User talk:Preciseaccuracy

I read the salon article and it paints a completely different picture than the previous wikipedia article and is more up to date than other sources being used so I added a few quotes from it. This story seems even more interesting than the current russian spy ring. Its kind of strange that art students from fake universities would be diagramming buildings.

Welcome
Welcome!

Hello, Preciseaccuracy, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. Again, welcome!  Davtra  (talk) 13:24, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
 * Manual of Style

Please sign your posts
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you.  Davtra  (talk) 13:24, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Your recent edits
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 13:39, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Please stop
You are edit warring on the article, and you vandalized my talk page. I will revert you know, and if you reinstall your changes, I will report you. BTW I would not like to see you at my talk page.--Mbz1 (talk) 14:43, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

You have violated the three-revert rule&#32;on Art student scam. Any administrator may now choose to block your account. In the future, please make an effort to discuss your changes further, instead of edit warring.You broke the Three Revert Rule and I'm going to report you for it. (Huey45 (talk) 14:49, 12 July 2010 (UTC))

Have you had a prior account
Have you ever had another account on Wikipedia?--Mbz1 (talk) 15:03, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Why are you attacking me? I don't know all of these rules. I thought that I was supposed to comment on your talk page. Is there a better way of communicating on wikipedia? I feel like your vandalizing my work. This is the first account I've ever created. I created it this morning. I was reading about the russian spy scandal and then looked up other ones. This article appeared to be missing a lot of facts so I'm trying to improve it. Your excuse for deleting my hard work was three letter pov. Hue deleted my work because he claimed that my source wasn't credible without even looking at it but it clearly is as it has won numerous awards including best website from time and awards for independent journalism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Preciseaccuracy (talk • contribs)

FYI
You were reported here--Mbz1 (talk) 15:30, 12 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks Mbz; I was in the middle of writing the same thing. What a coincidence! (Huey45 (talk) 15:36, 12 July 2010 (UTC))

Some friendly advice
Hi, Welcome to Wikipedia. I notice that you have got involved in a bit of a disagreement concerning the Israeli art student spy allegations. This is on the fringes of a topic area (the Arab-Israeli dispute) that is one of the most likely to generate arguments on Wikipedia with editors on each side of the dispute being prone to reporting each other to the various admin boards. Although editorial policies apply to all areas of content, it is particularly important to be aware of them in areas such as this where people with strong religious, political, nationalistic or other views are keen on finding any reason to withdraw material they don't like.

In the case of what you wrote, it was very easy to find such reasons. Wikipedia articles should not refer to themselves. So your comments about the edit history and previous versions of the article would get removed by any long-standing Wikipedia contributor who saw them whether or not they agreed with your view on the matter.

Also please be warned that Wikipedia jargon does not always mean what you might think it does. WP:Neutral Point of View, for example does not mean that no opinion should be expressed on a matter in an article but rather that it should reflect the balance of opinion in what are called WP:Reliable Sources, giving WP:Due Weight to each opinion according to their representation in sources.

My advice is therefore that you look at the Wikipedia policies and guidelines linked from the welcome message that you were given. If you have any doubts about whether what you want to put in will be accepted, it is often worthwhile askign on the article talk page before you do something. There are also things called WP:Wikiprojects where people who like to contribute to articles within an area of interest can discuss how to improve things. These are good places to get advice.

Anyway, I hope you are not put off by your initial experience of Wikipedia and are willing to explore things further. --Peter cohen (talk) 20:00, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Can I suggest that, if you intend to continue editing material to do with Israel and more broadly the Arab-Israeli dispute, you go and speak to an editor with a similar outlook to yours about how to cope with Wikipedia beaurocracy. There are things that anyone who has been around Wikpedia for a while knows but which are not obvious to a new contributor, for example, that you don't succeed in getting an edit-warring block by saying that you were right or by pointing out poor conduct by your opponents.

I notice that you have mentioned a couple of editors below who agree with you on this particular content issue. I was going to suggest you approach one of them, User:Tiamut, who I know of as an approachable contributor who has learnt how to cope within the system after several blocks early in her career. Unfortunately, she hasn't been active this month. Maybe try to find someone else with similar views to yours and a history of several blocks early in their career and few or none since and they may be willing to help you learn the ropes.--Peter cohen (talk) 18:36, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Please sign
Hello Preciseaccuracy, please remember to sign your posts by typing  after a discussion on a talk page. It tells us who wrote the message. Thanks,  Davtra   (talk) 08:24, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

July 2010
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours to prevent further disruption caused by your engagement in an edit war. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text. B (talk) 01:46, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Before making a judgment please read what I have to say and spend some time going through the sources. I’m not trying to cause trouble, it is the other way around.

