| Revision as of 10:39, 14 July 2010 editPreciseaccuracy (talk | contribs)556 edits →July 2010← Previous edit | Revision as of 10:48, 14 July 2010 edit undoPreciseaccuracy (talk | contribs)556 edits add reasonNext edit → | ||
| Line 54: | Line 54: | ||
| == July 2010 == | == July 2010 == | ||
| <div class="user-block"> ] You have been ''']''' from editing for a period of '''24 hours''' to prevent further ] caused by your engagement in an ]. During a dispute, you should first try to ] and seek ]. If that proves unsuccessful you are encouraged to seek ], and in some cases it may be appropriate to request ]. If you would like to be unblocked, you may ] by adding below this notice the text <!-- Copy the text as it appears on your page, not as it appears in this edit area. Do not include the "nowiki" tags. --><nowiki>{{</nowiki>unblock|''your reason here''<nowiki>}}</nowiki><!-- Do not include the "nowiki" tags. -->. ] (]) 01:46, 14 July 2010 (UTC)</div>{{z9}}<!-- Template:uw-ewblock -->{{unblock| |
<div class="user-block"> ] You have been ''']''' from editing for a period of '''24 hours''' to prevent further ] caused by your engagement in an ]. During a dispute, you should first try to ] and seek ]. If that proves unsuccessful you are encouraged to seek ], and in some cases it may be appropriate to request ]. If you would like to be unblocked, you may ] by adding below this notice the text <!-- Copy the text as it appears on your page, not as it appears in this edit area. Do not include the "nowiki" tags. --><nowiki>{{</nowiki>unblock|''your reason here''<nowiki>}}</nowiki><!-- Do not include the "nowiki" tags. -->. ] (]) 01:46, 14 July 2010 (UTC)</div>{{z9}}<!-- Template:uw-ewblock -->{{unblock|users ganging up to distort article for political reasons}} | ||
| Before making a judgment please read what I have to say and spend some time going through the sources. I’m not trying to cause trouble, it is the other way around. | Before making a judgment please read what I have to say and spend some time going through the sources. I’m not trying to cause trouble, it is the other way around. | ||
| Line 83: | Line 83: | ||
| This is a description of one of the cases of ridiculous arguments another user made | This is a description of one of the cases of ridiculous arguments another user made | ||
| The user huey45 accused my source, salon.com of being uncredible by stating "It sounds like an unprofessional outlet for conspiracy theories and soap-box style editorial pieces, with no credibility." I then demonstrated that it is indeed credible by stating that it has been ranked best website by “Time” magazine. To this huey responded "Even if what you say does come from a normally reliable source, a lot of it is nonsense." This is where I saw user:huey’s personal bias interfering with objectivity in writing this article. The source article was very logical and covered the[REDACTED] topic "art student scam" in great depth and user:huey completely dismissed the seven page article which shines a lot of interesting light on the topic "art student scam" by saying "a lot of it is nonsense." | |||
| Only a few hours ago, after you blocked my acccount, even after it had been made clear that the source along with others were indeed credible huey commented | Only a few hours ago, after you blocked my acccount, even after it had been made clear that the source along with others were indeed credible huey commented | ||
| Line 89: | Line 89: | ||
| “The priority of this article is not meant to be the fake Israeli thing; there are plenty of other people purporting to be art students in order to sell overpriced reproductions. You already tried to hijack the article with your stuff about the DEA; leave the rest alone. (Huey45 (talk) 01:46, 14 July 2010 (UTC))” | “The priority of this article is not meant to be the fake Israeli thing; there are plenty of other people purporting to be art students in order to sell overpriced reproductions. You already tried to hijack the article with your stuff about the DEA; leave the rest alone. (Huey45 (talk) 01:46, 14 July 2010 (UTC))” | ||
| By “fake” huey seems to mean “urban myth.” Huey45 may be right in that the over 100 fake israeli art students claiming to be from both a fake and real israeli universities weren’t spies. But there is strong evidence that they may have indeed been spies which at the very least invalidates the claim of the spy ring as an urban myth . For example, as I described on the talk page and added to the article after dealing with the inane and misleading attacks of other users, the 60 page DEA document presented on fox news, descibes the encounters of the DEA and other government agents with fake israeli art students who appeared inside protected areas of federal buildings, repeatedly showed up at dea agent homes, and were said to be doing what was suspected to be intelligence activity near a u.s. military base . For huey45 to imply that the suspected spy ring falls under the category “urban myth” along with other urban myths such as reptiles in the sewers of new york is more than misleading and is intended to interfere with intelligent debate on the subject. | |||
