 |
truthaction.org
9/11 TRUTH NOW
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Arcterus
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
Posts: 701
Location: New York
|
 Posted: Sun Apr 12, 2009 3:14 am Post subject: |
 |
|
I can see some fun in that. While they're focusing on keeping the paper off Wikipedia, just type up an article like "The Great Wiki censoring of 2009" and tell the story.
_________________
http://arcterus911.blogspot.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
victronix01
Joined: 18 Sep 2007
Posts: 1728
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 12, 2009 6:05 am Post subject: |
|
|
How They Do It -- special conditions created for any 9/11 related article allowing administrators to remove anyone whose edits they don't agree with.
| Quote: | Discretionary sanctions
1) Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict (defined as articles which relate to the events of September 11, broadly interpreted) if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. The sanctions imposed may include blocks of up to one year in length; bans from editing any page or set of pages within the area of conflict; bans on any editing related to the topic or its closely related topics; restrictions on reverts or other specified behaviors; or any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project.
Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be given a warning with a link to this decision; and, where appropriate, should be counseled on specific steps that he or she can take to improve his or her editing in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines.
In determining whether to impose sanctions on a given user and which sanctions to impose, administrators should use their judgment and balance the need to assume good faith and avoid biting genuinely inexperienced editors, and the desire to allow responsible contributors maximum freedom to edit, with the need to reduce edit-warring and misuse of Wikipedia as a battleground, so as to create an acceptable collaborative editing environment even on our most contentious articles. Editors wishing to edit in these areas are advised to edit carefully, to adopt Wikipedia's communal approaches (including appropriate conduct, dispute resolution, neutral point of view, no original research and verifiability) in their editing, and to amend behaviors that are deemed to be of concern by administrators. An editor unable or unwilling to do so may wish to restrict their editing to other topics, in order to avoid sanctions.
Appeals
Sanctions imposed under the provisions of this decision may be appealed to the imposing administrator, the appropriate administrators' noticeboard (currently Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement), or the Committee. Administrators are cautioned not to reverse such sanctions without familiarizing themselves with the full facts of the matter and engaging in extensive discussion and consensus-building at the administrators' noticeboard or another suitable on-wiki venue. The Committee will consider appropriate remedies including suspension or revocation of adminship in the event of violations.
Uninvolved administrators
For the purpose of imposing sanctions under this provision, an administrator will be considered "uninvolved" if he or she has not previously participated in any content disputes on articles in the area of conflict. Enforcing the provisions of this decision will not be considered to be participation in a dispute. Any doubt regarding whether an administrator qualifies under this definition is to be treated as any other appeal of sanctions.
Logging
All sanctions imposed under the provisions of this decision are to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/September 11 conspiracy theories#Log of blocks, bans, and restrictions.
Passed 8 to 1 at 15:36, 8 April 2008 (UTC) |
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/September_11_conspiracy_theories#Discretionary_sanctions |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
victronix01
Joined: 18 Sep 2007
Posts: 1728
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 13, 2009 1:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
A "sustained attack by 'Truthers'" noted by the huddling wikipedia editors here --
| Quote: | I have added two more accounts to the list at the top of this report. There appears to be a sustained attack by Truthers, possibly sock or meat puppets at World Trade Center controlled demolition conspiracy theories. Could we please have more eyes on the situation, especially a checkuser. The single purpose accounts are coming one after another. It is not scalable to file a sock puppet report for each one. We need uninvolved administrators and at least one checkuser to camp on that page and clear out any sock puppets. Thank you. Please acknowledge if you can help. Jehochman Talk 23:52, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Help? Anyone? Jehochman Talk 13:20, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
I've found a few Truther websites which have recently posted criticism of the article: [9] [10] (note the latter is trying to get people to add some text to an article). I think we're dealing with a load of people who read this and decided to edit the articles, which means this is meatpuppetry not sockpuppetry. Hut 8.5 16:36, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
Okay, I am watchlisting World Trade Center controlled demolition conspiracy theories for a time. Any opposition to indefblocking new SPAs as meatpuppets with reference to this thread? Sandstein 21:13, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
