Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:51, 11 February 2012

Theodore Bikel

This is just an informal FYI, rather than a noticeboard filing. Two IPs have replaced "Israel" with "Palestine", which I have reverted, citing the source which uses "Israel". I noted that such edits may fall under the scope of the Arab-Israeli Conflict Arbitration ruling, and provided links to the ruling using the associated templates.

An outside review of my edits wouldn't hurt. (I trust that this is a quickly resolved issue.)

BTW, Theodore Bikel played the Russian-born father of the Klingon Worf on Star Trek: The Next Generation.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 17:54, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't know why you needed to post this here instead of the article talk page, but I have reverted to "Palestine" as the source is clearly in error - Israel did not exist until 1948 - although the source itself does mention that the family "migrated to Palestine". Gatoclass (talk) 07:56, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Two IPs changed "Israel" to "Palestine", the first giving a contrary-to-policy motivation in the edit-summary and the other no edit-summary. Reverting two bad edits on Palestine-Israel promoted my asking for second opinions or guidance.

Thanks for your edits, which caught the use of "Palestine" that I had missed. I updated and expanded the account.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 21:02, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

"Professionalism"

Regarding the Muhammad images case: I have no issue with the substance of the decision, but I would like to gently urge future drafters to avoid casting principles or findings in terms of "professionalism". Misplaced Pages editors are unpaid volunteers, not professionals. Looie496 (talk) 20:51, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

That doesn't mean that we shouldn't behave as you would in a professional environment, (or, for a non-professional example, how you'd behave at a party when chatting up a pretty girl you hadn't met before), rather than how you would down the pub with your mates. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:53, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Also unpaid volunteers act like professionals, all the time, that's basically what makes volunteer organizations work, at all.Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:16, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

There's a long discussion on the usage of this word on the proposed decision talkpage. My own view was, and is, that there was nothing wrong with this wording. Those interested should also read User:Kirill Lokshin/Professionalism, an essay by the senior member of the Arbitration Committee. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:16, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Link to section. The nutshell explanation is that unprofessional basically meant uncivil (or at least uncollegial or unbusinesslike demeanor/attitude) in the context used in this decision. This is a valid, dictionary meaning of "unprofessional", although there are others. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 00:49, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Oddly enough, this choice of wording by ArbCom has convinced a long term contributor, GiacomoReturned, to retire . ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 10:51, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Anti-Semitism in 9/11 conspiracy theories

This topic ban is overly broad. Why not just make it about this one article or about 9/11 conspiracy theories broadly construed (as opposed to 9/11 broadly construed)? Nobody has alleged or presented any evidence of issues beyond this single article (let alone beyond 9/11 conspiracy theories). A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 07:44, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

A general topic ban is the default. There is no reason to depart from it here. The seriousness of the violations -- occurring on a core article within the area of conflict -- gives no reason to believe that the editor concerned is capable of editing neutrally within the topic area. I won't be commenting further other than if the editor concerned lodges an appeal. --Mkativerata (talk) 08:09, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

That's your prerogative if don't want to respond, but there's no doubt the claim that 4,000 Jews stayed home from work on 9/11 is anti-Semitic:

• JTA: 10 years on, anti-Semitic conspiracy theories about 9/11 persist
• BBC: Were Jews forewarned about the attacks?

If you don't like news articles, here's Among the Truthers by Jonathan Kay published by Harpers:

Here's a peer-reviewed academic journal.

A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:34, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Mkativerata...the editor is well known for being meek...I've edited with Tom harrison for many years...his comments on the arbcom enforcement issue are about as much as he will ask...the man isn't going to beg you...but an INDEFINITE BAN is extremely excessive force.--MONGO 01:39, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Both the broad scope and the indefinite duration appear to be inappropriate. Tom's edits in my opinion were synthetic and polemical, and pushed the sources too far: that was poor judgment. However, the article gives short shrift to the anti-Semitic conspiracy theories that dominated in the period 2001-2003, until the Iraq War gave conspiracy theorists a broader canvas on which to speculate. That should be corrected, just not as boldly. The comments on the Dummies book are troubling: while I wouldn't have chosen it as a source because the title makes it too easy to disparage and because their writing style isn't particularly academic, I'm not aware of any concerns about their factual reliability. The characterization of Among the Truthers as a "hit piece" is a similarly casual and simplistic dismissal. Tom was out of line, but the sanctions are disproportionate: indefinite sanctions have previously been imposed for long-term intentionally disruptive behavior, sockpuppetry or hit-and-run disruption. Acroterion (talk) 03:21, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Acroterion, you seem to confuse 'indefinite' with 'permanent' in your comments about the severity of the sanction. An indefinite ban was imposed here because of the nature of the violations (unlike, say, edit-warring, which usually gets you short, then escalating, sanctions). The indefinite ban might last weeks, months or years. All will depend on, as I said in the AE thread, Tom harrison's demonstrated ability to comply with NPOV in other areas. The indefinite ban is therefore in a sense less grave than a fixed-term ban, because its length is largely in the hands of Tom. He's already started that process well: editing away quietly in other areas. No-one's interested in locking him out of the topic area for any longer than is necessary. But the violations were just so severe that he had to be removed from the topic area pending evidence that he is ready to return.--Mkativerata (talk) 05:28, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm well aware of the elastic nature of "indefinite", having issued similar explanations in other circumstances, and I appreciate the clarification and the evidence that you're following up. That is my chief concern, that you and others maintain an ongoing watch on the issue, and that it not become a de facto permanent ban on a broad scale. As evidenced by his notes to you, you will need to retain initiative for future removal or adjustment of the sanctions. Acroterion (talk) 13:47, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

