days for 180 days. By then, PR would be editing between zero and 21 articles.
Details: If need be, the mentors need not be the ones who decide about the number of articles. It could be done by a committee of 2-3 fairly uninvolved people. (Personally, I could volunteer for such a role.) Also, PR should get to choose the articles within his orbit, or nominate them pending approval by the mentors/committee. Also, if this arrangement needs to be justified under WP policy, it can be considered a discretionary sanction under the I-P ruling.
Note of concern: Wouldn't this give justification both for "little angels" to harass PalestineRemembered on the limited articles he will choose to partake in and also for his supporters to exponentially enhance the drama in response? It's an interesting suggestion though and one that PalestineRemembered should seriously consider. JaakobouChalk Talk05:29, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Hmmm. Your are right, Jaakobou, there may be some unwanted side-effects of this arrangement. I'd be glad to hear input from you, or anybody, about how to help make such an arrangment work. Folks can tell me here, my Talk, or my email. Thanks. HG | Talk23:42, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Question: Please excuse my ignorance, but can you explain in simple terms why you feel this is a suitable compromise, HG? Thanks. By the way, I do not have enough experience with PR to be a supporter or detractor, however, I am very concerned about any precedents this might set. We should all, not just PR, consider the possible ramifications of such a precedent, for all of us. What are the potentially productive and damaging future implications of such a move beyond the scope of this particular conflict? LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 06:07, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
I'd explain the 6 article limit as trying to find an elegant solution between a topic ban and yet another ad hoc mentorship effort. I think it's good for Wikipedia to try out such intermediate sanctions and, in any case, ArbCom seems to be authorizing us to use our discretion in dealing with I-P disputes. Also, PR's case is rather unusual so I don't see a precedent problem. Finally, for reasons I don't entirely understand, people on both "sides" seem to give me the benefit of the doubt and listen with an open mind to my ideas. I don't think either side prefers this arrangement but they may well be willing to settle for it. Thanks for your interest. HG | Talk23:42, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Comment: I've thought it over a bit and should add that it is highly concerning to see that the charges against PR have been largely ruled inadequate, and in the meantime other editors with worse track-records are somehow escaping this kind of censure. This editor, regardkess ofhis/her abrasive politics, should probably just be given the opportunity to let us know that s/he will voluntarily take a few months' break, as a show of good faith. LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 06:30, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Well, per my observation above, I think there are unresolved concerns with PR's conduct (e.g., Nishidani 22:50, 8 Aug below) but it would be draining to try for consensus on the evidence, via RFC or ArbCom. PR is under a mentorship sanction, even absent new concerns. I don't see my role as assessing the evidence, I just need to get a feel for how various parties assess it. Perhaps I can leave it at that (or msg my Talk) and ask again for input on the proposed arrangement. Thanks LamaLoLeshLa. Cheers, HG | Talk23:42, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
I'll try to respond to Jaakobou and LamaLoLeshLa's q's/comments later today. Meanwhile, thanks to you both. I look forward to hearing additional comments. Take care, HG | Talk15:29, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Maybe what you need is a heavily pro-Palestinian mentor who might have more credibility with PR when s/he spanks PR for any naughtiness? (Apologies if I missed this suggestion previously, in which case I support it.) Carol Moore 17:19, 8 August 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc{talk}
G-Dett has got me by the nuts. As I said, I definitely do not want to work on wiki articles under present conditions, since it appears impossible, except with extraordinary amounts of patience, to get consistent NPOV quality on board. There is simply a lack of trust. I would remonstrate with my Jewish colleagues that the quality of intelligence, insight, critical awareness and empathy that is the hallmark of the great generations who came out from the shtetl into the haskalah, and made, by their dual vision as completely naturalized others within the Western world, a germinal and massive contribution to Western identity we can all be proud of, is rarely evinced here. The expected quality, which you'll find alive in any number of casual conversations in bars, cafés, and soirées in Tel Aviv and Jerusalem, is not quite here.
