![]() | This user is an alternative account of Is not a. This notice confirms that the user is familiar with Wikipedia's policy on using multiple accounts and that this account will not be used for sockpuppetry. You may discuss this account at User talk:Is not a. See user creation— contribs— page moves— all logs— block log |
No RfXs since 00:50, 23 June 2024 (UTC).— cyberbot I Talk to my owner:Online |
![]() |
---|
22 July 2024 |
|
This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
![]() Hi. An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Collect, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community. Fyddlestix ( talk) 22:10, 4 March 2015 (UTC) You might have saved time by discussing your
|
This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Please slow down with the reverts and deletions. Some of these are not so controversial, but there are discussions to be had.
|
This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
An issue you may be involved in is being discussed at BLPN. Jbh ( talk) 13:33, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
|
Trigger warning: Viewing a scene from Blazing Saddles may disturb you. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
In a world already weird, apparently a comedy clip of MONGO, one of the loathsome antagonists from the movie Blazing Saddles, is now to be construed as a physical threat to a human...weird becomes weirder...imagine that.-- MONGO 18:03, 17 March 2015 (UTC) |
You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Collect and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. As threaded discussion is not permitted in most arbitration pages please ensure that you make all comments in your own section only. Additionally, the guide to arbitration and the Arbitration Committee's procedures may be of use.
Thanks, - Mr X 20:48, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
Regarding the RfAR about User:Collect ("George W. Bush's Iraq War and the Project for a New American Century (PNAC), 'neoconservatives', 'Israel Lobby, 'Zionists', 'Jews'"
Regarding MrX ( talk · contribs)'s Rfar [4]. My use of "Jew tagging" refers especially to the anti-semitic harassment of the family of Project for a New American Century (PNAC)'s co-founder Robert Kagan and his wife Victoria Nuland, via Wikipedia, since 2008 (at least).
In recent days, administrator Coffee ( talk · contribs) revdeleted the worst antisemitism from the talkpages of both Nuland [5] and Kagan [6] (although my requests for possible revdeletes reached only 2009 [7]). I have requested page-protections on both BLPs [8], following an increase in such vandalism, which have been granted by Ymblanter ( talk · contribs) for Kagan [9] and Nuland [10]. TheRedPenOfDoom ( talk · contribs) has helped by constructive edits and reverting BLP violations for months [11]. A recurring harassment technique is the posting of the names of their (apparently minor) children (now revdeleted [12], [13] as stated above).
It would be useful for this committee to issue, on behalf of Wikipedia, an apology to Kagan and Nuland for allowing the harassment to continue so egregiously for so many years. A finding that Wikipedia has been negligent in reducing harassment and an action that therefore the BLPs be deleted should be considered. Something must be done to pressure the WMF to spend a penny of its 45 million USD in assets [14] on protecting BLP subjects from harassment, particularly after years of complaints.
As I wrote, the Kagan/Nuland family has been harassed by Wikipedia since 2008 (at least). Recent Jew-tagging involves Ubikwit ( talk · contribs), despite his Arbitration topic-ban on the Israel-Palestine conflict. I revise remarks from [15].
Since 8 months ago, Ubikwit ( talk · contribs)'s edits on Robert Kagan seem to violate WP:BLP and other guidelines:
- Ubikwit reinserted the "Jewish" categorisation of Kagan [16] [17] despite RayAYang ( talk · contribs)'s warnings [18] [19] and Kagan's pleas since 2008 to stop this Jewish-labeling [20].
- On talk:Robert Kagan, Ubikwit accused Kagan of being close to " The Israel Lobby" adding a summary that explictly stated he was aware of blpcat" [21] and linking to this website discussing Zionists, Jews, donors, The Israel Lobby two edits after a talk-page warning (to all) by Volunteer Marek ( talk · contribs) [22]; c.f., [23], [24]. A thorough BLP:Cat warning was given by RayAYang ( talk · contribs) [25], who also explained the anti-semitism associated with "The Israel Lobby" and accusations of "divided loyalty" between the US and Israel. Then Ubikwit wrote "there are plenty of politicians Jews among them that present themselves as being loyal to the USA and pro-Israel without worrying about that presenting a possible COI, emphasizing that Israel is "the only democracy in the Middle East", etc." [26]
- Ubikwit restored a citation of an attack site, calling Kagan a "rightwing" "militarist" [27].
