Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive102
Lutrinae
[edit]| Socking dealt with by WilliamH. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:35, 24 November 2011 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning Lutrinae[edit]
University of Hawaii based Lutrinae (see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive92#Lutrinae) who is also Modinyr, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive100#Modinyr) has returned to editing via dynamic IPs, some of which were included in the first AE report. The evidence for Lutrinae=Modinyr is here and here where Modinyr edited logged out as 132.160.54.149, another University of Hawaii IP. Recent IP editing
For an added bonus they also appear to have access to what looks like the United States Army Information Systems Command (USAISC) server shafbc2.pac.army.mil (Special:Contributions/141.190.32.9) in Fort Shafter, Honolulu. It seems clear that it is the same person when you look at the combined contributions of the various IPs to
I think they have also just registered as That132IP presumably to continue to follow my edits related to this misinformation currently being discussed at User_talk:Soosim#Facts. Their presence continues to be disruptive, abusive and politically motivated. Please shut them down once and for all, all accounts, all IPs. I don't see any evidence that range blocks would cause any collateral damage. Okay, thanks. SPI it is next time then. Sean.hoyland - talk 13:27, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
User is IP hopping. Notified one IP[1] Discussion concerning Lutrinae[edit]Statement by Lutrinae[edit]Comments by others about the request concerning Lutrinae[edit]So let's see,
Thank you for sharing the valuable info above with the community, Sean. Should we prepare the launch pad for defending missiles, since we are aware now of US military Fort Shafter, Honolulu connection to plot against the Freedom of Wikipedia? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 20:07, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
I think that SPI reports involving Editors previously sanctioned at AE should be posted or at least cross-posted here. Maybe then admins would begin to have a better understanding of hat it is we are dealing with in this topic area. As I said above (and as evidenced here by the comments of Cptnono), editors calling for Nableezy to be sanctioned, have often upheld, defended or encouraged edits by editors that are sockpuppets discovered/reported by Nableezy. Doesn't anyone else find this slightly suspicious or at the least disturbing? Why are established editors allowed to be harassed by sockpuppets and their enablers? Tiamuttalk 19:19, 21 November 2011 (UTC) Result concerning Lutrinae[edit]
132.160.54.0/24 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)) blocked for 3 months. That132IP blocked indef. In the future report this to WP:SPI. T. Canens (talk) 12:10, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
|
Nableezy
[edit]| No action taken. T. Canens (talk) 20:15, 25 November 2011 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Request concerning Nableezy[edit]
The following edits show the user violating the 1RR restriction linked to above, which in this case is also a violation of WP:3RR. Another anonymous editor also violated 1RR so any action taken against Nableezy IMO should also be taken against the anonymous user (even though there's no evidence that the anonymous user was aware of the ArbCom case, and did not also violate 3RR).
At Banias a new edit was made here[7] The edit was reverted twice by Nableezy within a span of 26 hours. In addition to WP:GAMING, two things should be noted. First, Nableezy made these reverts whilst an AE for edit warring is outstanding against him thus demonstrating the contempt for which he views these proceedings. Second, at least once before, Nableezy was sanctioned for this very type of behavior, WP:GAMING[10]--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 17:47, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
The comments are revolting, hurtful and xenophobic in nature and should not have been uttered by any editor and this is especially true of an editor who chooses to focus his edits exclusively on I-P--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 18:29, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
While the remedy does not require warnings specifically, Nableezy is aware of the ArbCom case and its remedies, as (partially) shown by the list of blocks and bans.
I only noticed this behavior now and unfortunately was not there to ask both parties to refrain from edit warring. I therefore apologize in advance for bringing up a case where I couldn't warn/notify the editors in real time. However, the case had to be brought up because it's a gross violation (and not a borderline one) of the remedy imposed by ArbCom. P.S. I also now saw that the editor edit warring with Nableezy was already blocked as an abuse account. This was clearly the correct decision by the blocking admin, but I'd like to point out that since at the time of the edit war this account had not been known as an abuse account, the case still stands.
Discussion concerning Nableezy[edit]Statement by Nableezy[edit]The second edit is not a revert, I am not returning the page to any previous version or undoing any other editors changes. The remaining reverts are of a disruptive IP who is an obvious sock. Any self-respecting admin would look at the edits by the IP and have them blocked, not reporting the user who reverted him. Of note, the other IPs edits include deleting talk page comments and reinserting a paragraph in a BLP that contained not 1, not 2, not 3, not 4, not 5, not even 6, but 7 citation needed tags. The IP has been blocked for being an Abuse-only account, and likely sock. Ynhockey, I hope you will reevaluate whether or not you would rather be on the side against such blatantly disruptive throw-away sockpuppet gaming tactics or if you would rather report the people who are. A self-respecting admin would consider that question before reporting the user who had been hounded from one article to the next by this abusive troll who has been socking for some time now. One would hope at least. nableezy - 21:47, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
Just so we are clear, I am brought here for making 1 revert of a named user (Two for the show (talk · contribs), who by the way is a sock of NoCal, will compile the evidence in the next days for SPI), then modifying, not reverting, an edit by another user (brewcrewer), then making several reverts of an obvious sockpuppet IP. Id just like to make sure Im not missing anything. nableezy - 15:39, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
The first listed diff at Banias is not a revert. JJG added a pushpin map, I changed the map. The second edit is a revert, my only one. A ban is being considered on the basis of 1 edit and 1 revert, with both the edit and revert being made to rectify the addition of propaganda, literally, into an encyclopedia article? On what basis? nableezy - 00:35, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
WGFinley, this had nothing to do with Jiujitsuguy, what dont you understand about this? That user has a hard on for trying to get me blocked, so he added a bunch of bullshit to this report, which was not initiated by JJG and did not cover any edits related to JJG. If you do not understand that I do not think you have any business commenting here. nableezy - 12:22, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
NW, all due respect, but showing what the entire world calls Syrian territory as being in Israel is not a very small issue. It is the difference between being an encyclopedia article and being propaganda. This may not seem like much, but it is. nableezy - 12:31, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
There are a lot of links being thrown about, with the apparent aim of suggesting a pattern, a pattern that has not been substantiated. In the AE complaint linked by WGFinley as indicative of a supposed pattern of behavior, I was sanctioned for "gaming" the 1RR by self-reverting a revert in order to revert a different revert. I dont think anybody is suggesting I have done anything of the sort here. I can only assume that WGF simply searched for Nableezy Jiujitsuguy and came up with that thread, as it has nothing, absolutely nothing, to do with this complaint. Every single revert at the Category page is of a sock of a banned editor, every single one. There is exactly one revert made at Banias. There is no justification for any type of ban, be it a topic ban or an interaction ban, except in the imagination of a set of users, unsurprising in its makeup, and an admin who bizarrely claims that this has something to do with Jiujitsuguy and is part of some unknown pattern of behavior. The pattern of behavior here is that a set of banned users follow me around, and with their sockpuppets blindly revert edits without justification and without comment. Every single revert at the Category page is of a banned editor. The ones of the IP are further excused from the 1RR. And all of them are excused under WP:BAN which allows for reverting any edits made by a user in violation of their ban. So, in sum, there are exactly 0 reverts that are not excused by policy at the Category page, and exactly 1 at Banias. WGFinley, please say exactly how this request relates to the link you provided below, and why you think this has anything to do with JJG. If you cant do that then you should reconsider whether or not you should be bandying about such threats without having carefully considered the facts. nableezy - 19:06, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
Comments by others about the request concerning Nableezy[edit]
Reverting edits by IPs doesn't count against 1RR (although it does count against 3RR). In my opinion, nableezy's second edit was not a reversion but rather implements the Talk page consensus. Perhaps it would have been wiser for nableezy to wait another seven hours before making that edit, or to allow another editor to make it, but we're basically talking here about a single edit that Ynhockey describes as a "possible revert". Yes, and possibly not a revert. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 21:31, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
The Ip account User:89.165.121.234 has been blocked as disruptive. I hadn't heard of one of the other accounts by th euser talk page is so interesting that I had better not make any comment.--Peter cohen (talk) 21:40, 13 November 2011 (UTC) In reply to the first two admins to comment below, If you want to start a new Arbcom case, I will be happy to join you there. I think a group of people have chosen to indulge in WP:TE with regards to the interpretation of certan guidelines and things are going to contnue to escalate until this is cracked down upon.--Peter cohen (talk) 18:12, 15 November 2011 (UTC) Given that the purpose of bans and blocks it to protect Wikipedia rather than to punish specific users, then those making a decision need to ensure that they don't facilitate the functioning of one of our most enduring and malevolent sock-puppeteers by preventing the person who is most effective in identifying the puppets from reporting them.--Peter cohen (talk) 16:05, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
I've just protected Mount Hermon due to edit warring there in which Nableezy and the IP were involved, the difference being that it started with Nableezy reverting Jiujitsuguy (talk · contribs) and has just been reverted by Ericsmeer (talk · contribs). Dougweller (talk) 21:51, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
Nableezy’s edits go well beyond tendentious; they demonstrate a visceral hatred toward Israel and Israelis. The following are just two examples that epitomize his view of Jews and Israelis.
