Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 14:42, 26 February 2012

For new users

If you are new here, welcome. The page Misplaced Pages:Welcome, newcomers has links to a tutorial, and answers to frequently-asked questions.

Archives

Because of their length, the previous discussions on this page have been archived. If further archiving is needed, see Misplaced Pages:How to archive a talk page.

Previous discussions: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

thanks

thank you for being open about this.

Xiutwel-2012 (talk) 15:36, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Well surmised

Your comment here pretty much sums it up...as usual, you're able to make a point concisely and accurately.--MONGO 00:45, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

It works both ways; if his edits are allowed by consensus, then he's not banned. Calling a tail a leg doesn't make it so. Although again, my point is about banned users in general, not about this case in particular. Tom Harrison 15:37, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, as someone that understood the Mantanmoreland/WordBomb "fight" I did take a side in that affair in favor of the latter. I had no idea that ScottyBerg is/might be Mantanmoreland, so that was a revelation. However, the reasons we have rules around here is so we have order and some semblance of harmony of course, even if we are faced with a relatively unique returnee...what surprises me is why it takes so long to issue 1 desyopping and ban another editor for a year...--MONGO 00:06, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

There is such a group

With respect to your comments here - that is the Audit Subcommittee. Please see WP:AUSC. We've just recently closed applications for candidacy for the 2012 community representatives; please watch WP:AC/N for further information as it becomes available, as we will be calling for comments from the community on the candidates put forward. Risker (talk) 14:55, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

That's what I was thinking of, thanks. Tom Harrison 18:11, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

9/11 CT article

Please stop making edits like this. It isn't even a question for discussion. Trying to smear all 9/11 conspiracy theorists by prominently associating them with antisemitism is blatantly tendentious. You are aware of the discretionary sanctions I am sure.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 05:22, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I understand you don't like it, but the antisemitism of 9/11 conspiracy theories is well established in reliable secondary sources, which I and others have provided. Discussion is continuing of how to correct the bias of the article as it is now; I've read your arguments there, and will continue to, but those arguments so far have been unpersuasive, and haven't gained traction. Tom Harrison 12:26, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

AE case

I have filed a request for enforcement at AE concerning you.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 22:30, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Per WP:ARB911 and this thread, you are indefinitely topic-banned from articles which relate to the events of September 11, broadly interpreted. See WP:TBAN for the scope of a "topc ban". You may appeal this sanction in accordance with the instructions at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement. --Mkativerata (talk) 07:11, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

@Mkativerata: I don't know why you closed this so quickly, but I direct you to this post. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 07:47, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

AQFK, please don't pursue this. Thanks to those who took time to read and comment. Tom Harrison 13:10, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Huh? What on earth is this...is Mkativerata under administrative recall..or the other two misguided admins...un-believable. I looked at those diffs TDA provided and all I can say is WTF?--MONGO 21:49, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

If there's reason to think Requests for Enforcement was manipulated, that should be investigated. Tom Harrison 18:31, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Manipulation...indeed...COI...indeed...misuse of the dispute resolution process for retribution and to gain an advantage in a content dispute...indeed...administrative misconduct and violation of COI...you bet. The only issue now is do I waste valuable time on an Rfc or drag everyone to arbcom.MONGO 19:13, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Let's give Mkativerata a chance to respond before filing an RfC/U or taking this to Arbitration. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:31, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

He admitted to a COI in this area...yet acted anyway...even if the situation is fixed appropriately, we can't have admins going around misusing their tools and positions...MONGO 20:31, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Mkativerata has retired and handed in his tools under a self admitted "cloud"...yet the topic ban still stands...I'm sorry...the admins involved in this nonsense should all resign...we've been losing fine contributors partly due to admin overzealousness...I don't think this website has any understanding how important the work you have been doing here is...and for the record, over this fiasco, AQFK has also resigned...he was only hanging around to attend to the issues at hand. Plainly put, we can't have admins out their crucifying editors over a few less than perfect edits, when they have made many thousands of completely perfect ones...admins not worried about their power trips could have simply protected the page for a week.--MONGO 06:09, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

