Case clerks: L235 (Talk) & Callanecc (Talk) Drafting arbitrators: Guerillero (Talk) & NativeForeigner (Talk)
 | The Evidence phase for this case is closed. Any further edits made to this page may be reverted by an arbitrator or arbitration clerk without discussion. If you need to edit or modify this page, please go here and create an edit request. |
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:
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
Are 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?
LM2000 was one of several editors appearing to be engaged in advocacy at the article.
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
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
@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]
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].
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]
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.
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 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]
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]
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.
editing waring:
[96], [97], [98], [99] [100] [101] [102] [103] [104] [105] [106]
[107], [108] [109], [110] [111] [112] [113] [114]
[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]
[143] [144] [145] [146] [147] [148]
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...
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]
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"
Next section...."accusations without evidence"
Lastly:"Other poor/disruptive behavior"
--MONGO 06:49, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
before using the last evidence template, please make a copy for the next person
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.
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.