This is not only hateful; it demonstrates a profound ignorance of Israel. Yet Israel and Israelis are the focus of his vitriolic, bile-filled hate. Why is he permitted to say these revolting and disgusting comments with impunity? But that is not all. Nableezy has also engaged in serious source distortion. Here he states In an act condemned internationally and attributes that erroneous and harsh comment to his cited source. The source cited to by Nableezy never even mentioned these words. Thankfully, the error was caught by Biosketch and was reverted here Nableezy's uncharacteristic muted response to Biosketch's revert speaks volumes. He tried to pull a fast one that was thankfully picked up by an alert editor. I was topic banned for six months for similar conduct (that will never be repeated) that I readily acknowledged even before an AE was filed. Hateful editing, tendentious editing, source distortion, edit warring, disruptive bullying; these are all trademarks of nableezy’s style.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 22:39, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
My comment is not necessarily directly on point. Basically supported by the diffs presented above, but more clear to those familiar with Nableezy's past AE postings, and general contributions --- it seems like Nableezy edits with a vengeance, an anger, and appears really bitter about anything Israel related. From his edit summaries and talk page comments it appears that it really bugs the hell out of him if an article about any geographic entity outside the '67 border does not make clear at least once that its status is considered illegal or if the article places too much of an emphasis on the fact that Israel is the governing entity of said location. (some examples just from today: ([11][12][13][14] ) This attitude is not conducive to a collaborative project such as ours, and may be just what AE was supposed to weed out, but I'm not writing here necessarily to support any sort of ban. What perplexes me is how Nableezy can involve himself in this volunteer project when it appears to cause him so much heartache. In my estimation there is a general anti-Israel bias here on Wikipedia (especially the last year or two), but it does not make any change in me. I do what I can to keep things NPOV, but don't lose sleep when things don't go my way and stay cool (basically) while on Wikipedia. It just does not make sense to get so rankled up on a volunteer endeavor. Best, --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 05:00, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
Nableezy was perfectly entitled to revert the edits of 89.165.121.234, both according to the AE rules and according to common sense. The boringly predictable comments of Jiujutsuguy and Brewcrewer are irrelevant to this case. Zerotalk 09:22, 14 November 2011 (UTC) To WGFinley: I don't understand your judgment of "status quo" at Category:Israeli settlers. The issue of whether to include Israelis who settled in the Sinai and Golan after those areas were occupied by Israel has been simmering there since soon after the category was created. I don't see any reason for Nableezy's version to be less the status quo than anyone else's. Not only that, but (1) it was Nableezy and not any of the others who raised the issue on the talk page, (2) Nableezy's version is what the overwhelming majority of reliable sources support. Zerotalk 05:12, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
WGFinley, statements like "I don't see how that user being a sock has anything to do with this" can only have negative consequences for the topic area, a topic area already seriously compromised by the presence of sockpuppets. This whole report is based on an admin failing to see the obvious. The report is founded on the notion that illegitimate editors, who are not allowed to be here, who are not allowed to do anything at all, can be treated by admins as legitimate editors in a dispute. That is the kind of mistake that the topic area can't afford. You are compounding the original error with another error. That is the important point here. This case isn't about Nableezy vs JJG. That is a distraction. That is the peripheral issue. I edit in the topic area. I will be one of the many people who will have to pay the price for admins legitimizing the actions of sockpuppets because they can't see how socks have anything to do with this. It is not a price I'm willing to pay because of anyone else's inability to see things. Nableezy understands how to deal with sockpuppets and he is extremely effective in reducing their impact on the topic area. That's why they follow him and target him again and again. Admins are supposed to help legitimate editors and should not help sockpuppets profit from their actions. Nothing sockpuppets do can be allowed to affect legitimate editors and content decisions and no one can collaborate with sockpuppets. This whole episode is absurd. We have sockpuppets and editors in the topic area who wouldn't allow a change to the inclusion criteria for a category so that an article about an Israeli settler could be placed in the Israeli settler category and Nableezy is the problem ? Everything in the topic area is connected. Without an effective method to exclude sockpuppets from the topic area, removing Nableezy would be a tactical error. Someone will have to compensate for his absence to ensure ongoing protection and it won't be you. Sean.hoyland - talk 10:24, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
I feel the pain of user:NuclearWarfare, so I tried to summarize the discussion above about the evidence provided, while skipping unconstructive bickering.
I think the violations are borderline (at worst) and no action needs to be taken. However if Nableezy thinks (and writes) that Israelis are European invaders, this is a pretty good indication of his battleground approach. I do not know how relevant (or how old) are these comments, nor I have examined statements by his detrators. I think this area is pretty dysfuncitonal, and attempts by Gatoclass (I think) to propose an alternative (to AE) enforcement mechanism has not got any traction. I am pessimistic that we will ever get sanilty in this area, with current mechanisms. - BorisG (talk) 16:27, 21 November 2011 (UTC) I add the diff as asked by Nabeleezy on my talk page. - BorisG (talk) 01:35, 22 November 2011 (UTC) Please read the post in Nableezy talk page. "Im not looking for peace, Im looking for justice"; "I object to the institutionalized racism that gives European invaders rights over the natives." How the user whos looking only for justice and calls Jews "European invaders" could be allowed to edit the articles about Israel and Palestine?
