Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2/Evidence

< Wikipedia:Arbitration | Requests | Case | American politics 2
Shortcut
Main case page (Talk) — Evidence (Talk) — Workshop (Talk) — Proposed decision (Talk)

Case clerks: L235 (Talk) & Callanecc (Talk) Drafting arbitrators: Guerillero (Talk) & NativeForeigner (Talk)

Wikipedia Arbitration
Open proceedings
Active sanctions
Arbitration Committee
Audit
Track related changes

Evidence presented by Ubikwit

edit

Xenophrenic

edit

Cries BLP, refuses to bring to BLP/N: [1][2]
Against Beattie quote [3], and uses “wife-beating” analogy [4]. Context for Beattie: Harris and war on terrorism[5]
Uses incongruous child pornography blogpost analogy against use of Mondoweiss[6], misrepresenting source, my edits, BLP/N thread[7], and policy. I respond here.

Chomsky quote:

  1. Deletes[8], re-deletes[9] [10] Criticisms section and political quote, and blockquote formatting in the process.
  2. Then cries copyvio and removes quote, declaring he was"clarifying", and pretending to remedy "my copyvio".
  3. His subsequent paraphrasing renders quote unintelligible, misrepresented

I add "Political" subsection under “Views”, delete “attacking” paragraph and restore blockquote.[11]

Misrepresenting other sources:
Eskow
Described here.
Clearly, he's aware of the sources,[12] but even after I reply, he persisted[13], then I added relevant quotes bolding the portion pertaining to the Pipes and neocons, and underlined the portion pertaining to the lead.[14]
Lears
Asserts I used SYNTH to make Lears associate Harris with Nazis, etc.[15][16]

I respond here that Xenophrenic executed Godwin's law, and here, addressing the corresponding RS/N comment as well. Lears said

The crowning irony was that eugenics, far from “perfecting the race,” as some American progressives had hoped early in the twentieth century, was used by the Nazis to eliminate those they deemed undesirable.[17]

which Xenophrenic misrepresented along with my edits.

Lead
Repeatedly removing reference to "Islamophobia" from lead[18][19][20][21][22], then targeting "has singled out Islam"[23][24] assisted by a 1-edit SPA, and upon failing, introduced two other religions without supporting sources [25] in attempted gaming to remove the well-sourced statement supported by the misrepresented Eskow piece and others, some here.
Quote-mining, addition of unduly self-serving blog posts/promotional text...
Adds out-of-context quote from Independent article[26] to support self-serving statements from Harris' blog. To lead[27] [28], etc.[29][30]

Removes Political section
I'd expanded section after restoring inconsistent sequence of reverts[31][32]-restorals[33] by LM2000/Jonotrain[34] after "Criticisms" section deleted.
Further gaming in reverting re-insertion of expanded Political section on the basis of “ref formatting, punctuation and spelling corrections”.

Talk page conduct

  1. Responding to Xenophremic’s antagonistic remarks and provocative, incongruous analogy about wife beating, I mentioned Pinker regarding Lears[35]
  2. Remark to Xenophrenic regarding competence, misrepresentation of sources, etc., ending with query regarding including sourced content having political import[36] Note that the last thing I asked him in that query wasAre you in agreement with LM2000 and Jweiss11 that, for all intents and purposes, there is no difference between politics and religion, or however you interpret their statements?
  3. Competence
  4. Warning to Xenophrenic regarding bad faith editing, mention Arbcom's on the horizon

LM2000

edit

LM2000 was one of several editors appearing to be engaged in advocacy at the article.