| I even made concessions to the other users and agreed to delete two quotes that they stated weren’t relevant to the[REDACTED] article. Each of these quotes were responses to other statements in the article intended to bring a much needed balance to the[REDACTED] article; however, I could sort of see their points that those two quotes should be deleted so I agreed to compromise by deleting both quotes. That left only the quote from the salon article which described why labeling the spy ring as an urban myth didn’t make sense. | I even made concessions to the other users and agreed to delete two quotes that they stated weren’t relevant to the[REDACTED] article. Each of these quotes were responses to other statements in the article intended to bring a much needed balance to the[REDACTED] article; however, I could sort of see their points that those two quotes should be deleted so I agreed to compromise by deleting both quotes. That left only the quote from the salon article which described why labeling the spy ring as an urban myth didn’t make sense. | ||
Revision as of 10:48, 14 July 2010
I read the salon article and it paints a completely different picture than the previous[REDACTED] article and is more up to date than other sources being used so I added a few quotes from it. This story seems even more interesting than the current russian spy ring. Its kind of strange that art students from fake universities would be diagramming buildings.
Welcome
Welcome!
Hello, Preciseaccuracy, and welcome to Misplaced Pages! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
- The five pillars of Misplaced Pages
- Tutorial
- How to edit a page and How to develop articles
- How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
- Manual of Style
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Misplaced Pages:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! Davtra 13:24, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
Please sign your posts
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Misplaced Pages pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button 
located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. Davtra 13:24, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
Your recent edits
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Misplaced Pages pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 13:39, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
Please stop
You are edit warring on the article, and you vandalized my talk page. I will revert you know, and if you reinstall your changes, I will report you. BTW I would not like to see you at my talk page.--Mbz1 (talk) 14:43, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
You have violated the three-revert rule on Art student scam. Any administrator may now choose to block your account. In the future, please make an effort to discuss your changes further, instead of edit warring.You broke the Three Revert Rule and I'm going to report you for it. (Huey45 (talk) 14:49, 12 July 2010 (UTC))
Have you had a prior account
Have you ever had another account on Misplaced Pages?--Mbz1 (talk) 15:03, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
- Why are you attacking me? I don't know all of these rules. I thought that I was supposed to comment on your talk page. Is there a better way of communicating on wikipedia? I feel like your vandalizing my work. This is the first account I've ever created. I created it this morning. I was reading about the russian spy scandal and then looked up other ones. This article appeared to be missing a lot of facts so I'm trying to improve it. Your excuse for deleting my hard work was three letter pov. Hue deleted my work because he claimed that my source wasn't credible without even looking at it but it clearly is as it has won numerous awards including best website from time and awards for independent journalism.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Preciseaccuracy (talk • contribs)
FYI
You were reported here--Mbz1 (talk) 15:30, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks Mbz; I was in the middle of writing the same thing. What a coincidence! (Huey45 (talk) 15:36, 12 July 2010 (UTC))
Some friendly advice
Hi, Welcome to Misplaced Pages. I notice that you have got involved in a bit of a disagreement concerning the Israeli art student spy allegations. This is on the fringes of a topic area (the Arab-Israeli dispute) that is one of the most likely to generate arguments on Misplaced Pages with editors on each side of the dispute being prone to reporting each other to the various admin boards. Although editorial policies apply to all areas of content, it is particularly important to be aware of them in areas such as this where people with strong religious, political, nationalistic or other views are keen on finding any reason to withdraw material they don't like.