I agree generally with WGF's thoughtful comments below. I think that he is correct that we have to look at patterns of behavior, and editors' refusal to stop battlegrounding, and as WGF put it, consider: "when is enough enough". Movement away from battlegrounding and in the direction of using that time for helpful contributions to the Project would be a very good thing, and would also free up admins to focus on more productive issues.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:36, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
A lot of the editors commenting here calling for Nableezy's head have done this before. They also tend to edit alongside sockpuppets whose edits they uphold or defend. I understand why they want to see Nableezy saddled with another undeserved sanction for technical or borderline violations that are a result of dealing with multiple sock accounts, IP editors, and POV warriors. What I don't understand is how it is that everytime a case is brought against Nableezy, people are allowed to go on and on until a seeming chorus of voices (always the same ones) manage to create an atmosphere in which one admin feels he has the right to topic ban Nableezy yet again for things other editors do all the time. Nableezy is a sock hunter and he has a lot of enemies because of it. He is protecting Wikipedia from socks. Wikipedia should be protecting, not punishing him. Tiamuttalk 19:05, 21 November 2011 (UTC) You do not have to worry about this. Even topic-banned Nableezy would still be able to protect Wikipedia from socks.70.231.238.93 (talk) 00:35, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
Generally it's always struck me as odd that while editors are absolutely required to edit from a neutral point of view in the topic area, many don't. There's a rule, people don't follow it, and nothing happens to them unless they happen to break a technical rule about revert counts etc.quoted text originally said by user:Sean.hoyland here P-I Related Topic Bans
Interaction Bans Blocks Everybody could make a mistake, it is in human nature to err. However we are talking about 11 blocks so far:
Summary I can imagine scenarios where an editor might make a whole bunch of edits to an article or topic that is hopelessly biased and needs fixing. Those edits, taken out of context, might superficially resemble the actions of a non-neutral editor but real POV pushing, consistently non-neutral editing, is usually pretty obvious. I don't think the message that editors must edit neutrally is getting across and I don't think there are working mechanisms in place to deal with editors who consistently edit in a non-neutral way.quoted text originally said by user:Sean.hoyland here Everybody is entitled to an opinion, however Wikipedia is not a place to hold grudges, import personal conflicts, carry on ideological battles, or nurture prejudice, hatred, or fear. Making personal battles out of Wikipedia discussions goes directly against our policies and goals. I am all for second and third chances, but given a total lack of remorse and denial of responsibility, at this stage I feel that 'nought is said. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 21:09, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
Result concerning Nableezy[edit]
Am I the only one who's getting the sense that there is going to be quite a few boomerangs here? T. Canens (talk) 17:48, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
Nableezy/JJG Redux[edit]I think this case has a good synopsis of the issues between these two, it also includes the numerous prior AE cases involving them. It's pretty clear they don't get along and don't intend to. It's pretty clear previous interaction and topic bans have had little effect and still AE and the P-I topic area is beset with these constant fights. What course of action is there left but meaningful interaction and topic bans without the possibility of early parole? --WGFinley (talk) 06:06, 19 November 2011 (UTC) Closing as no action taken. I do not find the reverts at Category:Israeli settlers sanctionable. As to the Banias edits, it will take an exceptional case for us to sanction someone over a couple of isolated reverts 12 days ago; this is not such a case. I should add that I find AgadaUrbanit's lists entirely unhelpful. T. Canens (talk) 20:15, 25 November 2011 (UTC) |
Lvhis
[edit]| Intervention on talkpage to fix RfC process; no action against editor at this point. |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Request concerning Lvhis[edit]
As a party to the arbitration itself, no additional warnings needed to be given to Lvhis prior to sanctions being imposed.
Explanation: On 16 November 2011, after several months of discussion following the end of the above-referenced Arbitration proceedings, I announced the intention of holding an RfC on the name of the article title (one of the, if not the main, point of dispute between the parties involved in arbitration). Though I was under no obligation to do so, I kindly offered a week for other editors (Lvhis being the most notable one, as he is the primary active editor not currently topic-banned opposed to the current article title) to comment on the RfC draft (found at User:Qwyrxian/SI RFC) prior to my putting it on the article page. I wanted to give people a chance to ensure the neutrality of the statement. Lvhis had several criticisms, eventually enumerated and discussed at User talk:Qwyrxian/SI RFC#Re Qwyrxian's comments. While I acquiesced to the majority of Lvhis's concerns (and one of another editor), even some that I disagreed with, I drew the line at Lvhis's attempt to pre-bias the RfC with non-neutral wording (points 6 and 10 on the list, though I even partially gave in on point 10 as well). During this discussion, Lvhis started talking about making his own RfC, which would essentially be an RfC to determine how to word the article title RfC I had written. I explained that Wikipedia has no such process (in fact, having one would contravene WP:NOTBUREAU), and that he couldn't hold an RfC to govern how talk page discussion would be conducted. After providing an extra day beyond my original intended start date, I found that today, on Lvhis went ahead and put up his own RfC. This is extremely disruptive. If Lvhis's RfC is allowed to run, first, I don't know what it's point is, as it's basically looking to solve a problem not even discussed in the article. Second, it prevents the long overdue and necessary RfC on the main point of contention from running. Furthemore, multiple RfCs on the topic are likely to muddy the waters and decrease the chance of a clear consensus, not to mention possibly tiring the community and making them move to a less optimal position just to make everybody be quiet. Note, finally, that I have said many many times that I believe that Lvhis should present his evidence as a part of the RfC I intended to run--just not as a separate RfC. Lvhis's actions here are tendentious and in direct violation of the need for collaborative work on a contentious topic. Should any sanctions be found to be appropriate, I request also that the RfC which Lvhis started be hatted or removed from the talk page to prevent it from disrupting the process. Qwyrxian (talk) 08:54, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
Discussion concerning Lvhis[edit]Statement by Lvhis[edit]Comments by others about the request concerning Lvhis[edit]
I think the purpose of Lvhis's RfC has been grossly misunderstood. Nothing in its contents suggested that its purpose was to "be an RfC to determine how to word the article title RfC [Qwyrxian] had written". The question asked was simply whether the current title of the article was Japanese or English (WP:EN, WP:NCGN). That's a central policy question for those who object to the current title. In fact, Lvhis's process of answering each major policy question separately is more deliberative and more likely to engender a long-lasting solution than Qwyrxian's RfC, with its panoply of options and avenues of argument that makes consensus difficult to interpret. The ease of which no consensus or a default consensus towards the status quo can be declared makes it easy for Qwyrxian and others to claim that the controversy is over, as is his declared intention; to lock down the article at its current title, and to suppress any indication of controversy over it. How is this "collaborative work on a contentious topic"? Furthermore, Qwyrxian presented his one week waiting period as a benevolent gesture: to quote the filer of this complaint himself, "technically speaking, anyone can put up an RfC at any time, and it doesn't need to be approved by other editors first". Why, then, is Lvhis being punished for sidelining a process that even Qwyrxian denied was required in this case? Quigley (talk) 17:21, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
Result concerning Lvhis[edit]
I agree that the RfC in the form filed by Lvhs is an unconstructive attempt at sidelining the planned RfC in the form drafted by Qwyrxian, which has the advantage of being more neutrally worded and having been based on previous discussion in a decently constructive manner. I also agree that Lvhs's version was problematic insofar as it was framing the issue exclusively in terms of his preferred argument. By insisting on this over aparently a long time, Lvhs has been showing worrying signs of "WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT" behaviour. I have collapsed his RfC version and put Qwyrxian's draft in its place. Not sure if we need to resort to direct sanctions against Lvhs, but he certainly ought to feel warned that further delaying and sidelining tactics will not be tolerated. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:25, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
|
Pantherskin
[edit]| Pantherskin indefinitely blocked due to evidence that that the cited book does not contain the material that he stated. Future Perfect considers this to be a normal indefinite block, not an AE block. EdJohnston (talk) 01:57, 29 November 2011 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Request concerning Pantherskin[edit]
Back in April 2011, User:Pantherskin had been edit warring in the article Lia Looveer a claim that she worked for a particular German Radio station that was staffed by collaborators broadcasting Nazi propaganda:
all the while claiming on talk[33][34] it was sourced to an German language book on the topic[35]. Due to the obscurity of this source there was no way to easily access it and verify that Pantherskin had actually sighted it and thus the text was a true representation of this cited source, so I placed a "request quotation" tag[36]. Pantherskin abruptly disappeared, not returning for several months[37]. Two weeks later in mid-May, after User:Vecrumba corresponded with the author of the book, Ansparg Diller, it was discovered that this text that Pantherskin cites does not actually exist in Dillar's book[38], so in fact it appears that User:Pantherskin lied to us all along and faked the quote from the book in order to support his contentious edits. Now he has returned and reverted the same bogus text with the same faked cite to Dillar's book[39], even having the gall to remove the original "request quotation" template[40] that triggered the investigation that exposed Patherskin's fraud.