Ubikwit's behavior on other articles related to Jews, Judaism, Israel, The Israel Lobby, neoconservatism, Leo Strauss and Straussians, Robert Kagan and family broadly considered as well as biographies of living persons deserves attention.
Ubikwit's three 2014 summertime edits about "double loyalties" to Israel and the USA and "The Israel Lobby" violated his topic ban. Bluntly, blaming a cabal of American Jews for unduly influencing American foreign policy for the benefit of Israel---for example by opposing arms for Egypt and supporting military aid to Israel, which is a central thesis of The Israel Lobby---is related to "the Israel-Arab conflict, broadly considered", if the words mean anything.
The Four Deuces ( talk · contribs) has similarly complained about Ubikwit's citing weak sources on neoconservatism that allege that "a conspiracy of Jews took control of U.S. foreign policy so that its sole focus became the security and welfare of Israel".
Previous Arbitration rulings regarding WP:Bias and prejudice ( Noleander) and the 9/11 terrorism against the USA may be relevant.
I have added
Binksternet (
talk ·
contribs) as a party because of his consistently negative POV-pushing, which has misrepresented sources
[30] and (most egregiously)
[31] and deleted exposure of the misrepresentation
[32],
[33]---following Binksternet's confessing I consider myself guilty of putting negative material into articles the topics of which I do not like
[34] (not about Kagan, obviously). Negatively editing BLP-enemies harms the reputation of Wikipedia
[35].
Targetting only User:Collect would provide a manageable scope for this RfAR or reduce Arbcom workload (or both), according to temptations proffered by arbitrator DGG ( talk · contribs) [36] and arbitrator triumphant Floquenbeam ( talk · contribs) (marred by an unwarranted right/left projection) [37].
Rather, and as requested especially by arbitrators Courcelles ( talk · contribs) and Yunshui ( talk · contribs), an appropriate scope is available:
The dispute involves primarily the George W. Bush Presidency and " neoconservatism", particularly allegations that "neoconservatives" at the Project for a New American Century (PNAC) caused Bush's Iraq War— often as an alleged (perhaps unconscious) pretext for protecting Israel—whilst endangering US security, perhaps under a (Zionist) ideological delusion of establishing United States hegemony.
Pursuing the primary project of blaming PNAC/neoconservatives for this Iraq war has entailed secondary projects of
When the primary and secondary projects were resisted by the Wikipedia community,
While the Jew-tagging has been limited to a very small number of editors (when not being blocked), a larger number of editors
as evinced by e.g., their treatment of the size of the letterhead organization PNAC with its 5 employees (by e.g. Fyddlestix ( talk · contribs)'s [38], [39]), etc.
Allowing the case to target only Collect would send another message that Arbcom cases are childish games won by the first to file (violating WP:Boomerang) and so encourage further vexatious and premature filings.
Such a scope would declare Arbcom's abnegation of its responsibilities to
See a thread entitled "ArbCom case" at Wikipediocracy: [40] Dear 0Dear 08:04, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Thank you. TJRC ( talk) 20:48, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
|
This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Category:Organizations with five employees, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Fyddlestix ( talk) 20:44, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
|
This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Hi Dear ODear ODear Thanks for commenting in the Collect Arbcom case. I just wanted to let you know that without exception, statements (including responses to other statements) must be shorter than 500 words ( Word Count Tool). (See the large pink box at the top of the WP:RFAR page). Your statement is nearly three times the limit. - Mr X 14:11, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
|
Two old Jewish men are sitting on a park bench in Berlin in the early 1930s. Things are not yet so bad, but that doesn’t mean they won’t get worse.
One of the two is solemnly reading a Jewish newspaper. The other is scanning a Nazi paper, and laughing out loud. Finally, the first man stops reading and says, “It’s bad enough that you read that pro-Hitler rag. But to laugh at it!”
The second responds with a shrug. “What if I read your paper? It tells me about Jewish windows being broken, Jewish shops boycotted, Jewish children beaten up in school. So ... if I read the Hitler paper it tells me that we Jews control the whole world.”