He acted wrongly in my case, but I can sympathize with him a bit - hope he finds an enjoyable way to contribute. Tom Harrison 14:50, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Tom, I saw this only a few hours ago, and have had a look through related threads. As I think you are aware, "indefinite" does not mean "infinite/permanent" on Misplaced Pages (quite the opposite), and I hope both that the topic ban will lifted in a timely way, and that you will have learned something from it: in general, you have been, in my limited experience, a voice of balance, reason and compromise on 9/11 pages. Geometry guy 00:39, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words. Tom Harrison 14:22, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

If only it were that easy, Guy. Tom would have to appeal directly to the committee - which he won't, probably to avoid a wikistorm. Aside from that fact, the blocking admin may well have intended a permanent block - he called Tom incapable of editing neutrally on the subject. It was an ill-advised block that is going to last a long time, not just a week or even a few months.

As for Tom, I hope you do fight this. We haven't made much contact but despite my disagreements on some compromises you made on the cultural impact issue, you have always acted civilly and level-headed. We will surely miss you on the page, you were a great help and voice of reason. :) Toa Nidhiki05 01:40, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

"disagreements on some compromises you made on the cultural impact issue" - You're doing fine work yourself, and you may have been right; time will tell. Thank you, Tom Harrison 14:22, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I have read the relevant threads and talk page discussions, and do not buy into the hyperbole of the moment. If Tom doesn't either, so much to his credit. Time will tell, not talk here. Geometry guy 02:02, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Such nonsense. The guy provided years of service and performed thousands upon of thousands of edits to the 9/11 topics and was willing to work on pages I couldn't stand to deal with due to all the truther trolls...his reward for all that is to be told to fuck off...and you think he's going to go beg some misguided admins or the arbitration committee for clemency? Thats simply ridiculous...I can see it now...Dear mr/ms admin: please pretty please allow me to once again work on the 9/11 articles where I can deal with POV pushing fringe theory wackos because I really have nothing better to do with my life...my goal is to make another 5 thousand edits to these pages, show tremendous civility in the face of constant brow-beating and then get topic banned again just because I might try to talk about the real historical development of the origination of many 9/11 conspiracy theories. It's the POV pushers that beg the arbitration enforcement board for clemency because not being able to promote their pet nonsense theories eliminates them from their sole purpose on the website...those here to build a fact based account of the events aren't going to plead for the opportunity to once again argue with morons.--MONGO 05:57, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Tom...you can self award this but wanted to award it to you since I know you're not into self promotion...its a thanks from me for your years of contributions and 42,000 edits.--MONGO 19:49, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! that's awesome. I see the alternate name for Master Editor is Illustrious Looshpah; that seems apt somehow. Thank you, Tom Harrison 14:22, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

It's generous of people to excuse my edits as some kind of lapse, and I don't like to undercut them, but some misunderstandings have to be corrected. Someone wrote, in effect, that I've been quick to apologize in the past and I'll come around, say what I must, and get back to editing on 9/11. The problem with that is I only apologize when I've been wrong. Tom Harrison 22:40, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

General reply

• "completely unacceptable in what purports to be a neutral encyclopaedia"
• "poor sourcing"
• " are completely misrepresented."
• "Edit-warring and battleground behaviour"
• "Advocacy, POV-pushing and source misrepresentation"
• "beyond the pale"
• "blatant POV pushing"
• "polemical"
• "completely WP:SOAPBOX."
• "Rarely do we get an NPOV violation as clear-cut" (Wow. Try watchlisting Larry Silverstein.)

What are the egregious, appaling, mendacious, source-twisting edits that provoked this? Here they are (those with delicate sensibilities, look away):

"Ostensibly blaming Israelis, neocons, or greedy financiers, 9/11 conspiracy theories in fact articulate the long-established antisemitic theme of Jews as an international cabal manipulating world affairs," cited to the ADL, and an accurate summary of the source.

But spare us! there's more:

"Overtly blaming the Mossad, disloyal American Jews in government, or profit-seeking developers, 9/11 conspiracy theories continue in the tradition of conspiracy theories generally in presenting the Jews as stateless cosmopolitans who secretly control the world," cited, accurately, to PublicEye.org and to Slate.