N/A Remedy Wikipedia:DIGWUREN#Editors_warned allows for summary bans
I cannot think of anything worse than fabricating a quote and intentionally lying that the quote was sourced to a book, other than to use that faked quote to fraudulently imply a particular person was a Nazi collaborator. In light of that I ask that Pantherskin be summarily topic banned from editing Baltic articles. --Nug (talk) 12:00, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
Notified [41]
Discussion concerning Pantherskin[edit]Statement by Pantherskin[edit]Comments by others about the request concerning Pantherskin[edit]Faking quotes is an endemic problem on Wikipedia, and, IMO, is as vile as copyvios - possibly worse as it ascribes statements of fact or opinion which the person cited does not state. Rather than making comments on this case, I suggest that the members examine the source and claim made before determining whether they should take this case. If it is a :fake quote" then the case should be dealt with as expeditiously as possible - whether by motion or whatever. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:46, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
Well, I am glad (though not surprised) that the author's correspondence to myself has been borne out. @Piotrus, my last point was that even if there were somehow a huge mix-up (i.e., the quoted passage did exist where and as indicated), the manner in which Pantherskin re-inserted content was disruptive, especially considering my following up with the author in the absence of any other confirmation of content produced a result contrary to that indicated by Pantherskin. My sincere thanks to the admins here for volunteering to verify a source in contention. PЄTЄRS
Result concerning Pantherskin[edit]
I've arranged for a copy of the book to be sent to my local library (via interlibrary loan). This will probably take a little more than a week (due to Thanksgiving). I can't read German, but I can probably scan the relevant pages and send them to someone who do to verify if there is reference falsification. T. Canens (talk) 14:12, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
|
The Devil's Advocate
[edit]| The Devil's Advocate is topic banned from 9/11 Related articles until 30 Dec 2011. --WGFinley (talk) 05:36, 30 November 2011 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning The Devil's Advocate[edit]
The Devil's Advocate was recently blocked for one week [44] for edit warring on the 7 World Trade Center article (a Featured Article). As noted in his block case, many of these edits were tendentious. Immediately after the block expired, the user began making more edits to the article. Although they have become increasingly subtle, as another editor pointed out [45], some of the recent edits "make controlled demolition seem less implausible." Edits before block:
After block:
The user feigns impartiality, for example when it was pointed out that his deletions would be applauded by conspiracy theorists [46]. Having been confronted, the user hides behind WP:AGF to defend his actions (in his statement below [47] as well as here, paragraph 3) while accusing those who protect the status quo on the Featured Article of bias ([48], [49]). The user defends his actions with great verbosity [50] and during his block declared himself right and innocent, even after three admins told him otherwise [51] — so enjoy yourselves on this one! Update: I would like to get some action on this request. For over a month The Devil's Advocate has been asked numerous times to discuss significant changes to this article and find consensus first [52][53][54][55][56][57][58][59][60], yet he refuses because he doesn't "need the approval of your group" [61] and continues to make extensive changes to the article including today,[62] in an edit that introduced a missing space and awkward wording and deleted sources without discussion. But when the user is reverted, we get drama [63] and demands for explanation [64][65]. I am growing weary of the user's desire to unilaterally alter the article and then kick up tons of dust, for days, when the changes are resisted. This disruption is a drain on Wikipedia, with very little positive in return, and I'd like it to stop. Considering that the user has cut back on the blatantly tendentious edits but continues to work against consensus, might this issue now be more appropriate for the Incidents noticeboard? -Jordgette [talk] 20:50, 25 November 2011 (UTC) The Devil's Advocate continues to unilaterally rewrite and restructure. If this continues it's likely to destabilize the article. Tom Harrison Talk 03:16, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
Discussion concerning The Devil's Advocate[edit]Statement by The Devil's Advocate[edit]Since most of my comments below have been more at addressing claims of other editors, namely the editor who started this case, I figure I should provide a more complete statement on my actions. While WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE have apparently been interpreted by some editors as justifying repeating the claims of official investigations without qualification, my take on that is a lot different. For one, I do not think the idea is that all fringe theories are created equal. Each theory, fringe or otherwise, has its own independent merit or lack thereof and should be treated as an independent case (this applies even within a subject of conspiracy theory i.e. theories about Saudi/Pakistani complicity in 9-11 are generally seen as far more legitimate than theories about the use of directed energy weapons). In addition, WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE are about how much attention is given to an idea, not how that is treated. My understanding is that WP:NPOV still applies regardless of how little acceptance an idea has. WP:FRINGE is not a license to promote the mainstream position in any way or to attack the fringe position. When any source is cited potential conflicts of interest that source may have should be considered, as well as the credibility of any statement cited to the source. Even experts say things they cannot back up with facts. It is important to consider if a cited expert has done so before repeating the statement without qualification. For instance, that Stephen Hawking has stated God is not necessary to explain how the universe came to be does not mean we can repeat such a statement as fact, because it simply isn't a fact. No matter what level of certainty an expert attaches to a statement, it is the certainty of the actual facts presented that matters. When a statement of certainty would be prejudicial to a position held by any group, it definitely better not be stated without qualification unless the claim is clearly backed up. As it concerns giving due weight and covering fringe theories, insuring that you present the verifiable facts objectively without promoting any position takes precedence over all else. Not seeking to discredit or reject a fringe theory is not the same as promoting it or giving it undue weight. In this case, the controlled demolition theories get one paragraph devoted to explaining that the official investigation does not give these theories much credibility. Attributing these claims about the theories to the investigation does not give undue weight to the theories themselves. The above mainly concerns disagreements over one or two sentences in the overall article. When it comes to the more substantial dispute over the amount of material devoted to the collapse and investigation my reasoning does not require as much explanation. My take is that the building 7 article is first and foremost an article about a notable structure in New York City. At present it concerns both the present iteration and past iteration of that structure. To that effect I found the amount of detail devoted to the collapse excessive. Specifically six out of ten paragraphs in the section were about the investigation into the collapse, one being devoted almost entirely to the delays to the investigation. For an article about a building that sort of focus did not make a lot of sense. My concerns were magnified upon seeing that the article about the collapse of the World Trade Center buildings, where I would expect a great deal more detail, had two or so meager paragraphs on building 7. Now there is much made of me not discussing changes before making them (I discussed plenty after making a change), but this is partly due to my experience with contentious subjects. I find that many times people are simply unwilling to consider any major change to a contentious article and discussion tends to stalemate. Rather than spending days trying to sort out the question I figured a bold change would provide a clearer picture and make discussion easier than simply going over the vagaries of whether an article needs a major change or not. My desire was thus to have a WP:BRD process, though obviously I did hope the first change would be the only one I would have to make. All along the way my reasoning never changed. I felt a lot of unnecessary information was being included in the building 7 article when it rightly belonged elsewhere. Each time I paid attention to what the other editors were objecting to, asked them what concerns they had, and tried to discern what they really had a