You're WP:INVOLVED....as shown here...You're biased as to the nature of these edits and unfit to render an impartial assessment on this matter. Since you have admitted bias on things related to Jewish issues such as the PIA, you should never be issuing bans or blocks to anyone in this subject matterMONGO 12:13, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

No reason to believe?

@Mkativerata: I know you said that you weren't going to comment further, and that's fine, but you can at least read this. You said that you have "no reason to believe that the editor concerned is capable of editing neutrally within the topic area."

Then consider this. At the main September 11 attacks, there was a long-standing content dispute over if and how conspiracy theories should be mentioned in the article. The debate was contentious and polarized. But one editor proposed a possible solution. It took 2 months of hard-work and consensus building to finally hammer out the wording, but in the end, a solution was reached that was acceptable to all.

You may be interested in learning the name of that editor who started the ball moving and was instrumental in building that consensus which resolved the content dispute:

Talk:September_11_attacks/Archive_57#Proposed_wording

A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 04:14, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Wait a second. Mkativerata's user page says that they're involved in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and that they won't use their admin tools. How is Islamic terrorists attacking the US because of US support of Israel in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict not part of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:45, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

It's a pretty egregious COI...there are all sorts of claims that Tom harrison wasn't editing neutrally, yet in this same subject matter the primary topic banning admin has stated they have a COI and are INVOLVED...furthermore The Devils Advocate himself was under a 30 topic ban in this topic and Tom harrison commented at that request for arbcom enforcement against The Devils Advocate...so The Devils Advocate used this forum for retribution.MONGO 17:15, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I concur with both of MONGO's statements - both parties that supported a ban are clearly COI, Tom's support of a topic ban for DA and by the blocking admin's clear admission of bias on Jewish-Palestinian issues. Further, it can be solidly established that Tom is one of the most productive editors on the 9/11 series of articles, and the edits he made were not worthy of an indefinite ban. Toa Nidhiki05 20:36, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Toa and Mongo, please stop going to several different admins and several different places to push for sanctions against me or accusing me of filing the request against Tom in bad faith. I was just as taken aback by the edits Tom made as other users, maybe moreso, and it was the insistence on inserting on such material that caused me to file the report, because I felt that was just one transgression I shouldn't let slide. I am surprised by the indef, but I think Mkat's suggestion for Tom is appropriate. Should Tom file an appeal consistent with what Mkat said I would be happy to support him returning to the topic area 30 days from now. If you want to raise issues about my conduct then you can file an AE request.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 22:15, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

The blocking admin resigned and retired. AQFK retired. Tom is topic banned indefinitely. Are you happy, DA? You drove away two editors and got another banned for an indefinite period of time; I don't think that is something to be proud of.

As for what you accused me and MONGO of, I can't speak for him but prove me wrong. Based on previous actions by you and bans, I have no doubt Tom's support of your topic ban came into play in you're judgement. Toa Nidhiki05 02:56, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

The admins did an indefinite ban on Tom Harrison which would force him to seek clemency by way of the admins who acted here, or via a direct appeal to arbcom enforcement. Wgfinley did a 30 day ban on The Devils Advocate in this topic area which meant all that was needed there was to wait out the 30 days...yet they're wikilawyering how "indefinite" could be 30 days, even though it has been stated that there is, "no reason to believe that the editor concerned (Harrison) is capable of editing neutrally within the topic area"...if the admins working on these boards are going to be so polemic in how they administer justice, then they should all be topic banned from this particular arena. It's rather preposterous to think that Tom Harrison, an editor with a 7 years of contributions history to 9/11 topics, is going to bother to appeal this matter when the acting administrators have provided the chilling effect that ensures the POV pushers and troublesome linger on, while the ones that have a long history of exemplary dedication are banned. Maybe the arbitration committee should be doing the arbcom enforcement actions...I never understood why the less well vetted administrators did this.--MONGO 18:51, 11 February 2012 (UTC)