I hope that in the end, my experience with this article doesn’t lead me to believe that fact matters little on wikipedia in creating an article against a politically motivated majority. In the case of fixing this article, unbanning me will not be enough, something else should be done so that the content of this article isn’t solely dictated by a group of users with a strong political bias.

I did use both the talk page for discussion and then the discussion page extensively

The wikipedia article states that the Israeli “art student” spy ring is an “urban myth” which is a very controversial statement. The other editors want to label the “urban myth” quotes as fact. I would go so far as to say that this means of labeling is not only inane, but deliberately misleading.

Once again, Before making a judgment please please please read what I have to say and spend some time going through the sources. I have pent several hours writing and organizing this challenge to being blocked. Most importantly look through the sources in detail so that you can gain an understanding of the issue. The more time you spend looking through the sources, (which are all well respected sources of journalism) the more it will become apparent that the group of users attacking me clearly have political and/or nationalist bias’ that is not only interfering with the objectivity of the article but is greatly distorting the facts and intentionally mutilating and distorting the topic. From reading the previous article deletion page, it is clear that they also ganged up on another group of users in March.

I have carefully taken my time to read through the numerous sources in depth and have logically reasoned why the Israeli spy ring doesn’t fit the description of “urban myth” on the talk pages and the discussion board. Whereas the responses I have received fit this general tone

“The article was 'fine', why stir up old issues? Reminds me of an editor who has since relaxed. --Shuki (talk) 20:44, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

“It's fine the way it is. --Arxiloxos (talk) 15:00, 13 July 2010 (UTC)”

and uzer:mzb1’s reason for deleting my work from the discussion page was

“I agree it is fine as it is.--Mbz1 (talk) 01:08, 14 July 2010 (UTC)”

When the opposing users do decide to use more than “it’s fine the way it is”, the comments read as if the editors have not actually read the sources, or have read the sources and are deliberatly trying to distort the contents of those sources. To me, it seems the latter is the case.

This is a description of one of the cases of ridiculous arguments another user made

The user huey45 accused my source, salon.com of being uncredible by stating "It sounds like an unprofessional outlet for conspiracy theories and soap-box style editorial pieces, with no credibility." I then demonstrated that it is indeed credible by stating that it has been ranked best website by “Time” magazine. To this huey45 responded "Even if what you say does come from a normally reliable source, a lot of it is nonsense." This is where I saw user:huey’s personal bias interfering with objectivity in writing this article. The source article was very logical and covered the wikipedia topic "art student scam" in great depth and user:huey completely dismissed the seven page article which shines a lot of interesting light on the topic "art student scam" by saying "a lot of it is nonsense."

Only a few hours ago, after you blocked my acccount, even after it had been made clear that the source along with others were indeed credible huey commented

“The priority of this article is not meant to be the fake Israeli thing; there are plenty of other people purporting to be art students in order to sell overpriced reproductions. You already tried to hijack the article with your stuff about the DEA; leave the rest alone. (Huey45 (talk) 01:46, 14 July 2010 (UTC))”

By “fake” huey seems to mean “urban myth.” Huey45 may be right in that the over 100 fake israeli art students claiming to be from both a fake and real israeli universities weren’t spies. But there is strong evidence that they may have indeed been spies which at the very least invalidates the claim of the spy ring as an urban myth. For example, as I described on the talk page and added to the article after dealing with the inane and misleading attacks of other users, the 60 page DEA document presented on fox news, descibes the encounters of the DEA and other government agents with fake israeli art students who appeared inside protected areas of federal buildings, repeatedly showed up at dea agent homes, and were said to be doing what was  suspected to be intelligence activity near a u.s. military base. For huey45 to imply that the suspected spy ring falls under the category “urban myth” along with other urban myths such as reptiles in the sewers of new york is more than misleading and is intended to interfere with intelligent debate on the subject.