  1. First substantial edit to article added four sources w/cheerleader-like endorsements from five Harris supporters, none of which addressed specifics,[37], a couple of which assumed the mantle of "liberalism". Though there is nothing wrong with using such statements in accordance with WP:WEIGHT, they were being used to justify removing sourced content that concretely addressed Harris' statements and implications thereof.
  2. Second edit removed “signed” blockquote introduced by Jonotrain, an SPA[38][39], claiming one paragraph from Greenwald "pushing UNDUE".[40]
  3. Third substantial edit removed "Political" subsection, merging some content to Islam section, deleting material including Jacoby/Yavuz (peer-reviewed), Salon article by Lean w/Chomsky quote.[41] broader in scope than Islam.
  4. Then he self-reverts the edits, claiming he sees Talk discussion and won't "fight" for the changes.[42]
The last diff is a response to Jweiss11, who misunderstands NPOV, and refuses to acknowledge Political subsection presenting issues not only on Islam, such as Harris being associated with neoconservatives (contrast to 'liberals'), Chomsky, national-security state, torture, collateral damage, imperialism...[43] Meanwhile, he removed source for "self-professed liberal" (as "self-proclaimed" in article).[44]

LM2000 and Jweiss11 commented in 1st AN/I.
My raising the conflation of religion and politics was prompted by this, and this its elaboration, implying that secondary-source commentary on political views would be redundant outside of respective religion subsections.

That is seconded by LM2000's comment

"Politics" is a vague word which encompasses an endless amount of topics including religion which often overlaps with politics

In the first AN/I,Ian.thomson struck a part of this comment apparently realizing he’d misread my statement as referring to LM2000 as an SPA, but the part about most edits being to professional wrestling is of note, though I didn't dwell on that, as Harris studies a form martial art associated with extreme wrestling. I referred to the self-contradictory statements/edits that caused me to question the motivations of Jonotrain and LM2000 here.

After Jonotrain denied socking and started editing in a consistent manner, we were able to collaborate productively regarding political content. Note that competence issues were raised, but ignored, and sometimes met with personal attacks.
It is not clear who bloated the article with primary source-based material presenting only Harris' take on himself (political included); I simply removed much of that material[45][46][47][48][49] and integrated some of the politically relevant secondary source-based material elsewhere[50].

Replies

  1. In the second AN/I, LM2000 misrepresented the outcome of the 1st[51], and I responded to the Sayeed related accusations here.
  2. The remark made to Rjensen was unduly personal, but the comment was made after I checked his user page and misread the description regarding Yale, which would have contraindicated his treatment of the peer-reviewed sources, as also mentioned.
  3. The dispute involving BobRayner involved a new account (remained active for a week[52]) with concentration of edits on related RS/N thread, which he subsequently deleted en mass. That issue led me to start a, thread at IRS Talk, which closed inconclusively, whereupon I ceased editing that topic area, the Ukraine crisis, which is not directly under American politics.

@LM2000: Eskow source here. I added wrong citation, but you will note fully quoted passage at Talk, linked to source bolding Pipes/neocon portion, and underlined portion pertaining to lead.[53]

Mongo

edit

With present case request pending, MONGO, whom I do not recall having interacted with, started baiting me with personal attacks.[54][55] at an article on which he'd no prior activity[56].
Demonstrates combative partisanship, demanding sanctions for "opponents"[57][58], without evidence, and doesn't understand activism[59][60][61].

Evidence presented by RightCowLeftCoast

edit

Bias against non-liberal editors

edit

I hope that this doesn't develop into a witch hunt.
I am concerned that there is an effort to get non-liberal editors to stop editing english wikipedia, either by getting current active editors to stop (either through topic-bans, full bans, or harassment which leads to inactivity/loss of interest) (as had occurred to such editors as North8000, and the attempts to disband WP:RIGHT), or to discourage new non-liberal editors from continuing to edit. While I am not going to start digging for dirt, nor out against any editor (as even those editors who do not share my views I believe that they believe that they are doing what is best for the community and for the articles that they work on (which I hope they believe the same of myself (and sometimes find that they don't cause non-liberals (specifically republicans are evil POV) are wrong)), I believe that my view has some validity based on the years of interaction I have had here. While this might be seen as a battleground mentality, I am not here for a fight, but here to improve Wikipedia within the policies and guidelines that govern our community.
While marked as humorous WP:STRAIGHT brings up a good point, if an article gains a certain POV, the only way to make the article conform to WP:NEU, is to correct the POV by introducing new editors of a different POV than the prevailing POV and working towards a consensus as to how much weight each POV should be provided.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 02:06, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

{Write your assertion here}

edit

Place argument and diffs which support the second assertion; for example, your second assertion might be "So-and-so makes personal attacks", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits where So-and-so made personal attacks.

