Misplaced Pages

:Administrators' noticeboard/Community sanction: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 00:36, 14 May 2007 view sourceChrisO~enwiki (talk | contribs)43,032 edits →PalestineRemembered again: - comment - CJCurrie is factually right in one regard← Previous edit Revision as of 00:38, 14 May 2007 view source Hornplease (talk | contribs)9,260 edits →PalestineRemembered again: just a word.Next edit →
Line 170: Line 170:
::Without wishing to cast aspersions at Jayjg, CJCurrie is factually correct to say that Jay's "objectivity on matters relating to Israel has sometimes been called into question"; see ]. During that DRV quite a few users, including well-respected admins such as ] and ], alluded to what Cyde described as Jay taking "controversial actions in a subject matter he knows he doesn't have even the remote appearance of being unbiased in." Fairly or otherwise, Jay has acquired a reputation of being (in ] words) "a partisan editor". It's unfortunate that Jay has chosen to propose this community sanction himself, as that leaves the door open for his motives to be questioned. It would perhaps have been better to have raised this matter with some unquestionably neutral admin first and for that admin to have proposed the sanction, thus avoiding raising questions about motives. -- ] 00:36, 14 May 2007 (UTC) ::Without wishing to cast aspersions at Jayjg, CJCurrie is factually correct to say that Jay's "objectivity on matters relating to Israel has sometimes been called into question"; see ]. During that DRV quite a few users, including well-respected admins such as ] and ], alluded to what Cyde described as Jay taking "controversial actions in a subject matter he knows he doesn't have even the remote appearance of being unbiased in." Fairly or otherwise, Jay has acquired a reputation of being (in ] words) "a partisan editor". It's unfortunate that Jay has chosen to propose this community sanction himself, as that leaves the door open for his motives to be questioned. It would perhaps have been better to have raised this matter with some unquestionably neutral admin first and for that admin to have proposed the sanction, thus avoiding raising questions about motives. -- ] 00:36, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
*I have already requested the ArbCom to intervene, in ''']''', please comment there, thanks! ]<sup>]</sup> *I have already requested the ArbCom to intervene, in ''']''', please comment there, thanks! ]<sup>]</sup>

:Just a word: the basic factual detail - the reburial on Mount Herzl - that PR was inserting seems to have been widely known; other than the discussion in the Commons, it seems to have been discussed in the Canadian Senate , by well known terrorism expert Bowyer Bell , and, rather amusingly, is mentioned on the JDL's website . I can't see any particular reason why the citation needed to have been from a primary source. That being said, a violation of citation regulations seems to not be enough for an indefblock. If the user meets the pattern set out in ] for tendentious editing, that evidence should be presented as well if a block is requested. ] 00:38, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Revision as of 00:38, 14 May 2007

Template loop detected: Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Community sanction/Header



Ban request:Ultra megatron

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Quite evidently the community does not support a ban at this time. Seraphimblade 00:00, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I would like Ultra megatron banned for personal attack for the reason indicated here.

If this request is on the wrong page, or such a request cannot be carried out, please notify me. Thank you. --Defender 911 22:21, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

While not quite WP:CIVIL, I don't see anything there that requires a BLOCK, nowhere near a ban even. SirFozzie 22:27, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
I agree. He's never been blocked and is a productive user. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 22:29, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Yes, this is probably in the wrong place. A ban is only used as a last resort. In this case, I'd probably take this to Wikiquette alerts or RFC. Please read the instructions for RFC however if you take that route. Thanks, Kesac 22:30, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Suggest we archive this - looking the history for Ultra megatron's talk page, I don't see any necessity for further action beyond the sensible comments from ObiterDicta. Addhoc 23:39, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

(side discussion moved to WT:CN.) Navou 17:55, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Proposed community ban on User:Bobby Boulders

User is banned if none of the 848 administrators are willing to unblock. However, relist this discussion if there are any substantial objections to the block or ban. Users are listed here for proposed sanctions or block reviews. Regards, Navou 20:46, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

While on new user/vandal patrol, I noticed someone had created an account named Bobby Boulders is yo momma (talk · contribs). I was about to report it to WP:UAA, but someone beat me to it. I was gonna alert Bobby Boulders (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), only to discover that this new user had been blocked as the latest sockpuppet of this guy. Moreover, looking back at their history, it's one vandalized article after another. Moreover, it seems his entire userspace has been deleted. In my view, when your userspace has been deleted and you haven't been community banned, you damn well should be.Blueboy96 19:59, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

  • The checkusers are sticklers for procedure, and he isn't listed at WP:LOBU. Plus, this guy claims to be the leader of a network of vandals--how many more of them are out there? Blueboy96 20:11, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
I added the indefblock template on his userpage. Wooyi 20:12, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
Next step is to formalize this, since we'd then be able to checkuser him into oblivion. He claims to be the leader of a network of vandals--how many more of them haven't been caught and blocked?Blueboy96 20:15, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
Admins block persistent vandals on-sight, no matter which vandal "network" do you belong. If you belong to a vandal club but don't actually vandalize, there wouldn't be any problem. Wooyi 20:18, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
This is ancient history. — MichaelLinnear 20:22, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm just trying to help you admins out by making it easier to whack this clown ... plus, it would be easier to complain to his ISP once we knew where he was located (according to his Myspace, he's in the UK, but that doesn't do much good). I would hazard to guess that he's violated his ISP's TOS several times over.Blueboy96 20:23, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
It seems like this guy is one of those cases where WP:DENY should be applied. The whole "ISV" thing seems to be about getting attention. — MichaelLinnear 20:26, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
True ... a formal ban would make it easier to WP:RBI. So all in favor of a community ban?Blueboy96 20:28, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
SNOWing a ban discussion is never a good idea, as the situation with Gen. von Klinkerhoffen showed. — MichaelLinnear 20:40, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
Is User:Gen. von Klinkerhoffen banned? Wooyi 20:45, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
He was for a little bit, but he's now on probation. — MichaelLinnear 20:46, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
I have no objection to ban this user, and I don't think anyone would have any objection. Wooyi 20:32, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Looking through the userlist, it seems Bobby Boulders has made at least 20 socks that start with "Bobby Boulders" alone. I would say Bobby Boulders is already de facto banned by the community (see Bobby Boulders 35 (block log)), but might as well make it official (Endorse ban) Kesac 20:38, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

PalestineRemembered again

(Moved from WP:AN/I)

PalestineRemembered (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfa · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · socks confirmedsuspected)