I'm a couple of generations older, I intuit, than many here. I further told PR that a strain of masochism fuels most heroism and virtue, and by that meant to nudge PR into self-reflection on the wellsprings of grievance (I grieve, when not sober, over history: I don't make an avocation of choosing one particular group out of several hundred that has suffered persecution, extermination, massacres, gulags, gas-chambers, and the like, and then getting worked up while working over that specific ethnic tragedy on wiki pages). To take on that task is masochistic. If PR wants something like this, then (s)he will have to pay me a high price (and since, as said, I lack all qualifications and the appropriate gifts for mentoring in wiki, it would require official assent), and thus I impose three conditions.
(1) PR volunteer to take an I/P Wikibreak until at least October. (I won't have a decent computer till then, in any case, and have American guests over through September).
(2) In that period, whatever else PR does, that the following books be (re?)read, slowly, and their contents be mastered:
I would have Baldassare Castiglione's The Courtier on the list, but perhaps that is overegging the pud. What is there is in Elias, and the point is about the history of good manners.
(3) That provisorally, PR make an act of faith and trust, and accept Avi's offer as co-mentor.
I would not be ready until October (and will not return to editing wiki). So if PR wishes to experiment in the meantime with Avi, and Avi has not revoked his offer, then obviously they might work out interim arrangements. Mentoring is a thankless task, PR, and I would advise that you take into consideration HG's suggestion to work restrictively on just one or two pages at a time, on a subject you have some detailed knowledge of. And, that you learn to pinpoint tersely the problem, or edit you are minded to discuss, to your mentor(s). Of course a short question on each book, to check that it is understood why I asked you to read it, would be necessary.
Ok, I see that you're willing to mentor PR under particular conditions and, in any case, you say: "I would advise that you take into consideration HG's suggestion to work restrictively on just one or two pages at a time, on a subject you have some detailed knowledge of." Thanks for your comment. Take care, HG | Talk20:50, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Offer suspended, pending clarification.
PR. Don't answer, since I withdraw suspend my offer. Jayjg has posted higher up a diff you made on the Menachem Begin page. You have apparently made an edit as shockingly poor as the numerous edits he has made on the Israel Shahak page. You'd better explain that edit, it is the only thing so far cited that bears study as evidence for erratic judgement. Don't blame, for this, Jayjg or anyone else. My computer is wobbly, twice on the blink within the last hour. If you explain it, please shut up about everyone else, I/P articles, the nature of the world, etc., and stick strictly and succinctly to the circumstances behind your plunking that outrageous piece of rubbish, which is as bad as anything Bogdanor and co., trawled up from the swamp against Shahak. I haven't checked, since this is a race against time with my hard disk. All I noted was JohnZ's remark below, on the talk page. JohnZ almost never gets things wrong, if ever.Nishidani (talk) 22:50, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Nishidani is quite right that this is one of PR’s most troubling edits, involving a hoax quote from Menachem Begin. I would however remind everyone that this is an unusual situation, in that the hoax quote was published as fact by a reliable source (New Statesman), and still appears in other reliable sources from time to time (see here for example) while its debunking has appeared only (as far as I know) in a third-rate source (CAMERA). It is clearly a hoax quote regardless. I would compare this to the hoax Hezbollah quote ("if Jews all gather in Israel, it will save us the trouble of going after them worldwide"), which likewise appeared first in an RS newspaper (the Beirut Daily Star, whose editor subsequently expressed doubts both about the quote and the integrity of the reporter) and is repeated from time to time – and is debunked, however definitively, only in the letters section of the London Review of Books. I think these represent difficult test cases for the principle of “verifiability, not truth,” rather than compelling pretexts to ban an editor who wanders into them unawares.