— Christopher Hitchens, "Jewish Power, Jewish Peril", Vanity Fair, September 2002 [45]
This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
You have been
indefinitely blocked by the
Arbitration Committee.
Appeal of this block may be made in writing, by emailing arbcom-l |
Please note that Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Collect has been opened. For the Arbitration Committee, Robert McClenon ( talk) 21:51, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
Per the blocking policy, others are welcome to enter the following evidence, as long as an editor takes responsibility for that action, rather than acting as an agent for this blocked, principal editor.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Ubikwit has been nearly indefinitely blocked several times, for example, here [46], with a ban mentioned by administrators Deskana ( talk · contribs), and EdJohnston ( talk · contribs), and Malik Shabazz ( talk · contribs)
"Mr. Jensen, I see that you are a former professor at Yale! Wow!!!. I'm not impressed.". [50]
Ubikwit's noncompliance with WP:Bias and prejudice is demonstrated through his edits, for example
... "Jews" [emboldening of quotation-marks added] ..., so you are again engaged in an act of duplicitous disimulation; the Mossad would be proud, maybe you should apply, seeing as you need a job. Hey, if you are going to act as a proxy for the Israeli government, you might as well get paid for it[51]( quoted)
questions relating to Jews seem to be primarily about religion, and staking claims based on an anachronistic religious basis, encompassing the continued attempt to physically disposes through illegal occupation by "settlers" of the current and actual holders of the rights to lands in question. [....] It would appear that the Israeli participants were trying to hijack the forum in order to bolster their assertion of a claim to "indigenousness".[52] (noted by AnkhMorpork ( talk · contribs) [53])
Since 8 months ago,
Ubikwit (
talk ·
contribs)'s edits on
Robert Kagan seem to willfully violate WP:BLP and other policies:
"there are plenty of politicians Jews among them that present themselves as being loyal to the USA and pro-Israel without worrying about that presenting a possible COI, emphasizing that Israel is "the only democracy in the Middle East", etc."[64], [65]
Ubikwit's three 2014 summertime edits about "double loyalties" to Israel and the USA and "The Israel Lobby" violated his topic ban. Blaming pro-Israel Americans, Jews, and Israelis for unduly influencing American foreign policy for the benefit of Israel---for example by opposing arms for Egypt and supporting military aid to Israel, which is a central thesis of The Israel Lobby---is related to "the Israel-Arab conflict, broadly considered", if the topic-ban means anything.
User Binksternet has engaged in consistently negative POV-pushing, which has misrepresented sources
[67] and (most egregiously)
[68] and deleted exposure of the misrepresentation
[69],
[70]---following Binksternet's confessing I consider myself guilty of putting negative material into articles the topics of which I do not like
[71] (not about Kagan, obviously). Negatively editing BLPs harms the reputation of Wikipedia
[72].
Dear 0Dear 23:09, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
@ Kafkaesque:
This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
I'm sorry. This is Kafkaesque. It is not disputed that I did not make the edit for which I was blocked. (The IP that actually made the edit has not been blocked, which I can not understand). I remain blocked now because I participated in an RfAr last month, and no one claims that anything I said was uncivil or inappropriate. In preparing my comments I looked at the contributions of the user targeted by the RfAr. In four of them that user deleted content shortly after an AFD called for the content to be kept but merged. I restored the deleted content with edit summaries asking for an editor familiar with the issue to merge the important content. No one had claimed that there was anything inappropriate about those edits. They conformed to policy. After I commented in the RfAr I have had nothing further to do with the target. Now I am accused without cause of being a "stalker" and blocked due to four legitimate edits a month ago. When I returned to active editing, I said on my user page that I had been following Wikipedia discussions and arguments for a few months. Because I had been doing that. Yet somehow doing research and checking out situations rather than jumping in without much information and shooting my mouth off is bad behavior now. Until the false accusations of me being a banned user began, no one had ever suggested any of my editing violated any Wikipedia policies. There were editors who complained about violating policies especially over fair use imagees though. I would think that the work I have been doing in cleaning up BLP violations should count for something but instead bad faith is assumed in this dispute. Even though I was careful to make sure my edits matched up to the rules made the Arbcom which I already quoted below. If any editor is to be judged only by a carefully chosen 5 out of one thousand edits it would be easy to find a way to make an invalid case against them. I would also like to point out that the BLP violation in the edit that started this office is confirmed by Jimmy Wales, who recently and graciously apologized for directing the same basic term against the individual in question (link below). I again request to be unblocked. That is the only fair thing to do.
|
I requested that an administrator remove the worst harassment (anti-semitism and intimidation of listing their children's names) on Robert Kagan.