I even made concessions to the other users and agreed to delete two quotes that they stated weren’t relevant to the wikipedia article. Each of these quotes were responses to other statements in the article intended to bring a much needed balance to the wikipedia article; however, I could sort of see their points that those two quotes should be deleted so I agreed to compromise by deleting both quotes. That left only the quote from the salon article which described why labeling the spy ring as an urban myth didn’t make sense.

The arguments an editor presented against including this direct quote from salon described the contents of a source article from “the forward” in a way that led me to believe the other editor user: Arxiloxos either hadn’t even read the source article from “the forward” or was deliberately distorting its contents in his descrition for the purpose of sabotaging the quality of the the wikipedia article “Art student scam” for political reasons.

The length of the quote was then challenged so I thus agreed to condense it and did so. I then inserted a condensed version of the quote into the wikipedia article. There were no credible arguments made by other users that supported the description of the “art student spy ring” as an “urban myth” so I was justified in adding the salon quote. Once again, this quote however was deleted by user:mzb1 with little explanation.

This quote extended the length of the article also. Given that the suspected Israeli art student spy ring was a different “variant”of “art student scam” than the chinese version of selling overpriced art it was clear that adding subsection titles would add to the readability and cohesiveness of wikipedia article. I also tried to make these titles as objective as possible. These however were dismissed as pov and deleted by user: mz1 without further explanation.

Imperatives

1. At minimum I suggest you at least watch at least the first few minutes of the four part fox special on israeli spying. The “art students” are referred to specifically at around 2:10. I do encourage you to watch the whole thing if you want. Once again, the more you have read the easier it will be for you to see how they are trying to distort this wikipedia article for political purposes.

Brit Hume and Carl Cameron Fox News 4 Part Special

2. Review the contents of source articles. Articles present conflicting opinions on the subject matter so you should definitely go through several in order to achieve an objective opinion.

http://dir.salon.com/news/feature/2002/05/07/students/index.html

http://web.archive.org/web/20020321021731/http://real-info.1accesshost.com/janes1.html

http://atlanta.creativeloafing.com/2002-03-20/fishwrapper.html

http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/features/spies-or-students-1.45243

http://www.forward.com/articles/5250/

-note: this articles title refers to a separate case in Canada in 2004 but does mention the suspected suspected 2001 israli spy ring from the u.s.

http://www.zeit.de/2002/41/Tuer_an_Tuer_mit_Mohammed_Atta -note: this article is in german, from die zeit, try translating with google or yahoo

http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=20020307&slug=notspies07 -note this article is described by salon.com also with the quote “The Post's apparent debunking was far from convincing, even to the casual reader. ..If the whole thing was an "urban myth," like the sewer reptiles of Manhattan, and if it all led back to one deskbound nut job in the DEA, then what were those "reports of suspicious activity" that had come in from agents in the field?" ... "The memo is a compilation of field reports by dozens of named agents and officials from DEA offices across America. It contains the names, passport numbers, addresses, and in some cases the military ID numbers of the Israelis who were questioned by federal authorities. Pointing a finger at the author is like blaming a bank robbery on the desk sergeant who took down the names of the robbers. “

http://cryptome.org/dea-il-spy.htm -DEA memo

http://web.archive.org/web/20060423065411/http://ww1.sundayherald.com/37707 -this source was already attached to wikipedia article by another user

3. I reviewed the articlesfordeletion page for this article and it appears other users  had been bullied to change the facts and topic of this aticle through use of nonarguments and overtly pointless statements by a gang of users who wanted to have this article deleted or mutilated into the form it has become today.

No amount of talking could be done with this gang of users on the talk page that would lead this article away from being in such mangled form, because it appears that is how they want it to be. Why is this so, once again, they are arguing and not debating, because of their political motivations they want this wikipedia article to remain in its mangled form which they repeatedly say “it’s fine” in response to critcism of.

From reading the articlesfordeletion page, I think that these other users might also agree they were bullied into changing the page by the gang of users. Factsontheground

Tiamut

GregorB

Along with others

4. I am new to wikipedia so I’m not sure what is supposed to be done when a group of users collude to distort the facts of an article. When I’m unbanned, I still won’t be able to edit the article. Users mzb1 and huey45 will just report me again in order to maintain the article in its mangled form. User:noon will revert my edits.