Given the apparent meat puppetry discovered by Hut 8.5, that seems to make sense. I am an involved editor. Jehochman Talk 04:21, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
Locewtus (talk · contribs) has been adding the content suggested in one of those links to large numbers of articles, including some that have nothing to do with 9/11. Hut 8.5 21:12, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
A lot of "truther", and also some non-"truther" sites (e.g. a blog on Huffington Post) report on these issues at the moment (without reference to WP). I don't think that the majority of new SPA editors have seen the two internet sites that specifically report on WP. A meatpuppet allegation is disturbing for every new editor, as many new editors would consider it legitimate to encourage people to get involved here, if they think the WP article is inaccurate. It's even more disturbing to a new user who has not been encouraged by any such web site or other person (and therefore, is not a meatpuppet). --Cs32en (talk) 21:38, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
The Cs32en account has been arguing to include unverified info. This could be dealt with via WP:AE if it can't be resolved through ordinary dscussion. Hut 8.5, could you file a request at WP:SPI with your evidence of meat puppetry? Jehochman Talk 01:16, 13 April 2009 (UTC) |
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
truthmover
Joined: 19 Oct 2007
Posts: 1575
Location: Los Angeles
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 13, 2009 4:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
OK, I'll bite. Are they expressing any valid concerns? Is the peer review done on the paper adequate? Does the paper avoid major logical leaps? Is the journal remotely reputable?
Just wondering exactly how baseless are their concerns. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
victronix01
Joined: 18 Sep 2007
Posts: 1728
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 13, 2009 4:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | Just wondering exactly how baseless are their concerns. |
For example, what is the justification for removing the paper from the page "9/11 Truth Movement"? There's no basis in saying it is not a notable event for the movement. See the discussion that is started, that they ignore, while continuing to remove the paper --
| Quote: | Removal of new paper
Removals of the new paper on thermite in the WTC are baseless -- this is a significant event for the group Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice and there is no basis for removing it except that editors are trying to hide the important findings of the paper. I urge those who are not aware of this paper to actually read it -- [44]. It has been widely reported in Denmark and in alternative US press, as well as Deseret News. For example, the Danish government-owned television channel TV2 has broadcast an interview and a discussion with the corresponding author of the paper, Niels Harrit. The discussion took place in a breakfast talkshow named "Good morning, Denmark". The interview, with English subtitles, can be found here. This is a significant event in the history of the movement as a search for the exact title of the paper ("Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe") on google returns over 17,900 matches, and it's only been less than 2 weeks. Locewtus (talk) 20:53, 12 April 2009 (UTC) |
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:9/11_Truth_Movement#Removal_of_new_paper
Their original discussion focused on Bentham being not a reliable source and the beginnings of arguments against the findings of the paper, but if you take a look at some of these editors, you'll find them i.e., defending Bill O'Reilly (gutting all the criticism off his page) and that they are openly conservative and clearly unable to remain neutral. Others make the broad statement that "Exceptional claims require exceptional sources" and nothing more as a reason to remove the paper over and over.
Why should the paper be minimized or removed off of Steven Jones page? He's an author of the paper! But that's what Arthur Rubin's job is, is to delete every post made by anyone who is posting the paper wherever they post it. Then he alludes to it being not a reliable source in discussion with no evidence and then baits someone into getting blocked if they revert all of his reverts, since he just continues to remove it over and over again and needs no justification.
You can go to his user page and scroll down on the left, click on user contributions -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Arthur_Rubin -- and you can see everything he has reverted on the 9/11 pages, then go through and revert all of those reversions . . .
All the 9/11 relevant pages (although not invdividual 9/11 researcher pages) are blocked to newly registered users or non-registered users, so they can control how many people they have to deal with. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Disco_Destroyer
Joined: 06 Jun 2008
Posts: 420
Location: Essex
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 13, 2009 4:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
It is soo easy to erase truth in the non paper varieties of encyclopedias,
we need a crack team of Anti-Thought Police 
_________________
'Come and see the violence inherent in the system.
Help, help, I'm being repressed!' |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
truebeleaguer
Joined: 13 Mar 2008
Posts: 657
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 13, 2009 4:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
"Exceptional claims require exceptional sources"? That's a new one on me. I've always heard it put "Exceptional claims require exceptional proof".