In the case of what you wrote, it was very easy to find such reasons. Misplaced Pages articles should not refer to themselves. So your comments about the edit history and previous versions of the article would get removed by any long-standing Misplaced Pages contributor who saw them whether or not they agreed with your view on the matter.
Also please be warned that Misplaced Pages jargon does not always mean what you might think it does. WP:Neutral Point of View, for example does not mean that no opinion should be expressed on a matter in an article but rather that it should reflect the balance of opinion in what are called WP:Reliable Sources, giving WP:Due Weight to each opinion according to their representation in sources.
My advice is therefore that you look at the Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines linked from the welcome message that you were given. If you have any doubts about whether what you want to put in will be accepted, it is often worthwhile askign on the article talk page before you do something. There are also things called WP:Wikiprojects where people who like to contribute to articles within an area of interest can discuss how to improve things. These are good places to get advice.
Anyway, I hope you are not put off by your initial experience of Misplaced Pages and are willing to explore things further. --Peter cohen (talk) 20:00, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
Please sign
Hello Preciseaccuracy, please remember to sign your posts by typing ~~~~ after a discussion on a talk page. It tells us who wrote the message. Thanks, Davtra 08:24, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
July 2010
Preciseaccuracy (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
users ganging up to distort article for political reasonsNotes:
- In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
- Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.
If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:
{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=users ganging up to distort article for political reasons |3 = ~~~~}}
If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.
{{unblock reviewed |1=users ganging up to distort article for political reasons |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}
If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:
{{unblock reviewed |1=users ganging up to distort article for political reasons |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}
Before making a judgment please read what I have to say and spend some time going through the sources. I’m not trying to cause trouble, it is the other way around.
I hope that in the end, my experience with this article doesn’t lead me to believe that fact matters little on[REDACTED] in creating an article against a politically motivated majority. In the case of fixing this article, unbanning me will not be enough, something else should be done so that the content of this article isn’t solely dictated by a group of users with a strong political bias.
I did use both the talk page for discussion and then the discussion page extensively
The[REDACTED] article states that the Israeli “art student” spy ring is an “urban myth” which is a very controversial statement. The other editors want to label the “urban myth” quotes as fact. I would go so far as to say that this means of labeling is not only inane, but deliberately misleading.
Once again, Before making a judgment please please please read what I have to say and spend some time going through the sources. I have pent several hours writing and organizing this challenge to being blocked. Most importantly look through the sources in detail so that you can gain an understanding of the issue. The more time you spend looking through the sources, (which are all well respected sources of journalism) the more it will become apparent that the group of users attacking me clearly have political and/or nationalist bias’ that is not only interfering with the objectivity of the article but is greatly distorting the facts and intentionally mutilating and distorting the topic. From reading the previous article deletion page, it is clear that they also ganged up on another group of users in March.
I have carefully taken my time to read through the numerous sources in depth and have logically reasoned why the Israeli spy ring doesn’t fit the description of “urban myth” on the talk pages and the discussion board. Whereas the responses I have received fit this general tone
“The article was 'fine', why stir up old issues? Reminds me of an editor who has since relaxed. --Shuki (talk) 20:44, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
“It's fine the way it is. --Arxiloxos (talk) 15:00, 13 July 2010 (UTC)”
and uzer:mzb1’s reason for deleting my work from the discussion page was
“I agree it is fine as it is.--Mbz1 (talk) 01:08, 14 July 2010 (UTC)”
When the opposing users do decide to use more than “it’s fine the way it is”, the comments read as if the editors have not actually read the sources, or have read the sources and are deliberatly trying to distort the contents of those sources. To me, it seems the latter is the case.