Users Arxiloxos and Shuki will continue to respond about the article that “it’s fine.” instead of with facts

Something should be done or there will be no way to bring this article to a neutral and objective point of view. Does wikipedia have a rule for when a gang of politically motivated individuals is trying to sabotage an article?

5. After reading through my explanations and looking through sources I encourage you to read through these. It should be obvious after reading through the sources how these users are ganging up.

Revision history of Art student scam http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Art_student_scam&action=history

Huey45 talk page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Huey45#Art_Student_Scam

Talk:Art student scam http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Art_student_scam

Articlesfordeletion page for “Art Student Scam” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Israeli_art_student_scamPreciseaccuracy (talk) 10:39, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

6.I hope that in the end, my experience with this article doesn’t lead me to believe that fact and objective reporting along with citation of reliable sources matters little on wikipedia in creating an article against a politically motivated majority. In the case of fixing this article, unbanning me will not be enough, something else should be done so that the content of this article isn’t solely dictated by a group of users with a strong political bias.

I did use both the talk page for discussion and then the discussion page extensively so the reason that I wasn't using the talk page is fallacious. Consensus doesn't make sense in this situation when the facts are completely ignored by a politically motivated users. An objective third party could easily see this article has been mangled with bias and distortion techniques after review of the sources that I listed.

My sources were demonstrated to be reliable


 * When the request at AN3 was made, I did not block you because you had not edit warred after the warning. You have resumed edit warring and so I have blocked you.  When your block expires, please discuss controversial changes on the talk page, rather than simply unilaterally re-imposing them. --B (talk) 01:48, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Settle down
Precise, you are allowing yourself to fall into a situation where you will very possibly be blocked from participating in Wikipedia. If you want to continue editing here you should not let this happen. If you believe some editors are acting in concert to force a particular POV on an article concerning Israel, I'm sure you are not the first to feel that way. Maybe you're ready for a fight, even a fair fight, figuring the "truth" is on your side, but that's the wrong approach. So, settle down, ignore provocations, make dispassionate, policy-based arguments on the article Talk page, provide reliable sources for the edits you want to make and ask for neutral editors to have a look at any content disputes. Have patience, because if other editors frustrate you and you become aggressive, you only play into their hands. I don't know if you can be a good and productive editor here, that mostly depends upon your next move. Oh, and please sign your posts, as many above have shown you how to do. Respectfully, RomaC  TALK 07:04, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I understand how you feel and suggest you review this page: WP:DISPUTE and take the appropriate steps. The AN/I board may not be the best place to go right now. RomaC  TALK 07:57, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Your recent edits
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 14:30, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Personal attacks
Please do not attack other editors, as you did at Talk:Art student scam. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you.(Huey45 (talk) 06:00, 16 July 2010 (UTC))
 * This is to inform you that I will no longer be participating in your ANI complaint as an uninvolved editor. Comments that you have made in that thread, as well as on my talkpage, referencing editors engaging in political collusion are troubling.  Your comments have allowed me to infer a direction you may intend to steer the discussion.  A few final words of cautionary advice; let this go, consensus is against you, cease the personal attacks, and move on to other topics for a while.  Hazardous Matt (talk) 12:46, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Please refrain from pressing the issue by constantly linking to the same YouTube videos (as you've continue to done here). I very much doubt the cause of the problem is that you haven't quite spread those links enough.
 * Additionally, as I said above: "I will no longer be participating in your ANI complain..." I had hoped that I would be one of the few who would never have to say this, but...  Please do not pursue the issue on my talkpage any further.  Hazardous Matt (talk) 13:01, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Apparently, Hazardousmatt, you've said this to other users to http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Hazardous_Matt&diff=375442456&oldid=375441602.Preciseaccuracy (talk) 00:08, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I do not intend to steer the discussion off topic. Preciseaccuracy (talk) 13:03, 16 July 2010 (UTC) Why would you take sides in a debate without going through the evidence?Preciseaccuracy (talk) 21:15, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Respecting copyright
When adding links to material on an external site, please ensure that the external site is not violating the creator's copyright. Linking to websites that display copyrighted works is acceptable as long as the website's operator has created or licensed the work. Knowingly directing others to a site that violates copyright may be considered contributory infringement. This is particularly relevant when linking to sites such as YouTube, where due care should be taken to avoid linking to material that violates its creator's copyright. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  00:17, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Arbitration
Please do not take this as a "warning" or "threat" or anything like that. I'm not trying to brow beat you into submission or scare you away from the topic area. Basically, you are editing in a topic area that has previously been contentious (9/11 conspiracy theories) and the topic area went through a process which can result in increased scrutiny. To make it even worse, this same process is active in the topic area that covers the Israel-Palestine conflict. The article does not directly apply but many of the same editors you are currently discussing (fighting?) with frequent the other topic area so you might see a little bit more stress on their end.