I understand that trying to make Collect look like he was obsessed with BLP when there were no problems makes it inconvenient to list the harassment at Kagan on the Arbitration case page, and so Roger Davies had to remove it. I get that.
But could somebody please continue the work of removing the harassment from 2009 to the present, please, with the help of an administrator who can revdelete the harassment?
Thanks.
Dear 0Dear 23:21, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
@ Ymblanter and Coffee: Immediately after the gentle page-protection expired, the Jew-tagging BLP-vandalism has resumed at Robert Kagan, [74] although it was reverted by EvergreenFir ( talk · contribs). [75]
Dear 0Dear 08:28, 25 March 2015 (UTC) P.S. See the Parable of Snot-Boogie. [76]
You were recently listed as a party to a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Collect and others. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Collect and others/Evidence. Please add your evidence by April 14, 2015, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Collect and others/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, -- L235 ( t / c / ping in reply) by MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 01:51, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
Another editor is welcome to introduce my evidence into the case:
Evidence for "Collect and others" case of arbitration |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Ubikwit has been nearly indefinitely blocked several times, for example, here [77], with a ban mentioned by administrators Deskana ( talk · contribs), and EdJohnston ( talk · contribs), and Malik Shabazz ( talk · contribs)
Ubikwit's noncompliance with WP:Bias and prejudice is demonstrated through his edits, for example
Ubikwit's three 2014 summertime edits about "double loyalties" to Israel and the USA and "The Israel Lobby" violated his topic ban. Blaming pro-Israel Americans, Jews, and Israelis for unduly influencing American foreign policy for the benefit of Israel---for example by opposing arms for Egypt and supporting military aid to Israel, which is a central thesis of The Israel Lobby---is related to "the Israel-Arab conflict, broadly considered", if the topic-ban means anything. User Binksternet has engaged in consistently negative POV-pushing, which has misrepresented sources
[98] and (most egregiously)
[99] and deleted exposure of the misrepresentation
[100],
[101]---following Binksternet's confessing |
Dear 0Dear 07:39, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
You were recently listed as a party to a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2/Evidence. Please add your evidence by April 14, 2015, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, -- L235 ( t / c / ping in reply) by MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 01:51, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
Another editor is welcome to introduce my evidence into the case:
Evidence for "American politics 2" case of arbitration |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Ubikwit has been nearly indefinitely blocked several times, for example, here [105], with a ban mentioned by administrators Deskana ( talk · contribs), and EdJohnston ( talk · contribs), and Malik Shabazz ( talk · contribs)
Ubikwit's noncompliance with WP:Bias and prejudice is demonstrated through his edits, for example
Ubikwit's three 2014 summertime edits about "double loyalties" to Israel and the USA and "The Israel Lobby" violated his topic ban. Blaming pro-Israel Americans, Jews, and Israelis for unduly influencing American foreign policy for the benefit of Israel---for example by opposing arms for Egypt and supporting military aid to Israel, which is a central thesis of The Israel Lobby---is related to "the Israel-Arab conflict, broadly considered", if the topic-ban means anything. User Binksternet has engaged in consistently negative POV-pushing, which has misrepresented sources
[126] and (most egregiously)
[127] and deleted exposure of the misrepresentation
[128],
[129]---following Binksternet's confessing |
Dear 0Dear 07:41, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
Banned editors are permitted to use their talk page only to appeal their block, not as a soapbox or to participate in on-wiki discussions as you have been doing, particularly as you may appeal your block only to the arbitration committee. Accordingly, I have removed your talk page access.
