SlimVirgin violates 3RR Rule Options

[nobs]

SlimVirgin has violated the 3RR despite several users presentation of well sourced material.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&action=history

[Lir]

SlimVirgin has violated the 3RR

The 3RR has an exception which says the cabal can revert as much as necessary, but everyone else can't.

[guy]

The 3RR has an exception which says the cabal can revert as much as necessary, but everyone else can't.

She can probably claim that it's vandalism so 3RR doesn't apply.

[guy]

Hello? They have to denounce her at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Adm...noticeboard/3RR and not on a random talk page. Wake up.

Indeed. SlimVirgin used that page and had a user blocked for 24 hours just a few days ago.

[blissyu2]

Isn't that article related to the Nobs01 case, and the reason why Nobs got banned? I'd like some comment from Nobs on this one before making comment.

[nobs]

Isn't that article related to the Nobs01 case, and the reason why Nobs got banned? I'd like some comment from Nobs on this one before making comment.

Yes. It is very similiar. The same group of editors (some would call 'cabalists') are reverting sourced material.

She can probably claim that it's vandalism so 3RR doesn't apply.

Sourced material, as per WP:CITE, WP:RS, WP:V, WP:NPOV and WP:NOR is vandalism? Deja vu.

[nobs]

nobs, hello? Can you actually go to to the 3RR noticeboard and denounce her? You've not done that.

Not me. I been banned for a year (now I know what Nelson Mandela suffered).

[guanaco]

SlimVirgin only reverted three times. That is not a violation. I'd probably block her if she reverted again.

[thebainer]

Not me. I been banned for a year (now I know what Nelson Mandela suffered).

You're comparing yourself to Nelson Mandela? You're saying that being banned from Wikipedia is equivalent to being imprisoned for twenty-seven years?

[Blu Aardvark]

Anyone notice how SlimVirgin gets away with edit summaries such as this? If I left that kind of note in my edit summary, I'd have WP:CIV thrown at me so fast...

[blissyu2]

It reminds me of the mess with the Jewish lists (Antidote, Poetlister, Lulu and Slim Virgin), although in that case it was mostly Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters behaving like this, but with Slim Virgin backing him up (and Jayjg opposing them both, for people who think that Jayjg and Slim Virgin are best buddies). Just odd that its the same behaviour. Perhaps Slim Virgin needs a lesson on what sourced material means. She seems to be not accepting anything.

[Lir]

It reminds me of the mess with the Jewish lists (Antidote, Poetlister, Lulu and Slim Virgin), although in that case it was mostly Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters behaving like this, but with Slim Virgin backing him up (and Jayjg opposing them both, for people who think that Jayjg and Slim Virgin are best buddies). Just odd that its the same behaviour. Perhaps Slim Virgin needs a lesson on what sourced material means. She seems to be not accepting anything.

She just didn't understand the importance of getting as many Jews as possible listed in Wikipedia.

[Selina]

I think personally think there shouldn't be any categories grouping people by ethnicity or religion at all.. pointless, for anything but "hate lists"
I know Poetlister and Jayjg both had good intentions tho - maybe just wanted more public knowledge of good things Jewish people have done? Both Poetlister and Jayjg are Jewish so yeah..

Oh and for people that still deny stuff like this exists:
"This creep's an active anti fascist" - www.redwatch.org.uk/westyorksreds.html

Yes. These people really believe to be ANTI fascist is to be a creep.. stupid scum -_-

[guy]

I think personally think there shouldn't be any categories grouping people by ethnicity or religion at all.. pointless, for anything but "hate lists"
I know Poetlister and Jayjg both had good intentions tho - maybe just wanted more public knowledge of good things Jewish people have done? Both Poetlister and Jayjg are Jewish so yeah..

This is Wikipediareview not Wikipedia, so let's get our facts straight.

It was RachelBrown who was interested in Jewish matters; Poetlister only took over after RachelBrown backed out. RachelBrown is a Methodist (as I am). I don't know about Poetlister, but she went to a Church of England school.

I appreciate Selina's POV on ethnic/religious lists, but unless and until they are abolished for all religions and ethnicities, it's weird to single out Jewish ones.

[jorge]

She just didn't understand the importance of getting as many Jews as possible listed in Wikipedia.

GraceNote, why can you not see that the vast majority of people contributing to these lists are doing so for positive reasons. Do you really want a situation where we are not allowed to mention that anyone who did anything positive in history was Jewish? I have seen people attempting to edit the lists who are probably anti semitic but their edits are almost always completely inaccurate. Personally I am interested in British jewish history because I discovered a Jewish connection in my family- I see absolutely nothing wrong with listing Jewish people by occupation as I would have no problem with listing other ethnic groups who did or do not have a state of their own.