problem with as it concerned my changes. Some of the objections I got, like the one about Fiterman Hall, were not even things I thought involved any POV consideration until it was said to involve one. Part of my thinking was pretty simple: if every subsequent shortening effort kept information they specifically expressed a desire to keep they would either mention other bits of information they wanted to remain or we would arrive at a point where they had no objections, thus successfully achieving a consensus position that made the section shorter and the size more consistent with a Featured Article of its scope. On several occasions I did manage to find ways to shorten the article these editors agreed with and some of those changes remain in place. Two shortening efforts I made several days apart appeared to gain acceptance, in one case an explicit endorsement by one of the editors. Feeling like the bold, revert, discuss cycle was finally bearing fruit I thought of another way to shorten the article while respecting the concerns of these editors. Unfortunately, my memory of the objection to removing Fiterman Hall left me thinking including the information in the article was enough, but editor Jordgette apparently wanted the image specifically to remain. At the point Jordgette resorted to pushing for administrative action is I think where this really went wrong. I feel had we gone back to discussion the matter could have resolved itself without incident. However, pushing for administrative action no matter how well-intentioned always tends to make things uglier. Here I felt it was anything but a last resort and that everything was going the way any editing cycle should go on Wikipedia. Situations like this, in particular, often lead to one side feeling vindicated if they are left untouched by an administrative action while the other side is severely punished. On some level I think this explains why editor Tom Harrison went about reverting without explanation a number of the changes that had apparently been endorsed by Jordgette almost as soon as my block began. It also led to a complete change in the atmosphere on the article. Efforts to get discussion going on the reverts by Jordgette and Tom before and during my block essentially got stonewalled. Having reviewed some aspects of the article it has become clear that despite keeping eye on this article like hawks for anything they construe as pushing conspiracies a number of very basis problems like grammatical errors, puffery, and removal of the one wikilink directing people to the conspiracy theory page (an issue that got the 9-11 article stripped of its features status) went unnoticed by these editors until I began contributing. This sort of thing is really not unknown to me as it tends to be the case that when a group of editors push out the only significant opposing editors the whole article declines as a result. What concerns me is that continuing to impose heavy sanctions against me without so much as a reprimand for these editors will only encourage behaviors that do not in any way improve Wikipedia. I do not have any interest in seeing either of those editors sanctioned, but only that my actions be considered in context. Just consider that almost all of my changes to the article after the block have been about the building itself, most of them being "routine edits" as Tom described them, yet I am still getting reverted and often with little to no adequate explanation given. I should not be expected to get approval for splitting one large paragraph into two smaller ones and it is unlikely many editors will have any interest in satisfying such a demand.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 07:31, 27 November 2011 (UTC) Additional comments I have made it clear in the talk page that the change I was making was purely related to a grammatical error. The word "because" in the sentence does not match with the earlier wording "found no evidence" so I replaced "because" with "such as" and removed "were not observed" so that the sentence would be grammatically correct. An earlier change merely replaced absolute wording with more appropriate wording that was also used in the source material. The only other change just used identical wording to an earlier part of the sentence. It appears these are the only changes Jordgette is using to argue this point. While the latter two changes should not be a matter of controversy given what I just said here, I left those reverts in place and only sought to address the grammatical error.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 05:40, 17 November 2011 (UTC) It would appear Jordgette also believed that the previous wording needed to be fixed.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 05:53, 17 November 2011 (UTC) Another note is that of the supposedly three edits listed as happening after the block, two are the exact same edit. The only other edits included the changes Jordgette has now acknowledged as legitimate as well as some changes that concern the building itself and have no bearing on the POV I am supposedly pushing. Some changes were purely style-related and had no impact on content, like merging paragraphs, while other changes involved removing blatantly promotional language, or expanding on a piece of information. What we are left with are edits before the block, in which case it appears Jordgette is merely pushing for additional sanctions on top of the week-long block.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 06:52, 17 November 2011 (UTC) One issue that keeps getting repeated ad nauseam is the notion that I am pushing a conspiracist POV. Unfortunately these accusations increasingly border on failure to assume good faith, as in the accusation that I was using a grammatical error as an excuse to make "dubious" edits or Jordgette's insistence that I am insidiously hiding behind a pretense of impartiality. That the admin who blocked me accepted the accusation of me pushing such a POV is part of the reason I rejected that decision. It seems there is a poor habit of editors, admins included, presuming that the only reason someone would not want to insert absolute wording in favor of the official version of events (preferring to use intext citation) is because that person wants to push the conspiracy theory or that merely being open-minded when it comes to conspiracy theories means you cannot evaluate edits objectively. However, my insistence on qualifying such statements by noting who said it or not using definite language is consistent with my edits across multiple subjects that have nothing to do with conspiracy theories. My opinions on some of those other issues are far stronger and sometimes are even dis-served by my changes, but only on this subject do people accuse me of impropriety and seek administrative sanctions over such accusations. Sadly, I cannot really prove to anyone what is going on in my head, but that just makes it all the more important that editors try to consider whether my reasons for edits make objective sense. Rather than approaching the subject with a battle mentality some editors need to be more diplomatic. Tom's claim below that I was adding "a lot of chaff" to the talk page is an example of this battle mentality. He appears to be referring to comments I made on the talk page looking for his explanation on why he performed a number of reverts on material that had been unchallenged for at least a week or longer without providing any explanation. My concerns pointed to a lot of serious issues like information not being contained in a citation and the questionable use of a non-free image. Describing my queries as "chaff" when the editor was being questioned about his reasons for reverting material that appeared to have gained consensus without explaining why he did this does not suggest a desire for cooperation. Tom may have also been referring to my questions towards Jordgette about whether that editor objected to certain changes that had been reverted, given that the editor only raised one specific concern, as well as explaining why I had made those changes. Describing that as "chaff" would also demonstrate a lack of interest in discussion.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 16:41, 17 November 2011 (UTC) Jordgette is going overboard now. I shortened a rather lengthy caption by removing information that goes on about how few photos exist, something that is of no consequence to the subject at hand at all (despite Jordgette's odd insistence otherwise). I also moved the image to the other side of the page so that the section would not look so cluttered. Once more, in Jordgette's haste and trigger-happy reverting, uncontroversial changes have been undone that only improved the article. Now we have three images on one side and it just makes the whole section look terrible. Absurdly Jordgette fails to fully restore the wording and when correcing that mistake makes the bizarre remark that the mistake was a "casualty of the current crisis" only going further to prove my point that these editors are in total battle mentality rather than actually seeking the good of the article.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 21:13, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