Administrators: This is an Arbitration action, do not undo without consent of the Committee. Thryduulf ( talk) 13:14, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
![]() | This user is an alternative account of Is not a. This notice confirms that the user is familiar with Wikipedia's policy on using multiple accounts and that this account will not be used for sockpuppetry. You may discuss this account at User talk:Is not a. See user creation— contribs— page moves— all logs— block log |
No RfXs since 00:50, 23 June 2024 (UTC).— cyberbot I Talk to my owner:Online |
![]() |
---|
22 July 2024 |
|
This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
![]() Hi. An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Collect, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community. Fyddlestix ( talk) 22:10, 4 March 2015 (UTC) You might have saved time by discussing your
|
This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Please slow down with the reverts and deletions. Some of these are not so controversial, but there are discussions to be had.
|
This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
An issue you may be involved in is being discussed at BLPN. Jbh ( talk) 13:33, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
|
Trigger warning: Viewing a scene from Blazing Saddles may disturb you. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
In a world already weird, apparently a comedy clip of MONGO, one of the loathsome antagonists from the movie Blazing Saddles, is now to be construed as a physical threat to a human...weird becomes weirder...imagine that.-- MONGO 18:03, 17 March 2015 (UTC) |
You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Collect and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. As threaded discussion is not permitted in most arbitration pages please ensure that you make all comments in your own section only. Additionally, the guide to arbitration and the Arbitration Committee's procedures may be of use.
Thanks, - Mr X 20:48, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
Regarding the RfAR about User:Collect ("George W. Bush's Iraq War and the Project for a New American Century (PNAC), 'neoconservatives', 'Israel Lobby, 'Zionists', 'Jews'"
Regarding MrX ( talk · contribs)'s Rfar [4]. My use of "Jew tagging" refers especially to the anti-semitic harassment of the family of Project for a New American Century (PNAC)'s co-founder Robert Kagan and his wife Victoria Nuland, via Wikipedia, since 2008 (at least).
In recent days, administrator Coffee ( talk · contribs) revdeleted the worst antisemitism from the talkpages of both Nuland [5] and Kagan [6] (although my requests for possible revdeletes reached only 2009 [7]). I have requested page-protections on both BLPs [8], following an increase in such vandalism, which have been granted by Ymblanter ( talk · contribs) for Kagan [9] and Nuland [10]. TheRedPenOfDoom ( talk · contribs) has helped by constructive edits and reverting BLP violations for months [11]. A recurring harassment technique is the posting of the names of their (apparently minor) children (now revdeleted [12], [13] as stated above).
It would be useful for this committee to issue, on behalf of Wikipedia, an apology to Kagan and Nuland for allowing the harassment to continue so egregiously for so many years. A finding that Wikipedia has been negligent in reducing harassment and an action that therefore the BLPs be deleted should be considered. Something must be done to pressure the WMF to spend a penny of its 45 million USD in assets [14] on protecting BLP subjects from harassment, particularly after years of complaints.
As I wrote, the Kagan/Nuland family has been harassed by Wikipedia since 2008 (at least). Recent Jew-tagging involves Ubikwit ( talk · contribs), despite his Arbitration topic-ban on the Israel-Palestine conflict. I revise remarks from [15].
Since 8 months ago, Ubikwit ( talk · contribs)'s edits on Robert Kagan seem to violate WP:BLP and other guidelines:
- Ubikwit reinserted the "Jewish" categorisation of Kagan [16] [17] despite RayAYang ( talk · contribs)'s warnings [18] [19] and Kagan's pleas since 2008 to stop this Jewish-labeling [20].
- On talk:Robert Kagan, Ubikwit accused Kagan of being close to " The Israel Lobby" adding a summary that explictly stated he was aware of blpcat" [21] and linking to this website discussing Zionists, Jews, donors, The Israel Lobby two edits after a talk-page warning (to all) by Volunteer Marek ( talk · contribs) [22]; c.f., [23], [24]. A thorough BLP:Cat warning was given by RayAYang ( talk · contribs) [25], who also explained the anti-semitism associated with "The Israel Lobby" and accusations of "divided loyalty" between the US and Israel. Then Ubikwit wrote "there are plenty of politicians Jews among them that present themselves as being loyal to the USA and pro-Israel without worrying about that presenting a possible COI, emphasizing that Israel is "the only democracy in the Middle East", etc." [26]
- Ubikwit restored a citation of an attack site, calling Kagan a "rightwing" "militarist" [27].