This is a description of one of the cases of ridiculous arguments another user made
The user huey45 accused my source, salon.com of being uncredible by stating "It sounds like an unprofessional outlet for conspiracy theories and soap-box style editorial pieces, with no credibility." I then demonstrated that it is indeed credible by stating that it has been ranked best website by “Time” magazine. To this huey responded "Even if what you say does come from a normally reliable source, a lot of it is nonsense." This is where I saw user:huey’s personal bias interfering with objectivity in writing this article. The source article was very logical and covered the[REDACTED] topic "art student scam" in great depth and user:huey completely dismissed the seven page article which shines a lot of interesting light on the topic "art student scam" by saying "a lot of it is nonsense."
Only a few hours ago, after you blocked my acccount, even after it had been made clear that the source along with others were indeed credible huey commented
“The priority of this article is not meant to be the fake Israeli thing; there are plenty of other people purporting to be art students in order to sell overpriced reproductions. You already tried to hijack the article with your stuff about the DEA; leave the rest alone. (Huey45 (talk) 01:46, 14 July 2010 (UTC))”
By “fake” huey seems to mean “urban myth.” Huey45 may be right in that the over 100 fake israeli art students claiming to be from both a fake and real israeli universities weren’t spies. But there is strong evidence that they may have indeed been spies which at the very least invalidates the claim of the spy ring as an urban myth . For example, as I described on the talk page and added to the article after dealing with the inane and misleading attacks of other users, the 60 page DEA document presented on fox news, descibes the encounters of the DEA and other government agents with fake israeli art students who appeared inside protected areas of federal buildings, repeatedly showed up at dea agent homes, and were said to be doing what was suspected to be intelligence activity near a u.s. military base . For huey45 to imply that the suspected spy ring falls under the category “urban myth” along with other urban myths such as reptiles in the sewers of new york is more than misleading and is intended to interfere with intelligent debate on the subject.
I even made concessions to the other users and agreed to delete two quotes that they stated weren’t relevant to the[REDACTED] article. Each of these quotes were responses to other statements in the article intended to bring a much needed balance to the[REDACTED] article; however, I could sort of see their points that those two quotes should be deleted so I agreed to compromise by deleting both quotes. That left only the quote from the salon article which described why labeling the spy ring as an urban myth didn’t make sense.
The arguments an editor presented against including this direct quote from salon described the contents of a source article from “the forward” in a way that led me to believe the other editor user: Arxiloxos either hadn’t even read the source article from “the forward” or was deliberately distorting its contents in his descrition for the purpose of sabotaging the quality of the the[REDACTED] article “Art student scam” for political reasons.
The length of the quote was then challenged so I thus agreed to condense it and did so. I then inserted a condensed version of the quote into the[REDACTED] article. There were no credible arguments made by other users that supported the description of the “art student spy ring” as an “urban myth” so I was justified in adding the salon quote. Once again, this quote however was deleted by user:mzb1 with little explanation.
This quote extended the length of the article also. Given that the suspected Israeli art student spy ring was a different “variant”of “art student scam” than the chinese version of selling overpriced art it was clear that adding subsection titles would add to the readability and cohesiveness of[REDACTED] article. I also tried to make these titles as objective as possible. These however were dismissed as pov and deleted by user: mz1 without further explanation.
Imperatives
1. At minimum I suggest you at least watch at least the first few minutes of the four part fox special on israeli spying. The “art students” are referred to specifically at around 2:10. I do encourage you to watch the whole thing if you want. Once again, the more you have read the easier it will be for you to see how they are trying to distort this[REDACTED] article for political purposes.