This heads up (or whatever you ant to call it) does not mean anything since I am not an administrator and it is not pointing the finger at you for doing any wrongdoing. I recommend you review Requests for arbitration/September 11 conspiracy theories and pay extra close attention to the. No action is required by you at this time but reviewing it might help you understand what is going on. Requests for arbitration/September 11 conspiracy theories details the additional scrutiny. Again, Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles may not be related but the reading about the case might help you understand the ongoing disputes that many of the same editors are involved in.

Also, did my recent edit at the article address your concern? Please use the talk page to discuss it if not.Cptnono (talk) 07:07, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

And nice work not jumping in the edit war even with some contentious edits and heated discussion going on.Cptnono (talk) 22:05, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Your recent edits
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 21:03, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi again
Just wanted to say you are doing a good job of staying concise and cool. It was for sure improper that Shuki deleted your comments on the article Talk page, and I think also wrong that he subsequently dismissed as "irrelevant" and deleted your request on his Talk that he stop doing so. I have sometimes seen editors attempt to instigate/frustrate other editors, hoping they'll lose their cool so a comrade can march one or both editors over to an admin noticeboard for neutralization. Best you don't let this happen. Respectfully, RomaC  TALK 06:18, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Too bad that Roma teaches morals but does not herself practice WP:AGF. Man, if only 'my' side was as cohesive as you think we are, we could do the things that you suggest I do. I wish I had tag team partners like 'your' side does. --Shuki (talk) 23:19, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Of course there are tag teams on your side. User:Canadian Monkey and User:NoCal100 worked so well together, they could almost have been the same person. ;-)--Peter cohen (talk) 23:44, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Hehe. Oh and I would never presume to teach morals, I'm only noting tactics. RomaC  TALK 00:00, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I do not want to see you at my talk page ever again
I do not want to see you at my talk page ever again not under any circumstances. Is that clear? In a meantime I'd like to share with you my favorite quote by Oscar Wilde "There is no sin except stupidity". I hope you like it too.--Mbz1 (talk) 23:34, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

“One should perform his deeds for the benefit of mankind with an unbiased approach because bias gives birth to evil, which creates thousands of obstacles in our path.”Preciseaccuracy (talk) 23:53, 28 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I wonder what you're mmeant to do if you ever need to take Mbz1 to one of the admin boards. Probably ref the diff in which she posted the above.--Peter cohen (talk) 10:43, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Biophys

 * I do not know who you are, but that thing will get you blocked. And do not ask me because I will not respond .Biophys (talk) 01:52, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand.Preciseaccuracy (talk) 02:10, 30 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, in that case please see PAID and WP:COI. What you are asking about is allowed by the policies. And why would anyone care? As long as someone follows all policies, he/she is fine and contributes to the project.Biophys (talk) 04:37, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