Ubikwit's behavior on other articles related to Jews, Judaism, Israel, The Israel Lobby, neoconservatism, Leo Strauss and Straussians, Robert Kagan and family broadly considered as well as biographies of living persons deserves attention.
Ubikwit's three 2014 summertime edits about "double loyalties" to Israel and the USA and "The Israel Lobby" violated his topic ban. Bluntly, blaming a cabal of American Jews for unduly influencing American foreign policy for the benefit of Israel---for example by opposing arms for Egypt and supporting military aid to Israel, which is a central thesis of The Israel Lobby---is related to "the Israel-Arab conflict, broadly considered", if the words mean anything.
The Four Deuces ( talk · contribs) has similarly complained about Ubikwit's citing weak sources on neoconservatism that allege that "a conspiracy of Jews took control of U.S. foreign policy so that its sole focus became the security and welfare of Israel".
Previous Arbitration rulings regarding WP:Bias and prejudice ( Noleander) and the 9/11 terrorism against the USA may be relevant.
I have added
Binksternet (
talk ·
contribs) as a party because of his consistently negative POV-pushing, which has misrepresented sources
[30] and (most egregiously)
[31] and deleted exposure of the misrepresentation
[32],
[33]---following Binksternet's confessing I consider myself guilty of putting negative material into articles the topics of which I do not like
[34] (not about Kagan, obviously). Negatively editing BLP-enemies harms the reputation of Wikipedia
[35].
Targetting only User:Collect would provide a manageable scope for this RfAR or reduce Arbcom workload (or both), according to temptations proffered by arbitrator DGG ( talk · contribs) [36] and arbitrator triumphant Floquenbeam ( talk · contribs) (marred by an unwarranted right/left projection) [37].
Rather, and as requested especially by arbitrators Courcelles ( talk · contribs) and Yunshui ( talk · contribs), an appropriate scope is available:
The dispute involves primarily the George W. Bush Presidency and " neoconservatism", particularly allegations that "neoconservatives" at the Project for a New American Century (PNAC) caused Bush's Iraq War— often as an alleged (perhaps unconscious) pretext for protecting Israel—whilst endangering US security, perhaps under a (Zionist) ideological delusion of establishing United States hegemony.
Pursuing the primary project of blaming PNAC/neoconservatives for this Iraq war has entailed secondary projects of
When the primary and secondary projects were resisted by the Wikipedia community,
While the Jew-tagging has been limited to a very small number of editors (when not being blocked), a larger number of editors
as evinced by e.g., their treatment of the size of the letterhead organization PNAC with its 5 employees (by e.g. Fyddlestix ( talk · contribs)'s [38], [39]), etc.
Allowing the case to target only Collect would send another message that Arbcom cases are childish games won by the first to file (violating WP:Boomerang) and so encourage further vexatious and premature filings.
Such a scope would declare Arbcom's abnegation of its responsibilities to
See a thread entitled "ArbCom case" at Wikipediocracy: [40] Dear 0Dear 08:04, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Thank you. TJRC ( talk) 20:48, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
|
This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Category:Organizations with five employees, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Fyddlestix ( talk) 20:44, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
|
This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Hi Dear ODear ODear Thanks for commenting in the Collect Arbcom case. I just wanted to let you know that without exception, statements (including responses to other statements) must be shorter than 500 words ( Word Count Tool). (See the large pink box at the top of the WP:RFAR page). Your statement is nearly three times the limit. - Mr X 14:11, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
|
Two old Jewish men are sitting on a park bench in Berlin in the early 1930s. Things are not yet so bad, but that doesn’t mean they won’t get worse.
One of the two is solemnly reading a Jewish newspaper. The other is scanning a Nazi paper, and laughing out loud. Finally, the first man stops reading and says, “It’s bad enough that you read that pro-Hitler rag. But to laugh at it!”
The second responds with a shrug. “What if I read your paper? It tells me about Jewish windows being broken, Jewish shops boycotted, Jewish children beaten up in school. So ... if I read the Hitler paper it tells me that we Jews control the whole world.”