I would also remind editors that PR’s edit was reverted with no edit-warring from him, minimal talk-page back and forth, and no peep or protest from his "supporters" – lending credence to my position that focusing on content, not the editor would be a painless way of dealing with PR’s sporadic bad edits.--G-Dett (talk) 15:41, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
Oh Please Oppose community ban, the ArbCom case was closed with no action for god sake! Oppose block This seems to me like a cool down type of block. Support Topic ban, seems appropriate. Mww113(Talk)(Review me!)(Sign!)12:30, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
My counterproposal is this: that PR not be mentored at all, that he be free to edit like anyone else. The main reason for this is simple: there is no evidence that his work has caused any real disruption, except when his detractors initiate these banning/mentorship threads. This is not to say that he hasn’t soap-boxed, made some low-quality edits, and voiced some peculiar assessments of sources on talk pages. No, it is only to say that these things have not resulted in any significant disruption to the pages themselves. Mark Chovain, in his otherwise superb comments here, errs when he says “a number of PR's supporters will claim that PR has never done a single thing wrong." In fact, PR has no unqualified supporters; he has no one who will blindly jump in behind him and pull the lever in a revert war, or bring the page to an impasse through wikilawyering. He has a few editors who object to continued harassment of him, but this is not the same thing, not by a long shot. In every case I've seen where he's made a poor edit, the matter has been quickly resolved, often with an admonition to PR from a "friendly," like Nishidani. Disruption, drama, and draining of community resources ensue only when editors ideologically opposed to PR seize upon a mistake or alleged mistake and try to get him banned – instead of simply fixing it.
Furthermore, mentorship in this case legitimizes a level of scrutiny directed at PR that would never be tolerated if directed at other I/P editors, and that vanishingly few of them would fare well under. Ending PR's formal mentorship would reverse this state of affairs, in which he is scrutinized in a vacuum, as it were, in which the actions of his accusers cannot be commented upon, in which discuss content, not other editors protects everybody except him. Editors would simply go back to dealing with his content – accepting it, modifying it, reverting it, in the usual wiki way – an approach to his contributions which the record will show has been fairly painless when practiced.
To those arguing for continued formal mentorship of PR, I ask you to explain to me how focusing on this editor will produce more efficient, satisfactory and disruption-free results than simply focusing on content per Wiki custom.
The second best course of action – if, that is, the emphasis is to be on editor behavior – would be an RfC or Arbcom case with a wide scope to cover both PR’s actions and Jayjg’s, and resume the Arbcom case where it was abandoned. This controversy is largely the fruit of a partisan dispute between the two of them, writ large across countless AN/I etc. boards. It appears to be about PR only for the simple reason that while anything, anything at all said about PR is permissible, any discussion of Jay’s role is by definition “off-topic” or a “personal attack.”
When PR and Jay’s Arbcom case was dropped, User:Nadav1 protested in the following terms:
If this case doesn't go forward, then I'm sure soon enough there'll be more "PR at it yet again" threads on the noticeboard, or else this'll end up here at arbcom again in some other form. It is strange to me that he's been blocked so many times before, and when I looked at the supposed justifying diffs, they didn't really justify his harsh treatment. All the hazy allegations in the air should be either conclusively proven or summarily withdrawn. Otherwise, they will continue to color people's perceptions of him, will affect his ability to freely edit, and will probably be used as vague justification for yet another block. nadav (talk) 21:15, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
That was one hell of a prescient remark. Which brings me to the third best option: simply to ban PR and have done with it. This would be an unjust conclusion to an extraordinary saga of harassment, but frankly I think any mentorship arrangement, no matter how judiciously arranged and talented the mentors, will be a standing invitation to further harassment and a total waste of community resources. The community would survive his banning, and if it set the precedent for directly confronting and cutting off demonstrably abusive editors of all ideological persuasions, including those with long records here and apparent fluency regarding policy, that could be a silver lining.
Support topic ban - I'm not perfect and certainly there's more than a few editors who could work a little better in the sensitive topic of I-P articles. However, I'm not sure its possible to interact with PR without having unpleasantries. Even such neutral people as Avi[58] have met with his wrath. Not only them, but notable pro-Palestinian editors such as Eleland[59] and Nishidani were taken back with several of his fringe interpretation of sources and issues as well (my good friend G-Dett made note of this as well). I'm only going in line with what all the admins who left their voices here noted and support a topic ban. Another thing which concerns me, is an editor who was just blocked for bad judgement regarding sources who does the following edits -- [60], [61], [62] -- during a discussion about him getting topic banned. PalestineRemembered may have enthusiastic advocates, but PalestineRemembered needs to answer both these concerns and the one made note of by Avi/Nishidani. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 21:06, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
Response by PalestineRemembered to Jayjg and Kyaa the catlord raised points
Inserting PalestineRemembered's reply from his talk page (Diff):
I just answered one of your questions here - as I said, I'm here to write good-quality articles in regular English, citing high-class RS references in the English Language. If I were extremely bold, I'd ask what you were doing here.