The only possible sense I can make is that you are saying that Preciseaccuracy is working for someone who funds him/her to work on WIkipedia. However, I can't see why someone would want to pay for changes to Art student scam. If you're party to some evidence that substantiates this insinuation then please contact a senior admin offline on how to put your case without WP:OUTING him. If you have no such evidence, it's best to withdraw the above.--Peter cohen (talk) 10:41, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I think he's trying to answer my question to Jimbo.Preciseaccuracy (talk) 10:46, 30 July 2010 (UTC) but I'm not sure.Preciseaccuracy (talk) 10:47, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I think the user is actually responding to your question on Jimbo Wale's talk page. You expressed the possibility that you may be working for/with organisations to contribute to that article?  Davtra   (talk) 11:11, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I expressed that it is possible that any user on Wikipedia is being paid to write articles. I stated that I am not.Preciseaccuracy (talk) 18:21, 30 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Oh right, I see what you mean. My apologies to BioPhys for misconstruing things. On your original question, search the Arbcom archive for "CAMERA". Various editors were banned but some keep on socking. (See the SPI/CU archive on User:Stellarkid for recent examples.) The JIDF are old friends of mine. (See, the chat bits under and  and numerous edits on Wikipedia.) --Peter cohen (talk) 12:50, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Peter, I found the article about the JIDF looking through your old contributions. I understand that it's important to combat racism, but government employees paid to edit information on an encyclopedia falls under the category of propaganda.Preciseaccuracy (talk) 18:18, 30 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry for not explaining this clearly. Yes, I tried to answer your question to Jimbo about paid editors. What follows from WP:PAID and WP:COI? (1) There are paid editors in this project and who knows how many. (2) Paid editing is discouraged but allowed. (3) Paid editors are not necessarily evil, some of them may do excellent work for this project. (4) (most important!) If you suspect someone to be a paid editor, do not tell it on-wiki, because this maybe interpreted as personal attack. Also, do not discuss this by email, because your emails could be stolen and publicly posted by unknown person(s), as had happen with a group of editors here (see WP:EEML).Biophys (talk) 13:33, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Couldn't help notice your post on Jimbo's page...
And if you want to see why the system usually works out, check out 9/11 Conspiracy theory pages and scientology pages. Both are full of controversial material and face groups that aren't shy about pushing their point of view (in fact, if you google 9/11 wikipedia, there are literally hundreds of 9/11 Truth blogs who complain about lack of objective coverage, some even giving guides on how to try to bypass the system to get the material in question included). Honestly, the system usually does work, as both groups have been allowed to give their point of view w/o their point of view overwhelming or whitewashing articles. Soxwon (talk) 19:25, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your suggestion, but the conspiracy theory page does not apply to the article "Art Student Scam" that I am currently working on. The article is about Allegations of Israelis spying on the U.S. under the cover of "art students." The article is not about a wingnut conspiracies but presenting reliably sourced material in a neutral manner. Users are pushing reliable sources and reliably sourced material out of the article "art student scam" which was originally about suspected spying on the U.S. but the focus somehow changed to be about a tourist trap in china. They are also twisting and misrepresenting the content of reliable sources to paint allegations of Israel Spying on the United States from approximately 1999-2001 as a wild conspiracy or urban myth when in reality the allegations of spying are described by numerous reliable sources to be inconclusive. The one source to dismiss the charges of spying, the Washington Post didn't even bother to obtain a 60 pg. dea document that included drivers license numbers, passport numbers, and even military id numbers of which some of "the Israelis' military and intelligence specialties are listed: "special forces," "intelligence officer," "demolition/explosive ordnance specialist," "bodyguard to head of Israeli army," "electronic intercept operator" -- even "son of a two-star (Israeli) army general." " Also, a high-level intelligence agent who had been referred to veteran journalist Christopher Ketchum by "a veteran D.C. correspondent who has close sources in the CIA and the FBI" stated that this washington post article was an FBI plant.Preciseaccuracy (talk) 01:07, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Your note in my talkpage, and welcome back Ms. factsontheground
I've just seen your report to the WP:ANI board, which is, of course, a joke, and doesn't deserve any serious response beyond the reactions it got which are already there.

I was the first to revert you right after you've created your new account and immediately came to this article to change its status quo. Please read carefully the remarks of the closing admin of the AfD regarding this article, who says (I'll extract and emphasize the relevant info from the closing remark):


 * "... there is a large numerical majority of opinions to delete the article ... The article has been rewritten intensely during this AfD ... These changes have substantially stuck so far. They have also caused some, including the nominator, to change their opinion from "delete" to solutions that do not require deletion (see the section "Article rewritten", below). Notably, no new "delete" opinion has been registered after the end of the rewrite. Also, most of the "delete" opinions are not because of perceived problems with the topic as such (e.g., non-notability), but rather because of perceived flaws in the article content (such as fringe, coatrack, synthesis, etc.). Much or all of the content that caused these objections is now gone. All of this leads me to believe that most of the "delete" opinions are not very useful for determing whether there is current community consensus to delete the article in its present form ...".

In spite of the fact that one of the main reasons the article was not deleted was that it was dramatically rewritten, you came and tried to bring it back to its former version, which contradicts the discussion in the AfD and violates the decision and the reasoning for not being deleted by the closing admin.