Statement by LM2000

edit

Ubikwit has edit warred

edit
  • Ubikwit has a history of being blocked for edit warring as well as for personal attacks and harassment.

He reinserted contentious material into Sam Harris (author) many times, this included ten reverts within three days to a POV version (see below) which was met with unanimous opposition:[62][63][64][65][66][67][68][69][70][71]

This series ended after he was blocked for an unrelated edit war at PNAC.

‎Ubikwit has shown great incivility

edit

Ubikwit's POV-pushing

edit

Ubikwit has previously received a topic ban on the Israel-Palestine conflict, this should have been a wake-up call and a warning to exert more caution and sensitivity regarding the issue. This has not stopped him from categorizing Robert Kagan as Jewish[91][92], even after being cautioned by RayAYang and request from subject himself. A large part of the Harris conflict involved edits like this which alleged "tribal affections for the Jewish state", sourced to the non-notable Theodore Sayeed. An RfC unanimously opposed this, Ubikwit continued to use the source elsewhere despite RfC concerns.[93]

Ubikwit, whether rightly or wrongly, has fought to have Robert Kagan labeled as a neoconservative. This wrongly extended into Sam Harris (author). Ubikwit's series of edits included bits like stating "[Harris shares] the same basic right-wing worldview of Muslims as his neoconservative supporter David Frum"[94]. The source by Greenwald does describe Frum as a supporter; he also describes Harris as holding anti-Muslim bigotry, as sharing views with European fascists, and includes a quote comparing new atheists to the Christian right; he never compares Harris' worldview to Frum's nor mentions Frum as anything other than a "supporter". Ubikwit also pasted a quote attributed to RJ Eskew which links Harris to "Daniel Pipes and other neoconservatives". I have no idea where the quote came from, it's not from the source provided. The larger issue with Ubikwit's edits was the remarkable amount of criticism pasted into the BLP. Under the guise of a "Political" section, Ubikwit inserted the most critical comments from Harris' most outspoken commentators and edit warred to keep it there. This was done without regard to NPOV, DUE, and BLP; it turned the article into a WP:COATRACK. A second RfC found unanimous opposition to these edits, Ubikwit dismisses this as pointed wording by Collect.

Since returning from his block, Ubikwit was a major contributor to List of PNAC Members associated with the Administration of George W. Bush and has the distinction of being one of three people to vote keep at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of PNAC Members associated with the Administration of George W. Bush and not strike their vote after an overwhelming majority agreed it was a POVFORK.LM2000 (talk) 04:05, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Response

edit

Ubikwit previously made it clear that he had no problem with my additions and that he agreed they were policy compliant, saying:"Of course I have no objection to your including statements of supporters per NPOV". He later told me to add even more statements from supporters rather than remove his additions. Ubikwit only later adapted the advocacy narrative.

The sockpuppet allegations still don't make any sense. Jonotrain was on Ubikwit's side most of the discussion, Ubikwit slurred him upon a disagreement (at my expense without a shred of evidence), but quickly made up after Jonotrain agreed with him again. I've been here just as long as Ubikwit, have more edits, and have ventured into a number of subjects. This isn't the first time he has slung such allegations at an established editor, he did so in June with bobrayner as linked above.LM2000 (talk) 08:18, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence presented by Casprings

edit

Possible effort to organize an effort to push a conservative POV

edit

Off Wikipedia conversation to push a POV [95]. IP wants "good guys" to push against the "house POV". IP is near Wichita, KS. See here Wichita is the home of the Koch brothers who are known for their political activities.. Editor who IP asked has been found to push a conservative POV in the past.