In PalestineRemembered (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)'s brief history on Misplaced Pages he has been blocked for total of four months for a series of egregious personal attacks. Soon after he returned from his most recent one-month block, he started inserting POV material into an article, claiming that he had gotten his material from the "Evening Star of Auckland, July 2, 1975". He continued to revert-war the material into the article over the next three weeks I was rather suspicious that PalestineRemembered, an editor not noted for his research abilities, would somehow have access to an obscure publication printed over 30 years ago, but not know the name or author or page number of the article he was quoting. After doing some investigation, I discovered that PalestineRemembered has never read the Evening Star of Auckland; rather, he has copied his views and references from the Holocaust denial group the Institute for Historical Review: The reason he doesn't give the article title, author, or page number is because the source, Roger Garaudy doesn't. In 1998, a French court found Garaudy guilty of Holocaust denial and racial defamation, fining him FF 120,000 ($40,000) for his 1995 book Mythes fondateurs de la politique israélienne, which the article in question is taken from. Not only is this a violation of WP:CITE#Say_where_you_got_it, but passing off Holocaust denial material as your own research, and trying to insert it into articles, after PalestineRemembered's long history of tendentious editing and blocks is, in my view, the last straw. I am proposing a permanent block at this point. Jayjg 17:17, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Definately support permablock, I actually had a weird email off him a couple of weeks ago basically saying that all western admins were POV pushers and asked my to join his crusade to stop this (I declined and tried to explain things - obviously to no avail). I think he's lost out patience. Ryan Postlethwaite 17:22, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Support. There's a limit to how much of this the community should have to put up with. FeloniousMonk 17:23, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
Might want to bring it up over at WP:CN? Although it looks like this is pretty open and shut.. SirFozzie 17:35, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

The nature of the material added is irrelevant. We should evaluate this as we would for any editor doing this with any POV and must not block based on the POV in question being more repugnant. That said, this editor has been repeatedly abusive and POV pushing and looking through the user's contributions list, I see only a handful of genuinely productive edits. Deliberate lying about the nature of a source is the last straw. I agree with Fozzie that this may not be the appropriate location to discuss this. JoshuaZ 17:40, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Exactly JoshuaZ: also please note that on Misplaced Pages talk:Single-purpose account PalestineRemembered self identifies as an SPA. ⇒ SWATJester 17:44, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

If the source I've used for "killers of Lord Moyne in 1944" re-buried at Mt Herzl in 1975 is untrue, then the project has my apologies. I've never been challenged on it, here or elsewhere. I've attempted always to be careful about my sources, many of which come from books in my possession. PalestineRemembered 18:54, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
I am not following. Per WP:CITE#Say_where_you_got_it, you must specify the source you actually read. So which source did you specifically read here? Crum375 19:01, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I suggest that someone just block this fellow indefinitely if he's back to his old tricks. Jayjg blocked him for a month in March and if that isn't a last chance I don't know what is. He's about as banned as you can get. That it's a self-declared single purpose account is worrying, and if the owner of the account can be found and verified we should probably closedly examine his other edits. --Tony Sidaway 18:57, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Ok, then I'd like to perhaps see a Request for comment before having the mob ban him. Here is a link to the page it would go on. —— Eagle101 18:58, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Based on the long history of misbehavior and the recent evidence of fraudulent citations, I've indefinitely blocked this editor. Neither academic fraud nor chronic incivility are things we should be prepared to tolerate. Seraphimblade 19:03, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
Wait, this user has a barnstar in his userpage, means he's a pretty decent editor. And what's the fraud? I'm not defending him, just want to know what happened. Wooyi 19:11, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I would like to see Jay's evidence provided in detail. Note that the entry for Walter Guinness in the French edition of Misplaced Pages has this same citation. And note that this citation circulates online on sites other than the IHR (for example see this usenet thread). From the online evidence (books are another thing entirely) the original source in every case does appear to be Roger Garaudy, but I for example learned who Garaudy was three minutes ago, and have no reason to believe his name meant more to PalestineRemembered than it did to me – that is to say, if this was even his first- or second- or third- or fourth-hand source. Jay has shown us nothing, and I find this collective rush to judgment extraordinary.--G-Dett 19:14, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Support ban, particularly after the fraudulent use of material. SlimVirgin 19:15, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Has anyone even bothered to investigate the reporter
    • I do suggest unblocking, this ban does not have universal support, or anything close to it. —— Eagle101 19:20, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
      • After a bit of digging I'm not so sure about unblocking, as the reporter does seem to be ok (does have quite a long block log, but its all very old stuff). I am going to note that with the speed that this happened, this could have taken place at WP:AN or WP:ANI with the same result. —— Eagle101 19:28, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
        • Per your objection I've reversed it, but I had a pretty good look through this guy's contribs, and I don't see a single reason to think a change in behavior will be forthcoming. But if you think a longer discussion is necessary, we'll do that. Seraphimblade 19:32, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
        • The blocks in question aren't "old stuff". He's been an editor for 7 months, and blocked for a total of 4 months of those 7. He just got back from his most recent block a month ago. Jayjg 20:28, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
  • PalestineRemembered gives his source here: Bitter Harvest: a Modern History of Palestine, by Sami Hadawi, p.59 . I'll verify the reference at my university library tomorrow morning, not that any good reason to doubt it was ever offered in this extraordinary episode of near-lynching.--G-Dett 19:51, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I've been finding weirdo remarks, POV-pushing, and downright lying from this editor for months now. He is one of my "featured accusers" on my user page. PalestineRemembered has been criticized as a single-purpose account, but it is not to further the Palestinian cause or even to educate others about it. It is to denegrate and demonize Israel, often with underhanded techniques. PalestineRemembered has accused Israelis of being "proud ... of their murderous racism," being " lot nastier and more dangerous than anything we've seen since 1945 ," and being unreliable. --GHcool 20:06, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