How about confirming that you wrote this and are not being meat-puppeted? Your fan club was delighted (and astonished) to see these golden words appear from your fingers: "Wouldn't this give justification both for " little angels" to harass PalestineRemembered on the limited articles he will choose to partake in and also for his supporters to exponentially enhance the drama in response? It's an interesting suggestion though and one that PalestineRemembered should seriously consider.".
And I suppose it's too late to request you deny being the sock-master of User:MouseWarrior and User:Paul_T._Evans, two users who appeared on the very same day and immediately started edit-warring on the same articles as you yourself were engaged in. PRtalk18:28, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Response by other editors
CommentKyaa the Catlord. You’re scraping the barrel. I’ll clean up after you.
Avi rightly reverted PR on Kaplan. Much in the past has been made of PR’s use of Kaplan. No historian of the period would find Kaplan’s remark exceptional. He represented an opinion in ultra-orthodox Jewish thought, highly hostile to Zionism’s secularism, that was commonplace, not fringe, in Europe and Palestine, before the 1930s. It’s simply that what historians might cite with equanimity often cannot be cited by wiki editors, unless the source is itself grounded in a reliable historian’s book or article. PR should have understood this distinction. It's often ignored by many editors who are never denounced, but simply reverted, or challenged through the normal talk pages.
That Eleland, myself, on PR's side of the wall, have reverted and argued with PR on a number of edits, and used strong language, is not evidence for our ‘wrath’ and PR's irresponsibility. It is evidence for the existence of strong editing responsibility on our side of the wall. Jayjg says we are ‘enablers’ of PR’s edit-warring style. We don’t sit around to seize on 1 edit in a hundred to drag PR before arbitration with malicious joy. Often when PR has asked our various opinions, we have given indications, offered advice, or reverted PR, or as here with Eleland and, in my case, (not only here) with the Menachem Begin, violated WP:CIVIL against one on ‘our’ side.. As G-Dett might justly say, 'with friends like Nishidani, who needs enemas.
What have the final 3 diffs to do with the price of fish? There is absolutely no trace of anything problematical there. And, to adduce such quibbles is to, once again, further document suspicions or reinforce impressions that this case is a matter of barratry.Nishidani (talk) 15:30, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Dear Nishidani,
I don't think that three bad edits from the past 10 days are "scraping the barrel". Repeated promotion of JewsAgainstZionism.com -- aka Kaplan -- and Battle of Jenin -- see also Hated Google Test -- massacre claims, and the other three edits are indeed a sign of concern and PR should give a proper explanation to why he's still, after 5 designated mentors, not adhering to WP:RS. I personally had an unpleasant account with him just before this thread was opened but I figured PR would explain himself, perhaps express remorse. Instead I see a note about "elephants in the room"[63] and a link to his "devastating"[64] (read: bogus) testimony from January, accusing me of sock-puppetry.
They aren't 'bad edits', Jaakobou, they may be neither here nor there, or indifferent, or not particularly improving. look at the Lehi page and see what nonsense I had to put up, regarding bad edits, in sequence, (so bad at the time I decided to leave off editing wiki articles) or any other number of consistent bad edits made. There are quite a few people who simply should not be editing I/P articles who have nonetheless never yet seen anything like the intensity of concentrated scrutiny PR has received. Jayjg doesn't adhere, as I see it, to WP:RS (no HG this is not off-topic) on several pages known to me. PR accused you of sockpuppetry. Jayjg accuses PR of sockpuppetry. We must learn to lay off from these endless wild accusations or pettifogging wars, and think a little more creatively. Ask an Israeli or Palestinian academic to write any of these articles to NPOV standards, and you would probably get a quality article within a week, requiring just a few annotations from the other colleague (this actually is what occurs on Enc.Britannica). Large numbers of people have been editing with good will or warring here for several years, and the result is a semblance of articles that break up into patches of POVs tessellated by compromise, that might at best be evidence for the decline of modern education. Over this last week while defending PR, I haven't quite been able to get Billy Budd off my mind. I hope you're familiar with it.