WP rules dictate us to try to assume good faith. This is quite difficult to assume in your case. To me you are a new incarnation of User:factsontheground who later changed her nick to User:Factomancer, and was blocked several times for disruptive editing and other reasons, and came back to achieve her original goal after a break of some months.

You should get the same treatment as other accounts that obsessively push this encyclopedia to be a repository of conspiracy theories and urban myths and presenting them as valid descriptions of real events. Unfortunately I don't have the time to dig the history to make an ultimate proof that we are dealing here with the disruptive Ms. factsontheground, but, in any case, there is no question that the duck test applies here. Noon (talk) 07:52, 31 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I am not factsontheground. Why did you revert people on an article that you have never commented on? Why did you revert binksternet's good faith edits also? It seems you were taking turns reverting with mbz1 so as to avoid her getting blocked for edit warring.


 * Have you read any of the sources, Insight on the News, Fox News, the Guardian, the Forward, Salon.com, the newspaper Creative Loafing. These aren't outlets for conspiracy theories. Allegations about spying are presented by all of these sources as inconclusive. Insight, the Forward, Salon, Creative loafing, haaretz, the guardian all discussed spying allegations in a serious manner after the post article claimed to debunk spying as an "urban myth." A high level intelligence agent referred to veteran journalist Christopher Ketchum by a veteran washington correspondent with ties to the cia and fbi later stated that the washington post article was a plant to "kill the story."


 * Are you also claiming that a tourist trap in china is reasonably connected to allegations of spying in the United states?Preciseaccuracy (talk) 08:25, 31 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Noon, as Binksternet mentioned on your talk page "Note that the removal of reliably sourced statements, forming a neutral narrative, was found to be a sign of disruptive, tendentious editing in this ruling by ArbCom back in 2006."Preciseaccuracy (talk) 08:33, 31 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Yeah sure you are not her... And yet again you're lying - I've already expressed my opinion on this article in the past. And don't bring me Binksternet as an example; he was already blocked for his disruptive editing in this article. Well... it was always difficult to deal with conspiracy-minded people. They always look for proofs for their theory in every corner and always neglect everything which doesn't fit their fixed opinion. They are so obsessed with their theory that in most cases they deal only with this topic. In that respect you are no exception.
 * As is evident from the history of this article, Mbz1 reverted to my version (and not the other way around), maybe because she has similar opinion on this nonsense as mine. Did this possibility cross your mind, or is it yet another example of the conspiracy-minded attitude of yours? Noon (talk) 09:42, 31 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Further to the accusation that PA is a reincarnation of User:Factsontheground, two of us have looked into this with an open mind and our conclusion is that there are several strong reasons to believe that they are distinct people.--Peter cohen (talk) 22:47, 3 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Five days after the Post article, the investigative magazine Insight on the News quoted a senior Justice Department official as saying "We think there is something quite sinister here but are unable at this time to put our finger on it."http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1571/is_12_18/ai_84396672/


 * Later, a "high-level intelligence agent" and "Washington insider" codenamed Stability stated that the Post article was a plant by the FBI to kill the story.http://dir.salon.com/news/feature/2002/05/07/students/index.html

Sorry, I didn't notice your one comment made 5 months ago which relies on 1 source's dismissmal to make a conclusion. Meanwhile ignoring all of the other sources. Most of which were written after the Washington Post's dismissal.

Preciseaccuracy (talk) 17:01, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1571/is_12_18/ai_84396672/
 * http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2002/mar/06/internationaleducationnews.highereducation
 * http://dir.salon.com/news/feature/2002/05/07/students/index.html
 * http://web.archive.org/web/20020321021731/http://real-info.1accesshost.com/janes1.html
 * http://atlanta.creativeloafing.com/2002-03-20/fishwrapper.html
 * http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/features/spies-or-students-1.45243
 * http://www.forward.com/articles/5250/ This article refers to a different situation of Israelis spying on Canada in 2004 that was dismissed, but treats the 1999-2001 allegations of Israeli spying on the U.S. as inconclusive
 * http://www.zeit.de/2002/41/Tuer_an_Tuer_mit_Mohammed_Atta -note: this article is in german, from die zeit, its easy to translate with google or yahoo


 * Also said in the Insight article that had been expunged ""It is a very alarming set of documents," says one high-ranking federal law-enforcement official when told of the cache of materials collected by INSIGHT. "This shows how serious DEA and Justice consider this activity.""