    • The only Lynching going on is Eagle and Tony's continuing crusade against CN. "This could have been handled by ANI." "Don't Vote" (funny, the "support" vote actually came from ANI, not from when it was here on CN). At this point, it's probably obvious to all that Eagle and Tony are not working towards making CN a useful noteboard (which was their stated goal), they want CN eliminated and it folded back into AN/ANI and if it was anyone else, I would say they are actively sabotaging the board. SirFozzie 20:10, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
      • I can't comment on the civility and behavior issues, having only crossed paths with PR a couple of times (the first of which – full disclosure – was when he left fan mail at my user page). I do know that serious charges were leveled here – that PR had "copied" Holocaust-denial materials into Misplaced Pages, making "fraudulent use" of them and misrepresenting his research, etc. These charges were asserted as conclusive but accompanied by no evidence whatsoever, and yet were enthusiastically taken up as sufficient grounds for banning the user. The charges now appear to have been not only unsubstantiated but entirely false. If "weirdo remarks" were the issue here, then "weirdo remarks" should have been discussed – rather than spurious charges. PR's editing past may be everything that you suggest it is, but with regards to the present episode, it isn't PalestineRemembered who should be doing the apologizing. --G-Dett 20:23, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
        • Actually, the charges were accompanied by evidence, and they appear to be as true as ever. He's now claiming that he misrepresented a different source, which I suppose is possible, but only if his new source was copying Garaudy as well. Jayjg 20:28, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
          • You provided no evidence, let that be clear. If you think you have evidence of any kind that PR "misrepresented" his source, give it. Otherwise, be a mensch and apologize, even if you despise the editor you've wronged.--G-Dett 20:32, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
                • He's admitted it himself!! He now claims he got it from some other source, but he's admitted that he didn't get it from the Auckland newspaper. And do you really think that Auckland newspaper referred to these Israelis as "terrorist assassins"? I don't have any particular feelings about PalestineRemembered, other than I don't think he has added anything of value to Misplaced Pages during his turbulent time here, nor, based on his statements and actions, do I think he will be able to. Now be a mensch and apologize, even if you despise the editor you've wronged. Jayjg 20:46, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
            • As I said, when I reviewed the contrib history, I see a lot of issues. Have a good look here: ownership and effectively stating that editors of a certain nationality should be forbidden to edit an article: , divides along nationalistic boundaries again , referrals to "apartheid" in terms of Israel .
            • Now, let's go to the edit in question, here. If PR can show that an Auckland newspaper actually called the people in question "terrorist assassins"...well, I'll eat my monitor. But regardless of that, I've not once so far seen such things end well. And a serious comment that those of a certain nationality should be barred from editing a certain article is just...beyond it, especially after previous warnings and blocks. Seraphimblade 20:41, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Whether the source was Garaudy or elsewhere is irrelevant. What is relevant is that he didn't get it from the claimed source. This is an unacceptable deception about where the user got the source from. The user cited something he had not looked at. The user has a long history of problematic editing and issues. Enough already. JoshuaZ 20:40, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Support indefblock as per evidence provided. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:49, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
    • If the Holocaust-denier business wasn't germane to your case, Jay, then you shouldn't have emphasized it in your opening remarks against PR. If the real issue was merely the distinction between citing an original source vs. citing where you found it, then it was irresponsible of you to bring in something so prejudicial, especially when your conclusions appear to have consisted of nothing but speculation. If you seriously intend to pursue the citation protocol issue, then as a minimal show of good faith you ought to be forthrightly clearing the air of the spurious guilt-by-association with which these proceedings were initiated. Regarding the citation issue, Jay, Joshua, Jossi, are you all now telling me that pulling a Dershowitz is a ban-worthy offense?--G-Dett 21:01, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I support a community ban. Fraudulent citation is far more corrosive than vandalism, incivility or almost anything else which we sanction around here. Simply, nothing this user adds can be trusted.Proabivouac 21:16, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Here's how Jay presented his case initially:

I was rather suspicious that PalestineRemembered, an editor not noted for his research abilities, would somehow have access to an obscure publication printed over 30 years ago, but not know the name or author or page number of the article he was quoting. After doing some investigation, I discovered that PalestineRemembered has never read the Evening Star of Auckland; rather, he has copied his views and references from the Holocaust denial group the Institute for Historical Review: The reason he doesn't give the article title, author, or page number is because the source, Roger Garaudy doesn't. In 1998, a French court found Garaudy guilty of Holocaust denial and racial defamation, fining him FF 120,000 ($40,000) for his 1995 book Mythes fondateurs de la politique israélienne, which the article in question is taken from. Not only is this a violation of WP:CITE#Say_where_you_got_it, but passing off Holocaust denial material as your own research, and trying to insert it into articles, after PalestineRemembered's long history of tendentious editing and blocks is, in my view, the last straw. I am proposing a permanent block at this point.

Here's how he ought to have presented his case, if indeed "whether the source was Garaudy or elsewhere is irrelevant," as he now maintains:

I was rather suspicious that PalestineRemembered, an editor not noted for his research abilities, would somehow have access to an obscure publication printed over 30 years ago, but not know the name or author or page number of the article he was quoting. I suspect that he has taken it from some other source that in turn quotes the Auckland paper. If so, this is a violation of WP:CITE#Say_where_you_got_it, and after PalestineRemembered's long history of tendentious editing and blocks, this is in my view the last straw. I am proposing a permanent block at this point.

Would this case – which is all that's left now – have been taken up with such alacrity? I think not.--G-Dett 21:19, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

  • mmm ok, let me ask this, if this user is willing to listen to concerns in a request for comment, and more importantly learn from that request for comment, I'd suggest giving him that chance. if he is not willing, then I guess a ban will have to do. :S —— Eagle101 21:20, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Support permablock, per exhaustive evidence above. Smee 21:23, 13 May 2007 (UTC).
  • Is there precedent for banning a user on WP:CITE#Say_where_you_got_it grounds?--G-Dett 21:41, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
    • As I recall, actually, such an issue has arisen before. But the issue here goes far beyond "say where you got it" (though misrepresentation of what source material came from is an issue, and should be taken seriously). I already posted some additional issues above. But I am absolutely in support of taking decisive action against those who misrepresent a source or claim one supports their view when it does not, and from the user's block log, this doesn't look to be the first instance of problems. Seraphimblade 21:46, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
      • Let me ask before we ban a user from editing wikipedia ever again, does anyone think a request for comment might help? That would allow him/her to learn from this, and perhaps be a useful contributor. —— Eagle101 21:54, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
        • What do you think would be learned from an RfC, that wouldn't have been learned through repeatedly being warned, blocked, etc.? Honestly, I've never seen anyone who's already had repeated problems with something, and been repeatedly told to stop, turn around after an RfC and say "OH! I really was in the wrong all along!" Every time I've seen, it drags out the inevitable. If the editor were going to realize he's wrong, and turn about and apologize, wouldn't you think a strong showing that quite a few people have had quite enough at this discussion would inspire that? Seraphimblade 22:00, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Question: Did PalestineRemembered affirm that he had taken the material directly from that source, or did he only copy the citation? That would seem to make a difference. Mackan79 21:56, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

      • Thanks for your thoughtful response, Seraphimblade. As I've said, I don't know PR's editing past. Given, however, that the explosive charge which initiated this discussion – that PR is getting material from Holocaust denial sites and loading it into Misplaced Pages – has proven to be unfounded, wouldn't it make sense to table abort this discussion for now, and revisit it in a week or two (if necessary), when the spurious cloud of guilt-by-association has evaporated? If PR is such an incorrigible editor (and he may well be, for all I know), then he will certainly provide you, in due course, with a fresh occasion to consider permanently banning him. The advantage of waiting for such an occasion is that the process – and any decision it produces – will not be tainted by irresponsible and totally unfounded accusations, the way this one irrevocably has been.--G-Dett 22:02, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
        • Well, given that Eagle did object earlier, he is unblocked now. I still do myself feel that the block was warranted at this point, regardless of whether or not Jayjg was exactly correct. (I hope you don't think I would block someone without actually bothering to go and look at their contrib history, just on taking someone's word for it!) However, if there is still disagreement, it should be discussed further. Seraphimblade 22:36, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
          • Both your block and your unblock strike me as considered decisions; I haven't and won't second-guess them. What I'm suggesting ought to be tabled aborted for the time being is this discussion of a permanent ban. Any decision to ban issuing from a discussion that began with a false and incendiary charge about Holocaust denial will be tainted, and will have a far more corrosive effect on the community than giving an allegedly disruptive editor another chance.--G-Dett 22:46, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
I support G-Dett's sugestion, and would like to thank her for her considered, carefully-argued and courteous contributions here. I agree entirely with her characterisations of Jayig's accusation as "false and incendiary". (Incidentally, it is worth noting that in British English "to be tabled" means the exact opposite of what is intended here - best to avoid it in this type of discussion, tho' it's actually quite clear in this case.)
--NSH001 23:17, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Not sure I was clear earlier but: Support permablock. PR is a self-avowed single purpose account for the purpose of pushing POV. Should be blocked solely on that. ⇒ SWATJester 22:31, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Err... wait a minute, where is it said that its a single purpose account? Link to evidence please? —— Eagle101 22:33, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
That is actually correct: Seraphimblade 22:37, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I think there are two issues here. On the question of incivility and POV-pushing, I agree that this appears to be a real problem. I had an odd unsolicited e-mail from PalestineRemembered about problems with "the Zionists" on Misplaced Pages, and the evidence does seem to indicate difficulties in working constructively with other users. I'm not so sure about the claim of falsely attributing sources; see his comments at . The explanation given is reasonable, and I see no reason to assume that the information in question came from the IHR rather than another source (the IHR didn't originate the cited newspaper article, after all). The basic premise of Jayjg's initial post in this thread appears to be faulty; I suggest that editors should focus on the problem of incivility and POV-pushing, and whether that merits a ban. Personally I believe a RfC would be more appropriate at this stage as the last step before either an arbitration or a community ban. -- ChrisO 23:09, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Agree with ChrisO. I've followed the various links here and agree that there are civility issues, chip-on-the-shoulder issues, etc. As far as POV-pushing goes, though he's done his share PR is not a stand-out on Israel-Palestine related pages. The say-where-you-got-it infraction looks very minor indeed. A scholarly citation from Sami Hadawi, after all, carries much greater weight in Misplaced Pages than primary-source material from an Auckland newspaper. Why he cited to the latter rather than the former is anyone's guess, but it doesn't look to me in the slightest bit like dishonesty, POV-pushing, or "fraud" (as the more breathless here would have it). It looks like a silly mistake. Correct it, direct PR to WP:CITE#Say_where_you_got_it, fix any POV-phrasing issues, and get on with the hurly-burly of Israel-Palestine editing – that's how this should have been handled. PR may be banned yet from Misplaced Pages, but it won't be for jay-walking, not if I can help it.--G-Dett 23:29, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I've issued an indef block based on the broad consensus here for it. FeloniousMonk 23:47, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I believe this decision was premature, at minimum. CJCurrie 23:56, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
Absolutely, there is no consensus here for an immediate ban, Jayig's initial accusation has been shown to be false, and from what I've seen of PR's edits, yes there are problems, but they are nowhere near as bad as has been made out, and in any case that is not the issue here. PR has been appallingly badly treated here, and I hope someone will promptly reverse the ban.
--NSH001 00:23, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Good lord, what a mess. I think there are several different issues that need to be addressed here.

(i) I have some familiarity with User:PalestineRemembered's editing history. When he first turned up on Misplaced Pages, he struck me as a skilled writer and researcher who didn't quite grasp the nature of the project. Events since then have done little to change my opinion.

It's sadly true that his editing style has often been problematic: he has made several edits in a very polemical style, and has violated the principles of NPOV on several occasions. He has been sanctioned for his errors more than once, and seems to have taken some steps to improve his behaviour -- although whether or not these steps have been sufficient is obviously a matter of some dispute. It's entirely possible that his posting habits have tried the patience of other contributors beyond a reasonable limit.

This, however, is not what the current discussion is about.

(ii) As has already been noted, the "explosive charge" that PalestineRemembered copied information from a Holocaust denial site has been shown to be unfounded. PalestineRemembered has indicated that his actual source was a book released in 1975, and I cannot see any reason to doubt him on this front.

I am familiar with Roger Garaudy, and I suspect that PalestineRemembered is as well. However, I have seen no evidence that Garaudy was his "real" source, nor that he was even aware of Garaudy's citation of the same material. The most likely explanation for the coincidence of events that started this controversy is that Garaudy used the same 1975 book for his website.

I consider User:Jayjg's original accusation against PalestineRemembered ("passing off Holocaust denial material as your own research") to have been both reckless and irresponsible, and I believe that an apology is in order.

(iii) PalestineRemembered's actual offense in this instance seems to have been a citation error: referencing a primary source that he did not directly consult. While this is not proper form, I have heard anyone suggest that it should necessarily result in community sanctions, let alone in a permanent ban.

(iv) Finally, I have some concerns about the fairness and transparency of this process. The motion against PalestineRemembered was brought forward by someone whose objectivity on matters relating to Israel has sometimes been called into question; I believe a reasonable case could be made that there is at least the appearance of unfairness in the way this matter is being handled. CJCurrie 23:51, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Um, your personal bias against Jayjg is showing, again. It's not as if you've never had issues with Jayjg. And the vast, vast majority who've offered opinions on the ban have had nothing to do with him or the article topics. So, we have broad, neutral support for the ban, and on the other hand we have your objections, and you have a history of personal ax grinding against Jayjg. Don't let your personal issues with Jayjg or anyone interfer with Misplaced Pages's community processes. FeloniousMonk 00:11, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

You're correct to note that I've objected to other decisions made by Jayjg in the past, although I would obviously disagree with your characterization of my last edit as "personal bias" and "ax-grinding".

I recognize that most of the editors who have written in support of a community ban are not themselves connected to PalestineRemembered or the pages he has frequented. It's entirely possible that their objections toward PalestineRemembered are valid, and you may take note of the fact that I have not taken any position on whether or not he should be community banned. Nonetheless, I have concerns about this process, and I fear that some aspects have at least the appearance of unfairness.

You still have the option of responding to the concerns I've raised, if you wish. CJCurrie 00:25, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

CJCurrie, you have a tendency instantly to spring to the defense of anyone Jay takes or requests admin action against, regardless of the issues. SlimVirgin 00:14, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
If "ax-grinding" is going to be taken into account in this way, then it should also be factored into Jay's original complaint. FeloniousMonk, you may think you have consensus, but this process has been fatally tainted by the false and explosive charges that gave rise to it. Your decision will cause much more damage than whatever POV-pushing PR may get up to if he were left unblocked. And as I've said, if he really is so incorrigible, you will by definition have a future opportunity to ban him – in a clean, ethically uncompromised way.--G-Dett 00:25, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Without wishing to cast aspersions at Jayjg, CJCurrie is factually correct to say that Jay's "objectivity on matters relating to Israel has sometimes been called into question"; see Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Log/2007 April 26. During that DRV quite a few users, including well-respected admins such as Fred Bauder and Cyde Weys, alluded to what Cyde described as Jay taking "controversial actions in a subject matter he knows he doesn't have even the remote appearance of being unbiased in." Fairly or otherwise, Jay has acquired a reputation of being (in Calton's words) "a partisan editor". It's unfortunate that Jay has chosen to propose this community sanction himself, as that leaves the door open for his motives to be questioned. It would perhaps have been better to have raised this matter with some unquestionably neutral admin first and for that admin to have proposed the sanction, thus avoiding raising questions about motives. -- ChrisO 00:36, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Just a word: the basic factual detail - the reburial on Mount Herzl - that PR was inserting seems to have been widely known; other than the discussion in the Commons, it seems to have been discussed in the Canadian Senate , by well known terrorism expert Bowyer Bell , and, rather amusingly, is mentioned on the JDL's website . I can't see any particular reason why the citation needed to have been from a primary source. That being said, a violation of citation regulations seems to not be enough for an indefblock. If the user meets the pattern set out in WP:DE for tendentious editing, that evidence should be presented as well if a block is requested. Hornplease 00:38, 14 May 2007 (UTC)



Ban request:Ultra megatron

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Quite evidently the community does not support a ban at this time. Seraphimblade 00:00, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I would like Ultra megatron banned for personal attack for the reason indicated here.

If this request is on the wrong page, or such a request cannot be carried out, please notify me. Thank you. --Defender 911 22:21, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

While not quite WP:CIVIL, I don't see anything there that requires a BLOCK, nowhere near a ban even. SirFozzie 22:27, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
I agree. He's never been blocked and is a productive user. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 22:29, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Yes, this is probably in the wrong place. A ban is only used as a last resort. In this case, I'd probably take this to Wikiquette alerts or RFC. Please read the instructions for RFC however if you take that route. Thanks, Kesac 22:30, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Suggest we archive this - looking the history for Ultra megatron's talk page, I don't see any necessity for further action beyond the sensible comments from ObiterDicta. Addhoc 23:39, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

(side discussion moved to WT:CN.) Navou 17:55, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Proposed community ban on User:Bobby Boulders

User is banned if none of the 848 administrators are willing to unblock. However, relist this discussion if there are any substantial objections to the block or ban. Users are listed here for proposed sanctions or block reviews. Regards, Navou 20:46, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

While on new user/vandal patrol, I noticed someone had created an account named Bobby Boulders is yo momma (talk · contribs). I was about to report it to WP:UAA, but someone beat me to it. I was gonna alert Bobby Boulders (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), only to discover that this new user had been blocked as the latest sockpuppet of this guy. Moreover, looking back at their history, it's one vandalized article after another. Moreover, it seems his entire userspace has been deleted. In my view, when your userspace has been deleted and you haven't been community banned, you damn well should be.Blueboy96 19:59, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

  • The checkusers are sticklers for procedure, and he isn't listed at WP:LOBU. Plus, this guy claims to be the leader of a network of vandals--how many more of them are out there? Blueboy96 20:11, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
I added the indefblock template on his userpage. Wooyi 20:12, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
Next step is to formalize this, since we'd then be able to checkuser him into oblivion. He claims to be the leader of a network of vandals--how many more of them haven't been caught and blocked?Blueboy96 20:15, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
Admins block persistent vandals on-sight, no matter which vandal "network" do you belong. If you belong to a vandal club but don't actually vandalize, there wouldn't be any problem. Wooyi 20:18, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
This is ancient history. — MichaelLinnear 20:22, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm just trying to help you admins out by making it easier to whack this clown ... plus, it would be easier to complain to his ISP once we knew where he was located (according to his Myspace, he's in the UK, but that doesn't do much good). I would hazard to guess that he's violated his ISP's TOS several times over.Blueboy96 20:23, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
It seems like this guy is one of those cases where WP:DENY should be applied. The whole "ISV" thing seems to be about getting attention. — MichaelLinnear 20:26, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
True ... a formal ban would make it easier to WP:RBI. So all in favor of a community ban?Blueboy96 20:28, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
SNOWing a ban discussion is never a good idea, as the situation with Gen. von Klinkerhoffen showed. — MichaelLinnear 20:40, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
Is User:Gen. von Klinkerhoffen banned? Wooyi 20:45, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
He was for a little bit, but he's now on probation. — MichaelLinnear 20:46, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
I have no objection to ban this user, and I don't think anyone would have any objection. Wooyi 20:32, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Looking through the userlist, it seems Bobby Boulders has made at least 20 socks that start with "Bobby Boulders" alone. I would say Bobby Boulders is already de facto banned by the community (see Bobby Boulders 35 (block log)), but might as well make it official (Endorse ban) Kesac 20:38, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

PalestineRemembered again

(Moved from WP:AN/I)

PalestineRemembered (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfa · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · socks confirmedsuspected)

In PalestineRemembered (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)'s brief history on Misplaced Pages he has been blocked for total of four months for a series of egregious personal attacks. Soon after he returned from his most recent one-month block, he started inserting POV material into an article, claiming that he had gotten his material from the "Evening Star of Auckland, July 2, 1975". He continued to revert-war the material into the article over the next three weeks I was rather suspicious that PalestineRemembered, an editor not noted for his research abilities, would somehow have access to an obscure publication printed over 30 years ago, but not know the name or author or page number of the article he was quoting. After doing some investigation, I discovered that PalestineRemembered has never read the Evening Star of Auckland; rather, he has copied his views and references from the Holocaust denial group the Institute for Historical Review: The reason he doesn't give the article title, author, or page number is because the source, Roger Garaudy doesn't. In 1998, a French court found Garaudy guilty of Holocaust denial and racial defamation, fining him FF 120,000 ($40,000) for his 1995 book Mythes fondateurs de la politique israélienne, which the article in question is taken from. Not only is this a violation of WP:CITE#Say_where_you_got_it, but passing off Holocaust denial material as your own research, and trying to insert it into articles, after PalestineRemembered's long history of tendentious editing and blocks is, in my view, the last straw. I am proposing a permanent block at this point. Jayjg 17:17, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Definately support permablock, I actually had a weird email off him a couple of weeks ago basically saying that all western admins were POV pushers and asked my to join his crusade to stop this (I declined and tried to explain things - obviously to no avail). I think he's lost out patience. Ryan Postlethwaite 17:22, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Support. There's a limit to how much of this the community should have to put up with. FeloniousMonk 17:23, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
Might want to bring it up over at WP:CN? Although it looks like this is pretty open and shut.. SirFozzie 17:35, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

The nature of the material added is irrelevant. We should evaluate this as we would for any editor doing this with any POV and must not block based on the POV in question being more repugnant. That said, this editor has been repeatedly abusive and POV pushing and looking through the user's contributions list, I see only a handful of genuinely productive edits. Deliberate lying about the nature of a source is the last straw. I agree with Fozzie that this may not be the appropriate location to discuss this. JoshuaZ 17:40, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Exactly JoshuaZ: also please note that on Misplaced Pages talk:Single-purpose account PalestineRemembered self identifies as an SPA. ⇒ SWATJester 17:44, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

If the source I've used for "killers of Lord Moyne in 1944" re-buried at Mt Herzl in 1975 is untrue, then the project has my apologies. I've never been challenged on it, here or elsewhere. I've attempted always to be careful about my sources, many of which come from books in my possession. PalestineRemembered 18:54, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
I am not following. Per WP:CITE#Say_where_you_got_it, you must specify the source you actually read. So which source did you specifically read here? Crum375 19:01, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I suggest that someone just block this fellow indefinitely if he's back to his old tricks. Jayjg blocked him for a month in March and if that isn't a last chance I don't know what is. He's about as banned as you can get. That it's a self-declared single purpose account is worrying, and if the owner of the account can be found and verified we should probably closedly examine his other edits. --Tony Sidaway 18:57, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Ok, then I'd like to perhaps see a Request for comment before having the mob ban him. Here is a link to the page it would go on. —— Eagle101 18:58, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Based on the long history of misbehavior and the recent evidence of fraudulent citations, I've indefinitely blocked this editor. Neither academic fraud nor chronic incivility are things we should be prepared to tolerate. Seraphimblade 19:03, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
Wait, this user has a barnstar in his userpage, means he's a pretty decent editor. And what's the fraud? I'm not defending him, just want to know what happened. Wooyi 19:11, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I would like to see Jay's evidence provided in detail. Note that the entry for Walter Guinness in the French edition of Misplaced Pages has this same citation. And note that this citation circulates online on sites other than the IHR (for example see this usenet thread). From the online evidence (books are another thing entirely) the original source in every case does appear to be Roger Garaudy, but I for example learned who Garaudy was three minutes ago, and have no reason to believe his name meant more to PalestineRemembered than it did to me – that is to say, if this was even his first- or second- or third- or fourth-hand source. Jay has shown us nothing, and I find this collective rush to judgment extraordinary.--G-Dett 19:14, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Support ban, particularly after the fraudulent use of material. SlimVirgin 19:15, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Has anyone even bothered to investigate the reporter
    • I do suggest unblocking, this ban does not have universal support, or anything close to it. —— Eagle101 19:20, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
      • After a bit of digging I'm not so sure about unblocking, as the reporter does seem to be ok (does have quite a long block log, but its all very old stuff). I am going to note that with the speed that this happened, this could have taken place at WP:AN or WP:ANI with the same result. —— Eagle101 19:28, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
        • Per your objection I've reversed it, but I had a pretty good look through this guy's contribs, and I don't see a single reason to think a change in behavior will be forthcoming. But if you think a longer discussion is necessary, we'll do that. Seraphimblade 19:32, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
        • The blocks in question aren't "old stuff". He's been an editor for 7 months, and blocked for a total of 4 months of those 7. He just got back from his most recent block a month ago. Jayjg 20:28, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
  • PalestineRemembered gives his source here: Bitter Harvest: a Modern History of Palestine, by Sami Hadawi, p.59 . I'll verify the reference at my university library tomorrow morning, not that any good reason to doubt it was ever offered in this extraordinary episode of near-lynching.--G-Dett 19:51, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I've been finding weirdo remarks, POV-pushing, and downright lying from this editor for months now. He is one of my "featured accusers" on my user page. PalestineRemembered has been criticized as a single-purpose account, but it is not to further the Palestinian cause or even to educate others about it. It is to denegrate and demonize Israel, often with underhanded techniques. PalestineRemembered has accused Israelis of being "proud ... of their murderous racism," being " lot nastier and more dangerous than anything we've seen since 1945 ," and being unreliable. --GHcool 20:06, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

    • The only Lynching going on is Eagle and Tony's continuing crusade against CN. "This could have been handled by ANI." "Don't Vote" (funny, the "support" vote actually came from ANI, not from when it was here on CN). At this point, it's probably obvious to all that Eagle and Tony are not working towards making CN a useful noteboard (which was their stated goal), they want CN eliminated and it folded back into AN/ANI and if it was anyone else, I would say they are actively sabotaging the board. SirFozzie 20:10, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
      • I can't comment on the civility and behavior issues, having only crossed paths with PR a couple of times (the first of which – full disclosure – was when he left fan mail at my user page). I do know that serious charges were leveled here – that PR had "copied" Holocaust-denial materials into Misplaced Pages, making "fraudulent use" of them and misrepresenting his research, etc. These charges were asserted as conclusive but accompanied by no evidence whatsoever, and yet were enthusiastically taken up as sufficient grounds for banning the user. The charges now appear to have been not only unsubstantiated but entirely false. If "weirdo remarks" were the issue here, then "weirdo remarks" should have been discussed – rather than spurious charges. PR's editing past may be everything that you suggest it is, but with regards to the present episode, it isn't PalestineRemembered who should be doing the apologizing. --G-Dett 20:23, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
        • Actually, the charges were accompanied by evidence, and they appear to be as true as ever. He's now claiming that he misrepresented a different source, which I suppose is possible, but only if his new source was copying Garaudy as well. Jayjg 20:28, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
          • You provided no evidence, let that be clear. If you think you have evidence of any kind that PR "misrepresented" his source, give it. Otherwise, be a mensch and apologize, even if you despise the editor you've wronged.--G-Dett 20:32, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
                • He's admitted it himself!! He now claims he got it from some other source, but he's admitted that he didn't get it from the Auckland newspaper. And do you really think that Auckland newspaper referred to these Israelis as "terrorist assassins"? I don't have any particular feelings about PalestineRemembered, other than I don't think he has added anything of value to Misplaced Pages during his turbulent time here, nor, based on his statements and actions, do I think he will be able to. Now be a mensch and apologize, even if you despise the editor you've wronged. Jayjg 20:46, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
            • As I said, when I reviewed the contrib history, I see a lot of issues. Have a good look here: ownership and effectively stating that editors of a certain nationality should be forbidden to edit an article: , divides along nationalistic boundaries again , referrals to "apartheid" in terms of Israel .
            • Now, let's go to the edit in question, here. If PR can show that an Auckland newspaper actually called the people in question "terrorist assassins"...well, I'll eat my monitor. But regardless of that, I've not once so far seen such things end well. And a serious comment that those of a certain nationality should be barred from editing a certain article is just...beyond it, especially after previous warnings and blocks. Seraphimblade 20:41, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Whether the source was Garaudy or elsewhere is irrelevant. What is relevant is that he didn't get it from the claimed source. This is an unacceptable deception about where the user got the source from. The user cited something he had not looked at. The user has a long history of problematic editing and issues. Enough already. JoshuaZ 20:40, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Support indefblock as per evidence provided. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:49, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
    • If the Holocaust-denier business wasn't germane to your case, Jay, then you shouldn't have emphasized it in your opening remarks against PR. If the real issue was merely the distinction between citing an original source vs. citing where you found it, then it was irresponsible of you to bring in something so prejudicial, especially when your conclusions appear to have consisted of nothing but speculation. If you seriously intend to pursue the citation protocol issue, then as a minimal show of good faith you ought to be forthrightly clearing the air of the spurious guilt-by-association with which these proceedings were initiated. Regarding the citation issue, Jay, Joshua, Jossi, are you all now telling me that pulling a Dershowitz is a ban-worthy offense?--G-Dett 21:01, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I support a community ban. Fraudulent citation is far more corrosive than vandalism, incivility or almost anything else which we sanction around here. Simply, nothing this user adds can be trusted.Proabivouac 21:16, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Here's how Jay presented his case initially:

I was rather suspicious that PalestineRemembered, an editor not noted for his research abilities, would somehow have access to an obscure publication printed over 30 years ago, but not know the name or author or page number of the article he was quoting. After doing some investigation, I discovered that PalestineRemembered has never read the Evening Star of Auckland; rather, he has copied his views and references from the Holocaust denial group the Institute for Historical Review: The reason he doesn't give the article title, author, or page number is because the source, Roger Garaudy doesn't. In 1998, a French court found Garaudy guilty of Holocaust denial and racial defamation, fining him FF 120,000 ($40,000) for his 1995 book Mythes fondateurs de la politique israélienne, which the article in question is taken from. Not only is this a violation of WP:CITE#Say_where_you_got_it, but passing off Holocaust denial material as your own research, and trying to insert it into articles, after PalestineRemembered's long history of tendentious editing and blocks is, in my view, the last straw. I am proposing a permanent block at this point.

Here's how he ought to have presented his case, if indeed "whether the source was Garaudy or elsewhere is irrelevant," as he now maintains:

I was rather suspicious that PalestineRemembered, an editor not noted for his research abilities, would somehow have access to an obscure publication printed over 30 years ago, but not know the name or author or page number of the article he was quoting. I suspect that he has taken it from some other source that in turn quotes the Auckland paper. If so, this is a violation of WP:CITE#Say_where_you_got_it, and after PalestineRemembered's long history of tendentious editing and blocks, this is in my view the last straw. I am proposing a permanent block at this point.

Would this case – which is all that's left now – have been taken up with such alacrity? I think not.--G-Dett 21:19, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

  • mmm ok, let me ask this, if this user is willing to listen to concerns in a request for comment, and more importantly learn from that request for comment, I'd suggest giving him that chance. if he is not willing, then I guess a ban will have to do. :S —— Eagle101 21:20, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Support permablock, per exhaustive evidence above. Smee 21:23, 13 May 2007 (UTC).
  • Is there precedent for banning a user on WP:CITE#Say_where_you_got_it grounds?--G-Dett 21:41, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
    • As I recall, actually, such an issue has arisen before. But the issue here goes far beyond "say where you got it" (though misrepresentation of what source material came from is an issue, and should be taken seriously). I already posted some additional issues above. But I am absolutely in support of taking decisive action against those who misrepresent a source or claim one supports their view when it does not, and from the user's block log, this doesn't look to be the first instance of problems. Seraphimblade 21:46, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
      • Let me ask before we ban a user from editing wikipedia ever again, does anyone think a request for comment might help? That would allow him/her to learn from this, and perhaps be a useful contributor. —— Eagle101 21:54, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
        • What do you think would be learned from an RfC, that wouldn't have been learned through repeatedly being warned, blocked, etc.? Honestly, I've never seen anyone who's already had repeated problems with something, and been repeatedly told to stop, turn around after an RfC and say "OH! I really was in the wrong all along!" Every time I've seen, it drags out the inevitable. If the editor were going to realize he's wrong, and turn about and apologize, wouldn't you think a strong showing that quite a few people have had quite enough at this discussion would inspire that? Seraphimblade 22:00, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Question: Did PalestineRemembered affirm that he had taken the material directly from that source, or did he only copy the citation? That would seem to make a difference. Mackan79 21:56, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

      • Thanks for your thoughtful response, Seraphimblade. As I've said, I don't know PR's editing past. Given, however, that the explosive charge which initiated this discussion – that PR is getting material from Holocaust denial sites and loading it into Misplaced Pages – has proven to be unfounded, wouldn't it make sense to table abort this discussion for now, and revisit it in a week or two (if necessary), when the spurious cloud of guilt-by-association has evaporated? If PR is such an incorrigible editor (and he may well be, for all I know), then he will certainly provide you, in due course, with a fresh occasion to consider permanently banning him. The advantage of waiting for such an occasion is that the process – and any decision it produces – will not be tainted by irresponsible and totally unfounded accusations, the way this one irrevocably has been.--G-Dett 22:02, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
        • Well, given that Eagle did object earlier, he is unblocked now. I still do myself feel that the block was warranted at this point, regardless of whether or not Jayjg was exactly correct. (I hope you don't think I would block someone without actually bothering to go and look at their contrib history, just on taking someone's word for it!) However, if there is still disagreement, it should be discussed further. Seraphimblade 22:36, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
          • Both your block and your unblock strike me as considered decisions; I haven't and won't second-guess them. What I'm suggesting ought to be tabled aborted for the time being is this discussion of a permanent ban. Any decision to ban issuing from a discussion that began with a false and incendiary charge about Holocaust denial will be tainted, and will have a far more corrosive effect on the community than giving an allegedly disruptive editor another chance.--G-Dett 22:46, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
I support G-Dett's sugestion, and would like to thank her for her considered, carefully-argued and courteous contributions here. I agree entirely with her characterisations of Jayig's accusation as "false and incendiary". (Incidentally, it is worth noting that in British English "to be tabled" means the exact opposite of what is intended here - best to avoid it in this type of discussion, tho' it's actually quite clear in this case.)
--NSH001 23:17, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Not sure I was clear earlier but: Support permablock. PR is a self-avowed single purpose account for the purpose of pushing POV. Should be blocked solely on that. ⇒ SWATJester 22:31, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Err... wait a minute, where is it said that its a single purpose account? Link to evidence please? —— Eagle101 22:33, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
That is actually correct: Seraphimblade 22:37, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I think there are two issues here. On the question of incivility and POV-pushing, I agree that this appears to be a real problem. I had an odd unsolicited e-mail from PalestineRemembered about problems with "the Zionists" on Misplaced Pages, and the evidence does seem to indicate difficulties in working constructively with other users. I'm not so sure about the claim of falsely attributing sources; see his comments at . The explanation given is reasonable, and I see no reason to assume that the information in question came from the IHR rather than another source (the IHR didn't originate the cited newspaper article, after all). The basic premise of Jayjg's initial post in this thread appears to be faulty; I suggest that editors should focus on the problem of incivility and POV-pushing, and whether that merits a ban. Personally I believe a RfC would be more appropriate at this stage as the last step before either an arbitration or a community ban. -- ChrisO 23:09, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Agree with ChrisO. I've followed the various links here and agree that there are civility issues, chip-on-the-shoulder issues, etc. As far as POV-pushing goes, though he's done his share PR is not a stand-out on Israel-Palestine related pages. The say-where-you-got-it infraction looks very minor indeed. A scholarly citation from Sami Hadawi, after all, carries much greater weight in Misplaced Pages than primary-source material from an Auckland newspaper. Why he cited to the latter rather than the former is anyone's guess, but it doesn't look to me in the slightest bit like dishonesty, POV-pushing, or "fraud" (as the more breathless here would have it). It looks like a silly mistake. Correct it, direct PR to WP:CITE#Say_where_you_got_it, fix any POV-phrasing issues, and get on with the hurly-burly of Israel-Palestine editing – that's how this should have been handled. PR may be banned yet from Misplaced Pages, but it won't be for jay-walking, not if I can help it.--G-Dett 23:29, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I've issued an indef block based on the broad consensus here for it. FeloniousMonk 23:47, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I believe this decision was premature, at minimum. CJCurrie 23:56, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
Absolutely, there is no consensus here for an immediate ban, Jayig's initial accusation has been shown to be false, and from what I've seen of PR's edits, yes there are problems, but they are nowhere near as bad as has been made out, and in any case that is not the issue here. PR has been appallingly badly treated here, and I hope someone will promptly reverse the ban.
--NSH001 00:23, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Good lord, what a mess. I think there are several different issues that need to be addressed here.

(i) I have some familiarity with User:PalestineRemembered's editing history. When he first turned up on Misplaced Pages, he struck me as a skilled writer and researcher who didn't quite grasp the nature of the project. Events since then have done little to change my opinion.

It's sadly true that his editing style has often been problematic: he has made several edits in a very polemical style, and has violated the principles of NPOV on several occasions. He has been sanctioned for his errors more than once, and seems to have taken some steps to improve his behaviour -- although whether or not these steps have been sufficient is obviously a matter of some dispute. It's entirely possible that his posting habits have tried the patience of other contributors beyond a reasonable limit.

This, however, is not what the current discussion is about.

(ii) As has already been noted, the "explosive charge" that PalestineRemembered copied information from a Holocaust denial site has been shown to be unfounded. PalestineRemembered has indicated that his actual source was a book released in 1975, and I cannot see any reason to doubt him on this front.

I am familiar with Roger Garaudy, and I suspect that PalestineRemembered is as well. However, I have seen no evidence that Garaudy was his "real" source, nor that he was even aware of Garaudy's citation of the same material. The most likely explanation for the coincidence of events that started this controversy is that Garaudy used the same 1975 book for his website.

I consider User:Jayjg's original accusation against PalestineRemembered ("passing off Holocaust denial material as your own research") to have been both reckless and irresponsible, and I believe that an apology is in order.

(iii) PalestineRemembered's actual offense in this instance seems to have been a citation error: referencing a primary source that he did not directly consult. While this is not proper form, I have heard anyone suggest that it should necessarily result in community sanctions, let alone in a permanent ban.

(iv) Finally, I have some concerns about the fairness and transparency of this process. The motion against PalestineRemembered was brought forward by someone whose objectivity on matters relating to Israel has sometimes been called into question; I believe a reasonable case could be made that there is at least the appearance of unfairness in the way this matter is being handled. CJCurrie 23:51, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Um, your personal bias against Jayjg is showing, again. It's not as if you've never had issues with Jayjg. And the vast, vast majority who've offered opinions on the ban have had nothing to do with him or the article topics. So, we have broad, neutral support for the ban, and on the other hand we have your objections, and you have a history of personal ax grinding against Jayjg. Don't let your personal issues with Jayjg or anyone interfer with Misplaced Pages's community processes. FeloniousMonk 00:11, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

You're correct to note that I've objected to other decisions made by Jayjg in the past, although I would obviously disagree with your characterization of my last edit as "personal bias" and "ax-grinding".

I recognize that most of the editors who have written in support of a community ban are not themselves connected to PalestineRemembered or the pages he has frequented. It's entirely possible that their objections toward PalestineRemembered are valid, and you may take note of the fact that I have not taken any position on whether or not he should be community banned. Nonetheless, I have concerns about this process, and I fear that some aspects have at least the appearance of unfairness.

You still have the option of responding to the concerns I've raised, if you wish. CJCurrie 00:25, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

CJCurrie, you have a tendency instantly to spring to the defense of anyone Jay takes or requests admin action against, regardless of the issues. SlimVirgin 00:14, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
If "ax-grinding" is going to be taken into account in this way, then it should also be factored into Jay's original complaint. FeloniousMonk, you may think you have consensus, but this process has been fatally tainted by the false and explosive charges that gave rise to it. Your decision will cause much more damage than whatever POV-pushing PR may get up to if he were left unblocked. And as I've said, if he really is so incorrigible, you will by definition have a future opportunity to ban him – in a clean, ethically uncompromised way.--G-Dett 00:25, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Without wishing to cast aspersions at Jayjg, CJCurrie is factually correct to say that Jay's "objectivity on matters relating to Israel has sometimes been called into question"; see Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Log/2007 April 26. During that DRV quite a few users, including well-respected admins such as Fred Bauder and Cyde Weys, alluded to what Cyde described as Jay taking "controversial actions in a subject matter he knows he doesn't have even the remote appearance of being unbiased in." Fairly or otherwise, Jay has acquired a reputation of being (in Calton's words) "a partisan editor". It's unfortunate that Jay has chosen to propose this community sanction himself, as that leaves the door open for his motives to be questioned. It would perhaps have been better to have raised this matter with some unquestionably neutral admin first and for that admin to have proposed the sanction, thus avoiding raising questions about motives. -- ChrisO 00:36, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Just a word: the basic factual detail - the reburial on Mount Herzl - that PR was inserting seems to have been widely known; other than the discussion in the Commons, it seems to have been discussed in the Canadian Senate , by well known terrorism expert Bowyer Bell , and, rather amusingly, is mentioned on the JDL's website . I can't see any particular reason why the citation needed to have been from a primary source. That being said, a violation of citation regulations seems to not be enough for an indefblock. If the user meets the pattern set out in WP:DE for tendentious editing, that evidence should be presented as well if a block is requested. Hornplease 00:38, 14 May 2007 (UTC)