The Page America: Imagine the World Without Her has seen an ongoing effort to push a conservative POV

edit

Ongoing Hostility in discussions

edit

editing waring:

Edit warring over a Quote

edit

[96], [97], [98], [99] [100] [101] [102] [103] [104] [105] [106]

Edit warring over a Score

edit

[107], [108] [109], [110] [111] [112] [113] [114]

POV Pushing

edit

[115], [116], [117] [118] [119],[120] [121] [122] [123] [124], [125] [126] [127] [128] [129] [130] [131] [132], [133] [134] [135] [136] [137] [138][139] [140] [141] [142]

Attacking others on the talk page

edit

[143] [144] [145] [146] [147] [148]

Evidence presented by EvergreenFir

edit

Two things before I do the evidence. First, I am hesitant to even comment given what appears to be a lack of interest in this case. I don't feel the evidence I present is all that damning. But there are certainly issues with this topic in general and I agree it does need attention. I would also have a lot to say about Dear ODear ODear (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) but they have since been blocked.

Second, I'm only marginally involved, mostly from encounters with Dear ODear ODear and conversations on Talk:Robert Kagan. But without further ado...

Incivility, personal attacks, and other poor behavior by MONGO

edit

My primary concern re: this case has been with MONGO's behavior. While I respect MONGO as an editor, I was very troubled by some of their behavior toward other editors, all related to this case.

Personal attacks

Accusations without evidence

Other poor/disruptive behavior

To be clear, I am not saying the NBSB did or did not follow DHeyward (see here for interaction analysis shows two possible instants of "following"). However, WP:WIKISTALKING specifies that hounding is the singling out of one or more editors, and joining discussions on multiple pages or topics they may edit or multiple debates where they contribute, in order to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work. This is with an apparent aim of creating irritation, annoyance or distress to the other editor. Wikihounding usually involves following the target from place to place on Wikipedia. Even in statistics, you need at least three datapoints to establish a trend. There is no pattern of hounding here and MONGO was way out of line. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 18:20, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence presented by MONGO

edit

Just rebuttal on bullet points posted by EvergreenFir I guess since I only have a day, thanks

edit

I was directed here as I had not even bothered to watchlist this page. I wanted to thank EvergreenFir for waiting till only one day was remaining before evidence was to be ended and for not bothering to inform me. It should be noted that this information has been sitting in her sandbox since March 23rd.[149] I could go on and on about what I think about American politics and those that spend all their time wasted delving into those articles, especially if they are hell bent on editing articles about people and entities that they despise with the sole intent to do nothing but harm....for them the only purpose Wikipedia serves is as a place to ADVOCATE. At least I known EvergreenFir "respects me as an editor" so I can sleep well knowing that.

First section labeled: "Personal attacks"

  • Not a nice comment but not a personal attack, considering the sneering and attacks Collect was being besieged with on his talkpage. A thread had been opened at AN/I about Collect. It was shut down so another one was opened...on and on we go...[150] JBHunley did not seem very upset at my "personal attack" as he was "LMAO" over it...[151]
  • I questioned Ubikwits motivations after seeing the only concerns he had about the bio on Robert Kagan was to add "neoconservative" and nothing else, really, at, all.
  • Asking his motivations again is not a personal attack. Sure, comment on content not the editors, but this is a BLP issue folks, not some playground.
  • Same as above...and in response to EvergreenFir especially considering EvergreenFir also had similar reservations regarding Ubikwit's motivations. "I can understand your concern about Ubikwit's motives, especially given the predominance of his comments on that talk page...."[152] Well, I'll be. So to clarify, I am not allowed to question or insinuate about others motives, but EvergreenFir is. I just need a clarification of this matter. Comment on content and all...