On my week-long block, since Jordgette brought it up and with those actions leading to it appearing to be the main thrust of the editor's objections, my reason for not accepting the decisions of the admins is because the one argument I made consistently, that my edits were consistent with WP:BRD, never got addressed by any of those admins. The closest an admin came to addressing it was the last admin reviewing the unblock, who still failed to acknowledge that my efforts at discussion specifically sought the opinions of other editors and tried to accommodate the opinions expressed or that such discussion did result in consensus changes. Of note for this case, Jordgette went to the noticeboard in that case hours after I tried to inquire about that editor's objections. Here Jordgette did not even bother to wait and reacted to a change that the editor now seems to acknowledge was not in any sort of bad faith. This behavior of jumping to seek administrative action even when an editor regularly expresses a clear desire for discussion is far more problematic than anything I am accused of doing.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 23:54, 17 November 2011 (UTC) On WGFinley's reasons for any admin interested you can look at the discussion on the admin's user talk page. However, here is a summary of why the reasons WGFinley gives below are inaccurate:
Of course, WG would have probably realized all of this, but, as the admin made clear, my statement on these issues was not read. In spite of this and apparently in spite of my efforts to provide as succinct and simple an explanation as possible on that admin's user talk page pointing out those mistaken reasons, this admin still seems to be pushing for a topic ban. I am not sure what reasoning the admin now has for suggesting such an action, but it should be understood that the reasons currently given on this noticeboard are not accurate and, by the admin's own admission, not based off actually reading my comments.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 21:54, 23 November 2011 (UTC) On Jordgette's latest update it seems this editor has a nasty habit of selectively taking things out of their proper context. My lack of interest in getting approval for every little change is not unwarranted. Several times I have sought discussion with Jordgette and Tom without getting much feedback or receiving only snarky comebacks (several overtures I have made in the article talk page have still gone unaddressed). Notice how, even though I started a section mentioning these latest changes soon after they were made, Jordgette's first action is to cite those edits here in order to build a case to keep me from editing the article altogether, rather than raising these concerns on the talk page where I explicitly made a point of opening the changes up for discussion. In fact, Jordgette does not even take the time to correct a very simple mistake involving a missing space. Jordgette and Tom are now citing changes that they express no real opposition towards as an example of how I am being disruptive, which just seems bizarre. This rush to get rid of me, in light of their own expressed interests in having the article used to counter conspiracy claims, should definitely not be heeded. It is because of their own refusal to engage in real discussion and expressed agenda for the article that I aim reluctant to seek their approval for every change, though I have tried to get discussion going on contentious issues. I admit that I do not really believe in any sort of "seek consensus first" standard for editing articles, especially a standard imposed by editors who have a clear interest in pushing a POV. Most changes are just better achieved by taking bold action and then chewing over conflicts with other editors in pursuit of a compromise. I have consistently made an effort to do this all along the way in my edits to this article and, I believe, generally managed to improve the article. What problems exist are a product of several entrenched editors being unreceptive to discussion and seeking administrative redress for perceived slights against their cause instead of trying to compromise.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 23:10, 25 November 2011 (UTC) Here are some efforts I have made at discussion: [67] [68] [69] [70] [71] [72] [73] [74] [75] [76] [77] Here are some of the responses I have gotten: [78] (consider the call in the preceding link for keeping information to counter unmentioned conspiracist arguments in light of this earlier remark about the need for including information because it led the editor to read up more on the official explanation already included in the article) [79] (preceding comment in link in response to numerous specific questions about specific changes) [80] (in response to me suggesting an In-text attribution given conflicting statements in the source) [81] [82] [83] (all in response to me asking an editor why he reverted several edits that had stood for a week without offering any explanation or discussion before or after the revert) [84] [85] (after I asked the editor to respond to some objections, like the revert he performed without explanation or discussion, he refers to my efforts for discussion on the article talk page as "chaff" here)--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 00:11, 26 November 2011 (UTC) Comments by others about the request concerning The Devil's Advocate[edit]It should be noted that this request concerns all of the edits listed above, before and after the block. The user, having gone through the edit-warring noticeboard process and a considerable block, continued making dubious edits immediately after the block. I for one have lost patience with the user and am pursuing this venue as the last resort that it is. -Jordgette [talk] 06:18, 17 November 2011 (UTC) I endorse Jordgette's request for enforcement. Coming right off his block, The Devil's Advocate, along with a number of routine edits, made two tendentious changes (Jordgette's statement above) to the paragraph on controlled demolition and added a ton of chaff to the talk page. Tom Harrison Talk 14:21, 17 November 2011 (UTC) Earlier today The Devil's Advocate again began to restructure and reword.[86] My concern is less with these edits themselves than with his not getting consensus for re-writing and moving around paragraphs, and that the long-term result of a number of these edits will be to slant the article toward controlled demolition[87]. Tom Harrison Talk 23:22, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
I think DA's continuing editing of the controversial article even during this case is a clear manifestation of disruption and waste of everyone's time (and IDHT). A topic ban that will give everyone some respite and time to DA to think it over may be good. I am pessimistic that this will not continue after the expiry of the ban but I guess all of us have to AGF. - BorisG (talk) 15:02, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
If there is any doubt as to the user's POV, note that on the talk page of September 11 attacks the user stated that the National Institute of Standards & Technology is not necessarily a reliable source [88], this being a case of the fox investigating the henhouse [89]. The user has also said that NIST "guessed" at what started the fires in WTC7 despite there being plausible CT-based explanations [90]. When combined with the user's aggressive editing style of the article and resistance to consensus, I believe this fringe POV creates a problem for Wikipedia, even if the user is presently staying clear of obvious POV-pushing in the article. -Jordgette [talk] 22:04, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
Result concerning The Devil's Advocate[edit]
The diffs provided show removal of sourced material without explanation. TDA has provided a TL;DR explanation of his philosophy but no response to the diffs submitted. Since he just came off a block I think a topic ban is in order. --WGFinley (talk) 01:21, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
|
Jiujitsuguy
[edit]| Clearly no admin consensus to do anything. T. Canens (talk) 00:18, 4 December 2011 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Request concerning Jiujitsuguy[edit]
Similar to an earlier case where an editor removed from articles the consensus sentence on the legal status of Israeli settlements, which Jiujitsuguy was involved in and is aware of the consequences, Jiujitsuguy has removed from an article on an Israeli settlement the consensus sentence. Jiujitsuguy was involved in both the discussion that resulted in that consensus and in the AE request linked above. Since coming of his topic ban, JJG has continued with the same conduct that saw him banned, relentlessly pushing an extreme minority POV, such as claiming the Golan is in Israel (see for example here or here where he adds maps showing the Golan as being within Israel's borders). This latest episode of removing the consensus statement is the last straw as far as I am concerned. The user should have been banned for any number of actions, this just being the latest one. In both the edit summary of the edit reverted by JJG (here) and the talk page section opened about the issue (here) the discussion WP:Legality of Israeli settlements is explicitly referenced. This is simply bad-faith editing against consensus and should be dealt with accordingly.