[guy]

She just didn't understand the importance of getting as many Jews as possible listed in Wikipedia.

It's a question of being encyclopaedic. If you know that someone is/was Jewish and refuse to add them to the appropriate list because "there are enough Jews listed already" or some such nonsense, is that appropriate behaviour for Wikipedia?

There is room for discussion about who counts as a Jew for this purpose, but there is a reasonably settled status quo on this at present, and we should abide by this unless and until there is agreement to change it. Lulu's view that a name can only be on a list if the article clearly says that the person is Jewish is obviously nonsense, as are the suggestions that only people who are 100% Jewish or practising Jews are eligible.

Unfortunately, there are editors who do not want these lists, and will use any ruse to delete names from them or indeed entire lists. Good examples are the attempt to convert the List of Jewish Fellows of the Royal Society to a List of Fellows of the Royal Society, and the deletion of Max Born from the List of British Jews and Riesz from the List of Swedish Jews because they weren't born in Britain/Sweden (though Riesz lived in Sweden for over 60 years).

Next, I suppose we'll see swathes of articles about Jews flagged as non-notable.

[nobs]

OK, so it appears Viriditas, and Will Beback have joined the tag team.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&action=history

[Blu Aardvark]

OK, so it appears Viriditas, and Will Beback have joined the tag team.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&action=history

Well, at least User:Cberlet himself has the decency to not be involved in this edit war. It's not like he hasn't editted his own article in the past (some of these go WAY back, though), Most of the time, it was simply to correct spelling errors, but there are some edits in which he was explicitly writing his own autobiography. (Don't you love how the rules apply to everyone equally, except those that the elitist cabal deems that they don't apply to?) The following links are in reverse chronological order.
[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14]

True, about half of these edits are simply the correcting of spelling errors, or about correcting the image to a fair use version which he has explictly granted Wikipedia permission to use.

In addition, it may be worth checking out Chip Berlet's userpage (seems SlimVirgin is rather fond of him, and awarded him a barnstar; I've been unable to find the exact diff where it was awarded, unfortunately.)

And finally, there are two somewhat related Requests for Arbitration (and a single request for mediation), in which Chip was indirectly involved (SlimVirgin and Snowspinner were also somewhat involved)
*Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Lyndon LaRouche
*Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Lyndon LaRouche Part Deux
*Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Archive 13

[Lir]

GraceNote, why can you not see that the vast majority of people contributing to these lists are doing so for positive reasons.

One could reasonably ask why the editors in question seem unaware that those reasons are not seen as positive by some others. I think some of the editors are frankly insensitive. Others I am deeply suspicious of. It is hard to assume good faith of someone who insists that Jack Straw should be considered Jewish because he had a Jewish greatgrandparent. I am deeply suspicious of people who want to draw up lists of Jews and fight to maximise them.

I am deeply suspicious of editors who wish to include Matt Busby -- not identified as Jewish in any reputable source (and here is a man who has had a great deal written about him) -- in a list of Jews because he was of "Lithuanian Jewish origin". Deeply, deeply suspicious. Because how can those editors not be aware that "Jewishness" is not like "Lithuanianness"? Particularly when Jewish editors have pointed it out to them, more than once, and the article itself carries a link to an article that makes it absolutely explicit.

Above and beyond any discussion of who is or is not Jewish, Wikipedia outlaws original research. Any internal criteria for "deciding who's Jewish" are not allowed. That some editors want criteria that are looser than Hitler's is quite astonishing.

I don't see anything wrong with being described as a Jew. I don't mind it. Why would I? I don't have feelings about Jews any other than I do about any other human being. I get called all kinds of things anyway and none of it bothers me. Some of the trolls here seem to think it's "antisemitic" to oppose the listing of Jews though. I can only assume that they do not understand the reasons for opposition, and that the notion that it is positive in itself for people to be listed as Jews is not supported by some.

Do you really want a situation where we are not allowed to mention that anyone who did anything positive in history was Jewish?

I want a situation in which we simply report what our sources say, jorge. No more, no less. I recently edited the piece on Joseph Rotblat, a great man, and without question Jewish. I edited the piece to make clear that he was Jewish and not "of Jewish origin" (which is plain nonsense). I have absolutely no problem with our stating that he was Jewish, and if you insist on drawing up lists of people of one type or another, I would not strike him out of a List of Jewish Foos, although I dislike Lists of foos a great deal. It can readily be sourced that Rotblat was Jewish. I don't need to rely on some bullshit source or tenuous inquisitorial process. I don't either need to use myself as a source, although I knew Rotblat personally.