Next section...."accusations without evidence"

  • Well, Viriditas had just made the personal attack...I was (even though it was a ridiculously funny "personal attack") responding to it...look at the diff again...Viriditas's comment is right above mine where he says:"...MONGO is fond of creating fantasy worlds and inhabiting them with people who disagree with his bankrupt, 19th century paleoconservative ideas that have been demonstrably proven false time and again. It's like arguing with a flat earther or creationist. It's not my fault that I live in the 21st century, but if MONGO expects others to join him in his 19th century fantasy world, where climate deniers and perpetual warmongers rally around jingoism and discrimination, he can expect to find himself in continuing disputes. Telegram for MONGO: you're a century behind, try to catch up."[153] Maybe Viriditas is right...I dunno, I do think the earth is obtuse though, if that is a shape.
  • NorthBySouthBaranof apparently did follow DHeyward to that article....follow, stalk...the difference is what exactly. An editor has an argument with another editor and then out of the blue magically appears on another article to argue with them...one he has not been active on before.
  • I did not say NBSB was socking at that diff...I said PeterTheFourth was an SPA. I dunno...check out Peter's editing history to that point and you tell me.
  • In this heinous edit, I must confess, I am deeply sorry I corrected my own typo...changing the word "mages" to "managed".
  • Yes, obvious is obvious unless it is not obvious.
  • Because Viriditas was harassing Collect...I filed a complaint about it.[154]...and Viriditas agreed to not post on Collect's page again...problem solved and we didn't even have to get drunk.
  • I did not refuse to provide evidence...I asked if he wanted the diffs...the editor interaction tool easily demonstrated this...you state so in your own admission EvergreenFir. Is the editor interaction tool broken or maybe the CIA or an agency that doesn't even have initials has installed a virus in the tool and altered it so that its presenting the wrong data!
  • See entire discussion here
  • Again see entire discussion here Look at this way...NBSB does not seem to be following DHeyward around anymore, so the world is less acrimonious afterall. All have moved on to new beaches to build new sand castles or look for four leafed clovers or something.
  • Yes, I did add images of a group of sockpuppets and a meat sandwich to DHeyward's usertalk. I wasn't accusing DHeyward of being a sockpuppet or meat sandwich just to be clear. I was interested in seeing if SPA PeterTheFourth would tell us what his/her main account is though. I guess honesty is not synonymous with truth.
  • As far as myself and DHeyward are concerned, yes, it was trolling...DHeyward had told PerterTheNorth to leave him alone.

Lastly:"Other poor/disruptive behavior"

  • Well...somehow a post by Viriditas was double posted. I simply removed the double posting...look at the diff. Shoot me.
  • I did not instruct Collect to "attack" MrX. I told him to gather his diffs as they were going to file an arbcom case.
  • I had just gotten through posting a 3RR warning[155]...so he reverted again anyway...which meant he was actually at 4RR and I was going to report for edit warring and of course he would have been blocked. (Well probably...since he was warned and he's not a newbie).
  • At that point, I did not understand who you were talking about...seriously. You showed up at the page full of demands and screeching that "this needs to stop" and accused me of editing a page I had never edited before. You clarified it, but I didn't understand until then.
  • Yes, I restored them after you referred to them as "Bad Faith" edits[156]. Look, if you can't take a joke then this place will eat you alive.
  • Cherry-picked and out of context...see entire discussion [157]
  • I already addressed this above...its the same diff as earlier. Second bullet point under "personal attacks".

--MONGO 06:49, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence presented by {your user name}

edit

before using the last evidence template, please make a copy for the next person

{Write your assertion here}

edit

Place argument and diffs which support your assertion; for example, your first assertion might be "So-and-so engages in edit warring", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits to specific articles which show So-and-so engaging in edit warring.

{Write your assertion here}

edit

Place argument and diffs which support the second assertion; for example, your second assertion might be "So-and-so makes personal attacks", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits where So-and-so made personal attacks.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American_politics_2/Evidence&oldid=1053542481"