 * Also, ""The patterns are clear and they pose a significant danger to our officers in the field." Maybe U.S. national security."


 * "The Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) began an "unprecedented" internal-security investigation early last spring following reports from field agents and regional offices involving suspicious activities by Israeli citizens engaged in the sale of artwork and paintings throughout the Southeast, South and Southwest, including Florida, Texas and California."


 * "In virtually every incident of the many reported by the entire DEA field-office structure the pattern was similar: Students would attempt to enter secure buildings, take photographs, follow federal agents when they left buildings, show up at their homes, take pictures of their cars and circle their neighborhoods, visiting only their houses and then departing."


 * Does it seem like these articles are describing an "urban myth" or at least allegations of spying?

Preciseaccuracy (talk) 18:46, 31 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi Preciseaccuracy ... you will find that some users that edit here are uninterested in what relliable sources have to say. When faced with information they don't like, they are apt to resort to ad hominem attacks (eg. calling you a conspiracy theorist, a lying sockpuppet, or other such nonsense). While they will rarely ever be sanctioned for their provocative and uncivil behaviour, you will be if you respond in kind. So follow the good advice of RomaC and keep your cool always. You are doing a good job of that and of trying to keep the discussion on topic. I wish you luck in attempting to get the article to properly reflect the sources reporting on this subject. I'm sorry I cannot be of more help, real life calls. Happy editing.  T i a m u t talk 10:15, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Charles County, Maryland
Discussions have not ended, Please restate your points.--Phoon (talk) 05:12, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Reminder
You need to stop accusing editors of acting in a scandalous manner on multiple noticeboards and talk pages. People simply disagree with you. I honestly would be putting something up at ANI but am too lazy to grab the many diffs so hopefully one final reminder will be sufficient. Also, your habit of restating your opinions in long statements on those multiple pages are actually counterproductive to your goal. It is just getting on everyone's nerves and does not encourage editors who are not already involved to participate.Cptnono (talk) 18:34, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Jimbo Wales page is the most neutral on wikipedia. It is clear what is going on here. A group of users pass through and do drive by delete votes. The articlesfordeletion page is being used as a weapon to delete reliably sourced content.Preciseaccuracy (talk) 19:50, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

The same misleading statements such as the dismissal of spying allegations as myth require the same follow up arguments. Your constant catch phrases require follow up arguments. Which you ignore and then repeat your catch phrases in other forums.Preciseaccuracy (talk) 19:54, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.Cptnono (talk) 20:14, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

RfC
You're probably better off starting a request for comment than going to AN/I. See WP:RFC. -- Burpelson AFB (talk) 03:43, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Indenting
Kindly familiarize yourself w/wikipedia formatting in talk page discussions, and specifically with indenting. Your failure to indent makes it harder to follow your points. Indenting will allow us to more easily see who you are responding to, and -- by reading the left hand column -- see new editors' comments. I could fix them for you, but the instances are too numerous to be worth my bother. If you want your comments to be more easily followed, and wish to comply with community standards, that would be helpful. Many thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:59, 11 August 2010 (UTC)


 * (S)He does it so (s)he can pretend (s)he's new to Wikipedia. (Huey45 (talk) 05:35, 11 August 2010 (UTC))

Art scam
For what it is worth, I support you on this. This article desperately needs to be placed under I/P General Sanctions because it has turned into a battleground. I also think the piece about the alleged spy ring needs to be in its own article, with a heading, paragraph and link to it from the general Art scam article. Kindzmarauli (talk) 17:45, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you. Please keep watch over the article so they don't try delete reliable sources again in a few weeks when they don't think that anyone is watching. Thanks.Preciseaccuracy (talk) 18:45, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm taking a break from wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Art_student_scam Preciseaccuracy (talk) 06:55, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Good. If and when you return, please resist the temptation to appeal to Jimmy Wales to resolve disputes, it rarely ends how the petitioner desires. It'd probably be best to move on to a new topic that has nothing to do with Israel, to get an experience of editing outside a proxy war zone. Fences  &amp;  Windows  22:43, 12 August 2010 (UTC)