Jiujistuguy's response only causes greater concern. He says I do not for one second regret that part of my edit with that part being a reference to the modification of the sentence on Katzrin being the largest settlement. He now brings as justification for that edit a "source" that was not mentioned in the article or the talk page and one that is clearly inaccurate as even official data from the Israeli government shows (also, I found a more recent census, which gives Katzrin's population as 6500 and Majdal Shams as 9600). He still feels justified in introducing factual errors so long as they reflect his personal political opinions. The misrepresentation of sources to push a political POV was the major cause of his last topic ban. To remind anybody who has forgotten, in that episode Jiujitsuguy modified Israel also expelled Arabs from the DMZ and demolished their homes to Israel also expelled Arab squatters and trespassers from the DMZ and demolished their homes. This most recent episode, with the stubborn refusal to acknowledge the wrong, demonstrates that he has yet to understand the issue of misrepresentation of sources and that he continues to do so for purely political purposes. nableezy - 17:40, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
@WGFinley, the issue is the misrepresentation of sources to further a political agenda. JJG was banned for exactly this behavior, and he repeats it, almost to a t, here again. In the past instance, JJG misrepresented an offline source, changing Arabs to Arab squatters and trespassers when the source makes pretty much the opposite point. Here, he changes what settlement to village when the offline source, again, makes the opposite statement, and in doing so he introduced a blatant factual error into an encyclopedia article. He defends this action. I can think of no action more serious to the integrity of the encyclopedia than willfully and repeatedly misrepresenting sources to further a political agenda. Let me know if you still dont see what the issue is. nableezy - 00:31, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
I have added an additional diff of Jiujitsuguy willfully misrepresenting a source to push a particular POV. In this edit, JJG adds a source that says Mt Hermon, famous as Israel’s highest mountain as justification for claiming that Mt Hermon is in Israel. He also added in the reference the quote famous as Israel's highest mountain. However, the sentence actually reads, in full, The summit of Mt. Hermon—famous as Israel's highest mountain, at 9,230 feet above sea level—is actually in Syrian territory. Yet another example of JJG distorting a source to push a political POV, and this remains in the article today. JJG has in the past beeen topic-banned for reasons such as misrepresentation of sources to push a political POV, and fresh off his topic ban he is right back at it. nableezy - 17:26, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
Can an admin comment on the added diffs? In them, Jiujitsuguy repeats the exact behavior that saw him sanctioned last year, namely purposely misrepresenting sources to push a POV. If he can continue to get away with this I would like to know. Of all the things that count, purposely misrepresenting sources has to be more important than reverting too much. He purposely degraded the quality of an article by misleading readers into assuming the sources support the fringe POV that he has focused on pushing into a range of articles. If this is allowed to stand I think you all have to seriously reconsider if this is a project to create an encyclopedia. Because if it is, you cannot allow people to do such blatantly underhanded and deceitful things as purposely distorting sources to push a fringe POV into articles as though they were fact. Honestly, I dont see how anything short of an indef ban could be a proper response to such tactics. nableezy - 14:59, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
I dont think an argument can be made that either this or this was made in good faith. In the first one he changed Mount Hermon's summit straddles the border between Lebanon and Syria to Mount Hermon's summit straddles the border between Lebanon, Israel and Syria while the source says Mount Hermon reaches 9232 feet, but its peak is actually located on the border between Lebanon and Syria. The source says the exact opposite of what he put in the article. In the second one he takes a quote and manipulates it into giving a different meaning. He does this again below when he claims that Fodor's says Mt Hermon is famous as being Israel’s highest mountain. That is simply not true, the only place the words famous as appears in that book is where it says The summit of Mt. Hermon—famous as Israel's highest mountain, at 9,230 feet above sea level—is actually in Syrian territory. Here he adds the word is and continues to misrepresent the source. I cant believe such deliberate misuse of a source, to the point of sniping out the parts of the sentence that directly dispute the claim he is attributing to it, can be called a good faith action. It is very clearly a gross misrepresentation of the source, forgetting the low quality of it. nableezy - 14:32, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
Despite several efforts to get WGFinley to explain his rather bizarre comment that the only thing that JJG did at Mount Hermon was to point out there's a ski resort there and added a travel guide as source for information on that, he has refused to do so. WGFinley, have you actually examined the diffs here? In which one did he point out there's a ski resort? Did you not see that he used a source that said that the summit is on the border of Syria and Lebanon to change the article to claim that the summit is actually on the border of Lebanon, Israel and Syria? If you misread the diff fine, just say so. No shame in that. But you seem willing to disregard the issue in an attempt to remove any sanctions against Jiujitsuguy. This editor was once banned for distorting sources, he continues to do so. Below a thread was open about an editor inventing a quote from a source. This isnt much better. So, can you please explain why you made that comment and what diff shows JJG point[ing] out there's a ski resort there? nableezy - 07:13, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
WGFinley, perhaps my tone has been overly harsh, but in no way are the actions here so trivial that they pale in comparison to my tone. My tone is due to the fact that lying about a source to push a POV by an editor previously sanctioned for distorting an off-line source to push a POV is, or was, being completely ignored. I honestly cannot think of much worse sins here than distorting a source, and in doing so repeatedly introducing factual errors into articles. Forgive me for saying this, but it seems that despite repeated efforts to explain the issue you are ignoring that issue. There are many things that get me wound up, but being ignored tops the list. I have asked you several questions. You have not answered any of them. So, forgive my tone, but please answer my questions. If you do that you will find my tone much more pleasant. nableezy - 07:14, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
Discussion concerning Jiujitsuguy[edit]Statement by Jiujitsuguy[edit]Was unaware that this so-called consensus statement applied to the Golan Heights. I was under the impression that it only applied to the West Bank since the AE against Shuki involved a West Bank settlement and not the Golan Heights. I will self-revert but seek clarification if this is indeed the case.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 00:24, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
This source[91] from Fodor’s states that “Mt Hermon is famous as being Israel’s highest mountain.” I take that at face value. Now Nab rather slyly and underhandedly hooks in the part of the source that says “…is actually in Syrian territory.” What he fails to note is that the source was referring to the mountain’s summit and he fails to give you the entire sentence which says, “The summit of Mount Hermon… is actually in Syrian territory.” But the source clearly states that the mountains slopes are in Israel. This source[92] from Popular Mechanics states “Mount Hermon straddles one of the world's most infamously contested borders. On one side of the mountain is Israel, and on the other side are Syria and Lebanon.” Again, I take that at face value and plain meaning. The source goes on to say that the mountain’s peak is in Syria. But nableezy would have you believe that the source says that the entire mount is located in Syria, which is entirely false. And the third source[93] which states that Mount Hermon is, “located at the intersection of the Israeli, Syrian and Lebanese borders, Mt. Hermon's southern slopes are home to Israel's only ski resort.” Again, plain meaning and face value. Folks, this isn’t rocket science. It’s plain meaning. No twists, no turns and no pitfalls. The sources are entirely consistent with the edit and I stand by them one-thousand percent. I strenuously object to nableezy's insinuations, mis-characterizations and distortions.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 23:43, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
Comments by others about the request concerning Jiujitsuguy[edit]
Firstly, looking at the first noted diff in complainant's "additional comments" section, it appears that the complained-about edit was supported by a ref to an RS. And that this was noted in the edit summary as well. Secondly, what is referred to by complainant as "the agreed upon consensus statement of illegality" seems to be a violation of wp:SYNTH, in that the subject of the article is not mentioned at all in the source given. While it may be appropriate language for an article on settlements in general, it does smack of spamming for an editor to insert the sentence in the instant article where the ref fails to mention the place in question.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:31, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
The Mt Hermon in Israel edit can be contrasted with what occurred at Alon Shvut recently. User:MichaelNetzer found a source for the Kermes Oak there which ran Without a doubt, the most famous tree in Israel is the Kermes oak in Gush Etzion. Well both Alon Shvut and Gush Etzion happen not to be in Israel, but the West Bank. Notified, Michael commendably understood the objection, though he did think the ambiguity in the syntax allowed for it to be taken as 'famous in Israel'. And he certainly did not use that phrasing to assert in the article that these communities were in Israel, since the article is quite clear on their location in the West Bank. That is responsible editing, and collaborative judgement as opposed to tactical quibbling. No such ambiguity appears to exist in the way the Fodor text has been twisted. This is a serious problem, in any case. You can get any number of your nation-state's sources to promote a line that is wide of the mark in terms of international understanding of geography and history. Experienced editors who've been around here for as long as JJG should not be playing games with this kind of slipshod sourcing. Commonsense tells us all to refrain from temptations to use sources that are evidently skewed as nationalist POVs. There can be no excuse for reading a source only to deliberately misrepresent it by careful erasure of its qualifications in order to trim it to fit a POV, as appears to be the case here. Nishidani (talk) 17:56, 22 November 2011 (UTC) It has been 12 days and I doubt this is an "exceptional case" (especially since he fixed it already).Cptnono (talk) 01:48, 27 November 2011 (UTC) This is some silliness. Well over 12 days. If admins don't note that traffic suddenly increased a couple days ago then they should not be attempting to fix the area. I know that Tim knows what I am talking about and I do not need to beat around the bush. A whole lot of comments all of a sudden. What is up dude?Cptnono (talk) 07:56, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
As someone who has been following both of these A/E threads and withheld commentary in an effort to not clog the pipes, and someone who is actively involved in the Mount Hermon article, I would have to ask you WGfinley, it appears as if you have not even looked/not cleary looked at the sources the JJG put in the article.