Well sure, 9/11 conspiracy theories do just that; nobody who'd read a serious book or two on conspiracy theory would be surprised to hear it; but we mustn't say it.

He's got another. Will nobody stop him?

"9/11 conspiracy theories, like all conspiracy theories, have their origin in hatred and fear of secret societies, and hatred and fear of Jews." Cited to Conspiracy Theories for Dummies.

Another unremarkably factual statement, unless you learned all you know about conspiracism on a Misplaced Pages talk page. Though there is something of a barb in this one, I'll admit. If a man can't or won't read any other reference, maybe Conspiracy Theories for Dummies is appropriate. I humbly beg pardon for implying the reverter (apparently like the banning admin) can't be bothered to familiarize himself with basic academic literature on the subject.

What can possibly have made me write such bizarre, extreme material - stress, drink, latent mental illness? No. Each of those three edits is an accurate summary of a reliable source. I stand by them. Sure they could be better; there's always room for improvement. They could be reworded for better precision and better integrated into the rest of the text for a start. But I have no intention of apologizing, or recanting, or petitioning arbcom for forgiveness, or begging anyone for permission to maintain the articles about 9/11, broadly intrepreted. Tom Harrison 22:40, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

• Without taking a position on the correctness of the edits in question, I wanted to say that I hope you return to editing the topic soon. You've stood out since before I joined this project as a sane, reasonable voice. In fact, in many ways you were a role model for me in learning how to deal with controversial topics on Misplaced Pages. Anyhow, I just wanted to give you some encouragement. Call me crazy, but I think that one slip-up in eight years of editing controversial topics is an enviable record. That, and $1.75, will get you a cup of coffee around here. :) MastCell  23:37, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate that. Tom Harrison 23:51, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

• I agree with MastCell in general, Tom. However, you presented the views of selected sources (reliable or otherwise) in the editorial neutral voice. Sure we can say it, but opinion often requires attribution, not merely citation. This is not an issue you need to apologize for, merely an issue you need to understand. Geometry guy 23:41, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I understand the point; to think the characteristics of conspiracy theories are matters of opinion is a mistake - they simply are what the sources say they are. But at a certain point I'm just going to be repeating myself. Others are welcome to continue the discussion. Tom Harrison 23:50, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Sure: issues of attribution, like issues of due weight and issues of presentation, involve editorial judgment, and hence may require discussion, mutual understanding and compromise. A "fact" to one editor can be an "opinion" to another; that doesn't mean either editor is "right". Geometry guy 00:03, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Tom is the only editor that never burnout on that topic...I had to leave and now watchlist but 5 pages related to the events...it used to be over 50. I concur with MastCell...whenever I want to say what I really want to say, I try to think about how Tom Harrison would say it....that has kept me out of trouble more than once.--MONGO 00:10, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

As I said in my first post to this thread, Tom has in general been a voice of balance, reason and compromise on 9/11 pages, so I would agree with you that you have chosen your role model here very wisely. Geometry guy 00:24, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes...we are all striving to be the best we can be...yes indeed we are.--MONGO 00:47, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Claymore, mine, 1 each, back of

Tom, of course you are right there is lettering on the back of the Claymore mine. But is that wording worth mentioning in a general article about the mine? The front wording is amusing, iconic and noteworthy, but is the stuff on the back? I think not. But in order not to fall into bickering, I shall not delete you addition. I simply encourage you to do so. Paul, in Saudi (talk) 03:45, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

I just added the citation, not the text. Feel free to make any changes you like, or I'll read through it sometime. Tom Harrison 11:54, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

How dare you try to fill in a citation needed with a reliable reference!--MONGO 12:07, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Fortunately, adding refs is its own reward. Tom Harrison 22:44, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, as we know...I'm going to reapproach the issue by the end of next week. Have we seen Giovanni33 or Lovelight or NuclearUmph lately? I think I might have...--MONGO 04:27, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

List of Jewish Nobel laureates

Ok, thank you for the answer (even if the controversy about such element of the article seems strange). Eleventh1 (talk) 14:42, 26 February 2012 (UTC)