I have seen people attempting to edit the lists who are probably anti semitic but their edits are almost always completely inaccurate.

I saw what seemed almost like an inquest into Tom Baker.

The bottom line is, we should only say someone is Jewish if a reputable source says so. It doesn't matter whether Tom Baker's grandpa once went to a bar mitzvah or some website says Sharon Osbourne's dad was Jewish. Once you start working out whether someone is Jewish or not, you're doing original research -- using sources to support your thesis, not simply restating someone else's thesis. That is not allowed in Wikipedia and I think rightly so.

Personally I am interested in British jewish history because I discovered a Jewish connection in my family

Fine. I'm not disparaging an interest in British Jewish history. I'm saying, don't add people to the list unless a reputable source says they are Jewish. Not says they have a Jewish dad. Not says they were of Jewish origin. Says they are Jewish.

Your list is not a list of people who might have a Jewish skeleton in the cupboard, jorge. It's not a list of people who you personally consider Jewish. It should not go even close to being either of those things.

I see absolutely nothing wrong with listing Jewish people by occupation as I would have no problem with listing other ethnic groups who did or do not have a state of their own.

Whether there is anything wrong with the lists as objects in themselves is entirely moot. Let's say there is not. Let's say that the consensus is that there may be lists of people by ethnicity or whatever. Okay.

Now we are at the question. Who's in, who's out? In is anyone who is called the thing in question by a reputable source. Out is anyone who isn't. End of discussion. Any other discussion about who is of a particular ethnicity or nationality is simply original research and barred from Wikipedia. Now that policy -- one I strongly believe in and adhere to -- might be difficult to enforce on pages such as List of British Jews, because editors with differing motives oppose its enforcement fiercely, but it remains applicable to that page.

It's a question of being encyclopaedic. If you know that someone is/was Jewish and refuse to add them to the appropriate list because "there are enough Jews listed already" or some such nonsense, is that appropriate behaviour for Wikipedia?

There is room for discussion about who counts as a Jew for this purpose, but there is a reasonably settled status quo on this at present, and we should abide by this unless and until there is agreement to change it. Lulu's view that a name can only be on a list of the article clearly says that the person is Jewish is obviously nonsense, as are the suggestions that only people who are 100% Jewish or practising Jews are eligible.

Unfortunately, there are editors who do not want these lists, and will use any ruse to delete names from them or indeed entire lists. Good examples are the attempt to convert the List of Jewish Fellows of the Royal Society to a List of Fellows of the Royal Society, and the deletion of Max Born from the List of British Jews and Riesz from the List of Swedish Jews because they weren't born in Britain/Sweden (though Riesz lived in Sweden for over 60 years).

Next, I suppose we'll see swathes of articles about Jews flagged as non-notable.

This is close to too demented to answer. It's totally fucking simple. If you want to add Riesz to a "List of Swedish Jews" you find a reputable source that says he was a Swedish Jew. I don't suppose anyone would take umbrage if you found a separate source for each of "Swedish" and "Jewish", so long as both were reputable. There is no "room for discussion" whatsoever. Wikipedia simply restates what other sources state. It's an encyclopaedia not an inquisition.


No one is "flagging" anything as non-notable. No one is trying to exclude Jews from Wikipedia. The suggestion is absolutely ludicrous, particularly because you are making it of editors, such as SlimVirgin and IZAK, who have added many articles about Jews and Jewish issues, and are themselves Jews.

[guy]

If you want to add Riesz to a "List of Swedish Jews" you find a reputable source that says he was a Swedish Jew. I don't suppose anyone would take umbrage if you found a separate source for each of "Swedish" and "Jewish", so long as both were reputable. There is no "room for discussion" whatsoever. Wikipedia simply restates what other sources state. It's an encyclopaedia not an inquisition.

No one is "flagging" anything as non-notable. No one is trying to exclude Jews from Wikipedia. The suggestion is absolutely ludicrous, particularly because you are making it of editors, such as SlimVirgin and IZAK, who have added many articles about Jews and Jewish issues, and are themselves Jews.

There are excellent references that Riesz was Jewish and that he lived in Sweden for over 60 years. Doesn't that make him a Swedish Jew?

And can Grace Note please be consistent and provide sources that SAlimVirgin and IZAK are Jewish. Unless and until these are provided, he can't, by his own logic, claim that they are Jewish.