Brit Hume and Carl Cameron Fox News 4 Part Special http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JWpWc_suPWo
2. Review the contents of source articles. Articles present conflicting opinions on the subject matter so you should definitely go through several in order to achieve an objective opinion.
http://dir.salon.com/news/feature/2002/05/07/students/index.html
http://web.archive.org/web/20020321021731/http://real-info.1accesshost.com/janes1.html
http://atlanta.creativeloafing.com/2002-03-20/fishwrapper.html
http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/features/spies-or-students-1.45243
http://www.forward.com/articles/5250/
-note: this articles title refers to a separate case in Canada in 2004 but does mention the suspected suspected 2001 israli spy ring from the u.s.
http://www.zeit.de/2002/41/Tuer_an_Tuer_mit_Mohammed_Atta -note: this article is in german, from die zeit, try translating with google or yahoo
http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=20020307&slug=notspies07 -note this article is described by salon.com also with the quote “The Post's apparent debunking was far from convincing, even to the casual reader. ..If the whole thing was an "urban myth," like the sewer reptiles of Manhattan, and if it all led back to one deskbound nut job in the DEA, then what were those "reports of suspicious activity" that had come in from agents in the field? Hinojosa's statement about the DEA memo was suspiciously evasive: If the "media reports describing its content" (that is, the articles in Le Monde and Intelligence Online) were in fact based on the DEA memo whose existence Hinojosa acknowledged, then the "lone nut" explanation offered by anonymous U.S. officials was at best irrelevant and at worst a rather obvious piece of disinformation, an attempt to shove the story under the rug. (In fact, the French articles were based on the actual DEA memo -- a fact any news organization could have quickly verified, since the leaked DEA document had been floating around on various Web venues, such as Cryptome.org, as early as March 21). To someone not familiar with the 60-page DEA memo, or to reporters who didn't bother to obtain it, the fact that a disgruntled employee leaked a memo he wrote himself might seem like decisive proof that the whole "art student" tale was a canard. In reality, the nature of the memo makes its authorship irrelevant. The memo is a compilation of field reports by dozens of named agents and officials from DEA offices across America. It contains the names, passport numbers, addresses, and in some cases the military ID numbers of the Israelis who were questioned by federal authorities. Pointing a finger at the author is like blaming a bank robbery on the desk sergeant who took down the names of the robbers. “
http://cryptome.org/dea-il-spy.htm -DEA memo
http://web.archive.org/web/20060423065411/http://ww1.sundayherald.com/37707
3. I reviewed the articlesfordeletion page for this article and it appears other users had been bullied to change the facts and topic of this aticle through use of nonarguments and overtly pointless statements by a gang of users who wanted to have this article deleted or mutilated into the form it has become today.
No amount of talking could be done with this gang of users on the talk page that would lead this article away from being in such mangled form, because it appears that is how they want it to be. Why is this so, once again, they are arguing and not debating, because of their political motivations they want this[REDACTED] article to remain in its mangled form which they repeatedly say “it’s fine” in response to critcism of.
From reading the articlesfordeletion page, I think that these other users might also agree they were bullied into changing the page by the gang of users. Factsontheground
Tiamut
GregorB
Along with others
4. I am new to[REDACTED] so I’m not sure what is supposed to be done when a group of users collude to distort the facts of an article. When I’m unbanned, I still won’t be able to edit the article. Users mzb1 and huey45 will just report me again in order to maintain the article in its mangled form. User:noon will revert my edits.
Users Arxiloxos and Shuki will continue to respond “it’s fine.”
Something should be done or there will be no way to bring this article to a neutral and objective point of view. Does[REDACTED] have a rule for when a gang of politically motivated individuals is trying to sabotage an article?
5. After reading through my explanations and looking through sources I encourage you to read through these. It should be obvious after reading through the sources how these users are ganging up.
Revision history of Art student scam http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Art_student_scam&action=history
Huey45 talk page http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Huey45#Art_Student_Scam
Talk:Art student scam http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Art_student_scam
Articlesfordeletion page for “Art Student Scam” http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Israeli_art_student_scamPreciseaccuracy (talk) 10:39, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
- When the request at AN3 was made, I did not block you because you had not edit warred after the warning. You have resumed edit warring and so I have blocked you. When your block expires, please discuss controversial changes on the talk page, rather than simply unilaterally re-imposing them. --B (talk) 01:48, 14 July 2010 (UTC)