— Christopher Hitchens, "Jewish Power, Jewish Peril", Vanity Fair, September 2002 [45]
This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
You have been
indefinitely blocked by the
Arbitration Committee.
Appeal of this block may be made in writing, by emailing arbcom-l |
Please note that Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Collect has been opened. For the Arbitration Committee, Robert McClenon ( talk) 21:51, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
Per the blocking policy, others are welcome to enter the following evidence, as long as an editor takes responsibility for that action, rather than acting as an agent for this blocked, principal editor.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Ubikwit has been nearly indefinitely blocked several times, for example, here [46], with a ban mentioned by administrators Deskana ( talk · contribs), and EdJohnston ( talk · contribs), and Malik Shabazz ( talk · contribs)
"Mr. Jensen, I see that you are a former professor at Yale! Wow!!!. I'm not impressed.". [50]
Ubikwit's noncompliance with WP:Bias and prejudice is demonstrated through his edits, for example
... "Jews" [emboldening of quotation-marks added] ..., so you are again engaged in an act of duplicitous disimulation; the Mossad would be proud, maybe you should apply, seeing as you need a job. Hey, if you are going to act as a proxy for the Israeli government, you might as well get paid for it[51]( quoted)
questions relating to Jews seem to be primarily about religion, and staking claims based on an anachronistic religious basis, encompassing the continued attempt to physically disposes through illegal occupation by "settlers" of the current and actual holders of the rights to lands in question. [....] It would appear that the Israeli participants were trying to hijack the forum in order to bolster their assertion of a claim to "indigenousness".[52] (noted by AnkhMorpork ( talk · contribs) [53])
Since 8 months ago,
Ubikwit (
talk ·
contribs)'s edits on
Robert Kagan seem to willfully violate WP:BLP and other policies:
"there are plenty of politicians Jews among them that present themselves as being loyal to the USA and pro-Israel without worrying about that presenting a possible COI, emphasizing that Israel is "the only democracy in the Middle East", etc."[64], [65]
Ubikwit's three 2014 summertime edits about "double loyalties" to Israel and the USA and "The Israel Lobby" violated his topic ban. Blaming pro-Israel Americans, Jews, and Israelis for unduly influencing American foreign policy for the benefit of Israel---for example by opposing arms for Egypt and supporting military aid to Israel, which is a central thesis of The Israel Lobby---is related to "the Israel-Arab conflict, broadly considered", if the topic-ban means anything.
User Binksternet has engaged in consistently negative POV-pushing, which has misrepresented sources
[67] and (most egregiously)
[68] and deleted exposure of the misrepresentation
[69],
[70]---following Binksternet's confessing I consider myself guilty of putting negative material into articles the topics of which I do not like
[71] (not about Kagan, obviously). Negatively editing BLPs harms the reputation of Wikipedia
[72].
Dear 0Dear 23:09, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
@ Kafkaesque:
This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
I'm sorry. This is Kafkaesque. It is not disputed that I did not make the edit for which I was blocked. (The IP that actually made the edit has not been blocked, which I can not understand). I remain blocked now because I participated in an RfAr last month, and no one claims that anything I said was uncivil or inappropriate. In preparing my comments I looked at the contributions of the user targeted by the RfAr. In four of them that user deleted content shortly after an AFD called for the content to be kept but merged. I restored the deleted content with edit summaries asking for an editor familiar with the issue to merge the important content. No one had claimed that there was anything inappropriate about those edits. They conformed to policy. After I commented in the RfAr I have had nothing further to do with the target. Now I am accused without cause of being a "stalker" and blocked due to four legitimate edits a month ago. When I returned to active editing, I said on my user page that I had been following Wikipedia discussions and arguments for a few months. Because I had been doing that. Yet somehow doing research and checking out situations rather than jumping in without much information and shooting my mouth off is bad behavior now. Until the false accusations of me being a banned user began, no one had ever suggested any of my editing violated any Wikipedia policies. There were editors who complained about violating policies especially over fair use imagees though. I would think that the work I have been doing in cleaning up BLP violations should count for something but instead bad faith is assumed in this dispute. Even though I was careful to make sure my edits matched up to the rules made the Arbcom which I already quoted below. If any editor is to be judged only by a carefully chosen 5 out of one thousand edits it would be easy to find a way to make an invalid case against them. I would also like to point out that the BLP violation in the edit that started this office is confirmed by Jimmy Wales, who recently and graciously apologized for directing the same basic term against the individual in question (link below). I again request to be unblocked. That is the only fair thing to do.
|
I requested that an administrator remove the worst harassment (anti-semitism and intimidation of listing their children's names) on Robert Kagan.