I am not sure how you can back up this action as defensible. He never self-reverted, as is evidenced by the article's history, where his last time even touching the article was to add the source. WGfinley, don't take my word for it. But I implore you, please see the links that I have provided to understand what Nableezy is talking about. I would also like to point out, when JJG added the source, it appears as his search term in Google Books was, "where is mt hermon israel or syria". JJG was just fishing through Google Books to find any source he could where it stated "Israel" rather than "Syria". Hell, he couldn't even get that right. -asad (talk) 15:53, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
As I posted on his talk page a few minutes ago, I think WG's latest comment on the case demonstrates that he is simply not up to speed with prevailing standards of adjudication here at AE. AE long ago left behind the notion that admins cannot make judgements about such issues as misrepresentation or falsification of sources at this page, indeed, ARBPIA enjoins administrators to take whatever steps they deem necessary to prevent disruption in these topic areas. If WG's interpretation of the rules were to be accepted, it would be straight back to the bad old days when civil POV pushers ran rampant over the topic area with no fear of consequences. Gatoclass (talk) 16:51, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
Not being involved in these articles much I cannot speak clearly about this particular editor's actions under ArbCom. However, I think his actions in the first diff should not be discounted because of a self-revert. Has anyone mentioned the other passage removed in that instance? That the UN declared the 1981 action in the Golan Heights null and void was reliably sourced and this information was also removed without explanation despite having been there for some time (I found it in one version from at least a year ago). JJG actually left the comment that the act in 1981 was internationally condemned so it is not that he had an issue with bringing up the stance of the international community, but appeared to have an issue with noting that the act was declared void. His actions with the other article demonstrated an effort to cherry-pick sources (a "best-of" list in the skiing section of Popular Mechanics should not be treated as a definitive source on the legal status of any territory just because Popular Mechanics is considered a reliable source on news about technology) that are close enough to saying what he wants that he can misconstrue them as confirming something that is plainly false. The biggest cherry-picking of all, however, was the fact JJG was using sources only about Mount Hermon rather than considering them in the context of what reliable sources say about the Golan Heights in general. Removing plainly relevant and reliably sourced material from one article without explanation and misrepresenting sources, including several that are definitely not reliable (travel brochures and the like are promotional material not legal documents), in another article to push a false position indicates a pattern of acting contrary to core Wikipedia policies like WP:V and WP:NPOV. In no sense is this a mere content dispute. The fact he stepped away from one of those edits after the AE case was filed does not change much with respect to his behavior since that could just as easily be seen as an attempt to dodge administrative action. He could have self-reverted when Nableezy requested he do so as he was obviously online at the time.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 08:58, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
In a nutshell:
What will he give us next to champion this fringe POV after Popular Mechanics as an authority on geopolitics, I wonder, if he's allowed to continue in the topic area? Cat Fancy on peace negotiations or military strategy, perhaps? And that selectively edited to leave out the inconvenient bits, as we've seen here? This is wholly unrepentant, long-term behavior: Jiujitsuguy "stands by his edits" to the Mt. Hermon article "one thousand percent", he repeatedly says above. This guy is obviously never going to stop pushing the extreme fringe POV that his edits there demonstrate, and that leaves the community with no alternative to a permanent topic ban. – OhioStandard (talk) 12:23, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
( If you wish to comment, please do so in a section for your own statement rather than adding on to mine below. – OhioStandard (talk) 12:28, 3 December 2011 (UTC) ) Result concerning Jiujitsuguy[edit]
Sticking To The Point[edit]Nableezy has filed one action in this AE request, that JJG took action in violation of consensus. JJG reverted himself within 30 minutes of the action when it was pointed out he was wrong. What's the issue? --WGFinley (talk) 00:14, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
Nableezy/JJG Redux[edit]See Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Result_concerning_Nableezy above. --WGFinley (talk) 06:07, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
Seems we have a consensus to close, is there a support for an interaction ban for JJG and Nableezy perhaps modeled on the one with Cptnono last year? [103]. --WGFinley (talk) 06:27, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
|
- Uhh, since when was it necessary that there be admin consensus for discretionary sanctions to be applied? Yall want to close this then fine, but the result is that an editor previously sanctioned for lying about sources is free to continue lying about sources. Well done, everybody. nableezy - 00:31, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
- I don't think, you of all people, should be agitating for sanctions without consensus. If I recall correctly, just a week ago there was a case here against you, where at least one admin called for your topic ban, but it wads closed as no action. Be careful what you wish for. JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk)
- I call for sanctions when there is a cause for sanctions, mr obvious sock. Here we have an editor once topic-banned for misrepresenting a source to push a POV again lying about a source to push a POV. If you want to compare that to reverting a collection of socks of banned users you can do that. nableezy - 01:03, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
- You think there is a cause for sanctions, but clearly, there is no consensus that this is indeed the case. Be careful what you wish for. JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 01:08, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
- No Sherlock, I dont think there is a cause for sanctions. Additionally, I dont see how there clearly no consensus for it. The admin, WGFinley, who argued against sanctions made several comments that have been repeatedly shown to be false. He has so far refused to rectify the error, and instead has ignored repeated attempts to draw his attention that he was either a. misunderstanding the diffs, or b. purposely distorting their content. I dont care anymore, it isnt worth wasting my time with an obvious sock. I just want to have it written down here that several admins have ignored repeated willful distortion of sources to push a fringe POV into an article. A distortion that was in the article for weeks with a talk page section open discussing that distortion, with the user who had lied about the source neither self-reverting the distortion or responding on the talk page about the distortion. Im done here. nableezy - 01:29, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
- You think there is a cause for sanctions, but clearly, there is no consensus that this is indeed the case. Be careful what you wish for. JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 01:08, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
- I call for sanctions when there is a cause for sanctions, mr obvious sock. Here we have an editor once topic-banned for misrepresenting a source to push a POV again lying about a source to push a POV. If you want to compare that to reverting a collection of socks of banned users you can do that. nableezy - 01:03, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
- I don't think, you of all people, should be agitating for sanctions without consensus. If I recall correctly, just a week ago there was a case here against you, where at least one admin called for your topic ban, but it wads closed as no action. Be careful what you wish for. JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk)