Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 02:02, 27 May 2008

Archive1, Archive2, Archive3, Oct 2007, Nov 2007, Dec 2007, Feb 2008, Apr 2008, May 2008, Jun 2008, Jul 2008,

Re: Damaged RfC

That's completely not relevant. Haaretz may choose to review one book or the other, that doesn't even assert the notability of the book itself. Much less of Shlomo Sand or the material that he presents. Interestingly, the review also states that Sand is an expert on 20th Century history, and not on 2000-year-old history. Also, while I don't really know about Haaretz, in Ynet for example, reviews like this are generally user-submitted (this one likely is as well), so it's kind of like citing Misplaced Pages. But again, even if 100% of the Haaretz article is correct, it still has no shred of an assertion of notability for Sand or the other unnamed professors (I'd honestly like to know who they are - please find another source). -- Ynhockey 18:29, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Re: Need guidance please on questioning

In my view, there's a distinction between asking about actions (e.g. "Did you send these emails?" or "Did you recruit meatpuppets?") and asking about allegiance (e.g. "Are you now or were you ever a member of group X?"), and it's the latter mode of questioning that I'm particularly concerned about (and which Hypnosadist was engaged in).

Mere membership in some outside group is not, generally speaking, a violation of Misplaced Pages policy unless one actually does something. I don't think it's a good idea to countenance people demanding answers to such queries. Kirill 01:39, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

New Antisemitism Mediation

I think thats its time we got moving. A couple of the points have been raised before and felt they were the foundations to the dispute:

• Firstly whether the picture can be confirmed to have been taken in the rally in San Fransisco.
• Secondly to come to an agreement on what new antisemitism is and then to decide what the image is depicting and whether it purely illustrates New Antisemitism or whether it also addresses other issues which could be confused with new antisemitism by new readers.
• If we cant confirm the those then we need to find a viable alternative.

A point i would like to raise is that at some point a lead image might need to be found if this article got to FA. The image in question is not free and couldn't be put on the main page with this article as todays FA. Although not an immediate point a long term solution might wish to be found so that this article could feature on the main page with a viable alternative.

Does anyone have access to Lexis Nexis? It might help as a search on the network could uncover something not readily available on the internet. Reliable sources that use the image would be helpful. Do you reckon that there would anyway of finding third party images that might possibly contain the poster/placard? Also i would be grateful if images of other placards at that rally could be found to find whether this was a small minority at this rally or perhaps a larger group.

Whilst that is being done i wanted to find out on what the consensus view is on what New Antisemitism is? I have read the article and the previous discussion and attempted to get a proper understanding but i wanted to ensure that this was current.

PS any sources you find can you please post in the section at the top of the mediation talk page. Seddon69 (talk) 19:52, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Evidence on C68-FM-SV

Regarding Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/C68-FM-SV/Evidence#Need_more_personal_integrity_from_admins, I have restored FT2s request, and I have replied here User_talk:FT2#Need_more_personal_integrity_from_admins

In short, provide diffs, or your Evidence section will be removed. John Vandenberg 01:37, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I have removed your section, as that page is not a place for people to leave opinions. You are more than welcome to add evidence to that page, but you must accompany any assertions with diffs. This is not a whitewashing; anyone can submit evidence, and if they feel too intimidated to be able to comfortable post the evidence on-wiki, they can submit it via email to the arbitration committee. John Vandenberg 03:36, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

This is the evidence deemed inadequate and removed

• This case, more than most, concerns personal integrity. I know people are under pressure, I know they have real trolls to deal with, but what we're seeing from some quarters is not good enough.
• Questions swirl around SlimVirgin in this respect - as they've done for a long time. Internal and external observers must be surprised she remains an administrator.
• Similarly, experience suggests serious concerns about Felonious Monk. His one-month opening block on me was collusive and disproportionate - not to say partisan and perverse. Look carefully at the timings, the way "my "critics" arrived very quickly whereas "my supporters" only much later after the deed was done. I'd not been around long enough to even recognize "my defenders", let alone have formed alliances against this sectarian assassination. Watch how "my defenders" are treated - this was a rail-roading with community involvement stamped upon. It is not open-editing recognizable to fair-minded people. PR 12:48, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

PS - this removal is in keeping with the policy at ArbCom deliberations where favored admins have even been removed from consideration and potential sanction, and anyone attempting to re-introduce consideration of these people threatened with sanctions. (If I can find the diff). In that case and this one, the admins in question involve themselves heavily in the Israel-Palestine topic with a strongly pro-Israel leaning. There are no admins openly operating an open pro-Palestinian leaning - in at least one case, the ArbCom sided with an editor later proved to be a cheat when he set on and drove off an administrator suspected of pro-Palestinian leanings.

Another concern at this ArbCom must be the name it's been given, apparently concealing the identities of the accused. PR 08:30, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I take extreme offense at the way you have interpreted this. I removed your section only because you didnt provide any diffs, which is the primary requirement. The evidence page is for Evidence; not opinions.! I have no opinion regarding the case; I am a clerk. My role is to ensure that the Evidence page is full of good quality evidence. I have also been giving Dtobias a hard time, but thankfully he has started to flesh out this evidence section with links. On the other hand, you removed large chucks of your own evidence section, which made it even less like evidence, so I removed it. I encourage you to read up on how Evidence is usually submitted, and to provide good quality evidence. Only poorly composed evidence will be disregarded. If you want your evidence to stick, write good quality evidence. The onus is on you! If you write good evidence, with diffs to underpin your assertions, I will ensure it is not tampered with.

I understand your concerns regarding the naming of the case; another user had similar concerns. See Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for arbitration/C68-FM-SV/Workshop for more details - the naming was arbitary. Please AGF. John Vandenberg 09:20, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Having been extensively reviled at numerous vindictive (and sometimes fraudulent) disciplinaries notable for their almost total lack of evidence, I find it extraordinary that the statement "His one-month opening block on me was collusive and disproportionate - not to say partisan and perverse. Look carefully at the timings etc" is considered inadequate.

The analysis of my evidence would read something like this, but it's better (and less space-consuming in the Evidence page) if people work it out for themselves: "The block on me was apparently decided by User:FeloniousMonk, (the subject of this new ArbCom) in just 9 minutes from the first report. There was a further pile-on of highly partisan editors wanting me drummed from the project in the next few hours. It took 24 hours before anyone concerned enough to protest arrived - and their protest (and another one later) was slapped down with prejudice."

I am confident that the ArbCom is fully capable of accepting or rejecting the point I'm making (ie that FM is guilty of rail-roading), and are probably grateful that I kept my comments as brief as I could. It is less clear that I'm being fair to SlimVirgin, but her name is bound to be prominent in any discussion about the personal integrity of WP admins, for reasons nobody wants me to spell out. When I've been targeted by non-AGF the whole of my time here, and suffered such an enormous amount of trouble for fights set up by others (details if anyone wants them) it is bizarre indeed that suspected POV cheats get this heavy duty protection, with brief, proven and relevant evidence such as mine either heavily discouraged or actively removed.

However, if you are simply clerking this case in a new and pro-active fashion, then some of my objections are greatly mollified. And I've been shocked in the past by an absurd lack of evidence, including outright smears the perpetrators must have known were false (I can think of at least one concerning people in this case), so if you're really tightening up then you have my whole-hearted support. PR 11:05, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I clerk each case a bit differently; in some I let poor quality evidence in, especially when it is from the parties themselves, and the parties are not regular contributors to Misplaced Pages. In this case, because I expect that the case will be quite large, I am trying to ensure that all the evidence is well presented. If you dont have the time to present quality evidence, I assume that someone else will. I did not ask you to remove your evidence; I asked you to flesh it out and add diffs, otherwise I would remove it. You choose to not improve your evidence; you choose to remove parts of your evidence. By all means, please continue to draft your evidence, adding lots of diffs, and then add it again when it is ready. John Vandenberg 12:18, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Thankyou. I will have to see what specific evidence I can bring. It might consist of cases where people in this ArbCom have joyfully resorted to smear with no evidence whatsoever - or even been in denial of cast-iron evidence that they had to have been aware of. As I keep saying, it's personal integrity that is the biggest problem in this case. I'm disturbed that you've removed this quite significant discussion from your own page - any border-line personal attack was certainly not intended. PR 14:36, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Blocked

I'm sorry PR, but I've blocked you for 72 hours because you've continued to add sources into articles that are not reliabel, despte being told quite clearly that they weren't (here is the edit). You know full well that you shouldn't be using these kinds of sources to push your POV in an article and I expect you not to do this again when you return from your block. Ryan Postlethwaite 21:14, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

So when are we going to start blocking the editors who insist on citing Israel: Myths and Facts, Zionism On the Web, the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs, etc etc? Or does WP:RS only apply to anti-Zionists? <eleland/talkedits> 02:02, 27 May 2008 (UTC)