I understand that trying to make Collect look like he was obsessed with BLP when there were no problems makes it inconvenient to list the harassment at Kagan on the Arbitration case page, and so Roger Davies had to remove it. I get that.
But could somebody please continue the work of removing the harassment from 2009 to the present, please, with the help of an administrator who can revdelete the harassment?
Thanks.
Dear 0Dear 23:21, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
@ Ymblanter and Coffee: Immediately after the gentle page-protection expired, the Jew-tagging BLP-vandalism has resumed at Robert Kagan, [74] although it was reverted by EvergreenFir ( talk · contribs). [75]
Dear 0Dear 08:28, 25 March 2015 (UTC) P.S. See the Parable of Snot-Boogie. [76]
You were recently listed as a party to a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Collect and others. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Collect and others/Evidence. Please add your evidence by April 14, 2015, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Collect and others/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, -- L235 ( t / c / ping in reply) by MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 01:51, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
Another editor is welcome to introduce my evidence into the case:
Evidence for "Collect and others" case of arbitration |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Ubikwit has been nearly indefinitely blocked several times, for example, here [77], with a ban mentioned by administrators Deskana ( talk · contribs), and EdJohnston ( talk · contribs), and Malik Shabazz ( talk · contribs)
Ubikwit's noncompliance with WP:Bias and prejudice is demonstrated through his edits, for example
Ubikwit's three 2014 summertime edits about "double loyalties" to Israel and the USA and "The Israel Lobby" violated his topic ban. Blaming pro-Israel Americans, Jews, and Israelis for unduly influencing American foreign policy for the benefit of Israel---for example by opposing arms for Egypt and supporting military aid to Israel, which is a central thesis of The Israel Lobby---is related to "the Israel-Arab conflict, broadly considered", if the topic-ban means anything. User Binksternet has engaged in consistently negative POV-pushing, which has misrepresented sources
[98] and (most egregiously)
[99] and deleted exposure of the misrepresentation
[100],
[101]---following Binksternet's confessing |
Dear 0Dear 07:39, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
You were recently listed as a party to a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2/Evidence. Please add your evidence by April 14, 2015, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, -- L235 ( t / c / ping in reply) by MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 01:51, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
Another editor is welcome to introduce my evidence into the case:
Evidence for "American politics 2" case of arbitration |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Ubikwit has been nearly indefinitely blocked several times, for example, here [105], with a ban mentioned by administrators Deskana ( talk · contribs), and EdJohnston ( talk · contribs), and Malik Shabazz ( talk · contribs)
Ubikwit's noncompliance with WP:Bias and prejudice is demonstrated through his edits, for example
Ubikwit's three 2014 summertime edits about "double loyalties" to Israel and the USA and "The Israel Lobby" violated his topic ban. Blaming pro-Israel Americans, Jews, and Israelis for unduly influencing American foreign policy for the benefit of Israel---for example by opposing arms for Egypt and supporting military aid to Israel, which is a central thesis of The Israel Lobby---is related to "the Israel-Arab conflict, broadly considered", if the topic-ban means anything. User Binksternet has engaged in consistently negative POV-pushing, which has misrepresented sources
[126] and (most egregiously)
[127] and deleted exposure of the misrepresentation
[128],
[129]---following Binksternet's confessing |
Dear 0Dear 07:41, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
Banned editors are permitted to use their talk page only to appeal their block, not as a soapbox or to participate in on-wiki discussions as you have been doing, particularly as you may appeal your block only to the arbitration committee. Accordingly, I have removed your talk page access.
Administrators: This is an Arbitration action, do not undo without consent of the Committee. Thryduulf ( talk) 13:14, 25 March 2015 (UTC)