One can spend one’s youth frigging around securing salients for pro tem advantage. It is a pity so much intelligence is wasted because of an inability to step back collectively, review the larger problems, try to work out practical rules. Shot down PR or any number of bad editors active on the other side: the problem will persist, since it is structural. PR is right to note this, but I dislike the whingeing tone nonetheless. Regards Nishidani (talk) 20:13, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Oppose ban, support 5 day special block for everyone who commented here 6 days ago, this topic was discussed. It is not near resolution. Therefore, the ban fails. End of story. I suggested 6 days ago that everyone, every administrator, every editor who commented observe an unofficial 5 day ban of themselves until 8 August (and violators would be subject to a 5 day block). This would allow for clearer thinking. Nobody, except me, observed it. The result is that there is still heated arguments. My proposal was for an unofficial ban (so the usual block rules don't apply) for everyone, not just PR. I believe that if my suggestion were followed, the people who observed the proposal would be able to come to an agreement on what to do. Spevw (talk) 22:08, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
This is the wrong place to try to decide this issue This issue should go to ArbCom as a formal case, sent to mediation with respect to specific articles, or be dropped. ArbCom has better organized procedures for hard cases like this. This needs the formal complaint/evidence/workshop/decision process to sort out all the claims and accusations. There's no consensus here, so it's inappropriate to take action via ANI. --John Nagle (talk) 06:15, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Proceeding to ArbCom or mediation. Well, I find such proceedings unpleasant, but perhaps it would be an appropriate way to deal with the contentiousness over PR and the breakdown of the mentorship arrangement. Would it be helpful for a fairly uninvolved party, such as myself, to prepare a motion for the case? Or should that be left up to the critics of PR's conduct? HG | Talk19:38, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
For a neutral party to propose mediation might help. There's a path from mediation to ArbCom if that doesn't work. ArbCom is supposed to be a last resort. If mediation has been tried previously, it's probably time to go to ArbCom. --John Nagle (talk) 20:21, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
HG Just for clarification, does this require a vote, i.e., that a neutral person draw up an ArbCom case? Or is it something anyone can decide to proceed with off their own bat? Regards Nishidani (talk) 21:01, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Comment. As my recommended reading list suggested, anyone editing here would do well to study the style and temper of several of the finest Jewish scholars and writers who deal with an event as unnervingly indigestible as the Holocaust. Unlike Elie Wiesel, Primo Levi, who had the same experiences, wrote with an intensely controlled sobriety about hell, and its victims, of which he was one. His allusive template was Dante, not a Yiddish Kant he had never read. Hilberg likewise sscrutinizes with olympian self-restraint and clinical detachment the minutiae of a vast system of concentrated extermination which appalled him. Vidal-Naquet has written trenchantly on Holocaust deniers, and yet he could write icily of those who exploited it, especially to defend Israel's actions in Palestine. He once noted that Palestinians often liken (improperly) their decades-long travails to the shoah, recognizing the Holocaust (while elsewhere often doubting it) as a parable for their own fate. Those who sympathize with the victims of that historic disaster which is Palestine, would do well to look at, and absorb lessons from Hilberg, Levi and Vidal-Naquet. They never allowed grievance, resentment or outrage to shadow the precision of their commentary on their own, or to gag them when conscience compelled them to pass in critical review the injustices Israel has systermatically meted out to Palestinians. Unless one wants, as G-Dett and John Nagel suggest, to replay this, in much larger perspective over at ArbCom, perhaps the creative solution at this point would be to sugest to PR, when in doubt, to ask any one in a pool of a dozen pro-Palestinian colleagues to review an edit PR mulls proposing. Mostly, we have here attitudes, grievance and animosity on both sides, and the fatigue of a mentor. So, I suggest those ‘pro-Israeli editors’ who so consistently haul PR over the coals in arbitration, and whose evidence has often resulted, for its brittleness, in a null decision, declare a tahadiyeh, and leave PR the chance of an informal mentoring among a dozen individuals on his/her side still active in I/P editing. Nishidani (talk) 15:30, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Diese Website benutzt Cookies. Wenn du die Website weiter nutzt, gehe Ich von Deinem Einverständnis aus.OKNeinDatenschutzerklärung
Resolved
Unresolved