This sounds like a blatant argument from authority, and an admission that they are imposing exceptional standards on the source in this particular case. I wonder if they have ever disqualified a Bentham paper before. I note that Bentham papers are cited in their articles on nitric oxide and mizoribine. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
victronix01
Joined: 18 Sep 2007
Posts: 1728
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 13, 2009 6:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | This sounds like a blatant argument from authority, and an admission that they are imposing exceptional standards on the source in this particular case. I wonder if they have ever disqualified a Bentham paper before. I note that Bentham papers are cited in their articles on nitric oxide and mizoribine. |
They claim that the online journals are different, and base that all on the posts of one blogger who was criticizing Bentham from when it first started it's online series and solicited a lot of scientists as editors.
They originally tried to eliminate the "Fourteen Points" paper but eventually lost that battle. However, that Bentham publication is no different from this new one, and they did not remove that paper, but left it up. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
victronix01
Joined: 18 Sep 2007
Posts: 1728
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 14, 2009 5:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | How am I not making a "serious effort to find consensus?" Show me where one person is contributing to discussion on any page of the SINGLE article I am trying to include on pages relevant? Claims were made without basis on one discussion that now is placed in "hidden" mode. Show me the evidence that Bentham is not worthy of being on wikipedia. Aside from one blog upset about one action taken by Bentham in their original solicitation of editors, years ago, I have no idea what evidence there is to suggest Bentham is not conducting peer review or what some are describing as "proper" peer review. Tell me what that is and provide the link to prove it. I don't see anyone giving a reason that an article that is generating attention on national news all over Denmark, has been in the news in Utah, and whose exact title ("Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe") on google returns, now, 23,300 hits, in a little over one week, is not a meaningful event in the articles it is being removed from. The english subtitled version of the coverage of the first author now has 59,656 views just over one weekend. At this point, the paper is news for what this topic is about, which supposedly is the "9/11 conspiracy theories". You frame attempts to post the paper as "attacks" which they are not. People are upset that this paper is being hidden and they want it shown. What IS becoming news is the wikipedia editors behavior around this one paper as it is becoming more and more clear that this is simply news you want to hide. Removing the paper from the page which defines it -- the demolition theory -- with handwaving about "extreme claims" and "Bentham isn't reliable" while leaving other Bentham journal articles on the page, is simple transparent and people see through it. From my perspective, the editors are buying time to block a paper they have no scientific rebuttal to. The editors removing the paper are openly conservative, do not have the scientific expertise to evaluate it, and generally have a history of blocking as much relevant postiive "9/11 Truth" information as possible, while inserting as much negative information as they possibly can. As someone said to me the other day, the demolition page is laughable -- it's so transparently defending the official story and trying to deny all the views the page is about that it makes the role of wikipedia clear as day. Locewtus (talk) 17:28, 14 April 2009 (UTC) |
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#Problem_with_recurring_sock_puppetry. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rancho Truth
Joined: 12 Jun 2007
Posts: 333
Location: Washington, DC
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
victronix01
Joined: 18 Sep 2007
Posts: 1728
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 15, 2009 4:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| That's an excellent write-up Rancho -- thanks for this work. It's been re-posted . . . |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
YT
Joined: 18 Jan 2007
Posts: 4648
Location: California
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 16, 2009 10:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Someone posted this at blogger - "Jehochman" wikipedia editor and apparently anti-truth task force ringleader:
http://911blogger.com/node/19833
It would be great to see an article that comprehensively documents the actions taken by wikipedia to block out this paper. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
victronix01
Joined: 18 Sep 2007
Posts: 1728
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 17, 2009 1:42 am Post subject: |
|
|
I took it as far as I could -- all of my wikipedia personas have now been blocked indefinitely just for trying to get this paper posted.
But the silver lining is that now I can turn to focus on the 911wiki that Jim has wanted me to be working on for a long time now . . . |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Arcterus
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
Posts: 701
Location: New York
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
no_body
Joined: 28 Feb 2008
Posts: 20
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
