Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/GreenEcho

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Unresolved

I believe that the user GreenEcho (a.k.a. 63.216.113.124, a.k.a. 77.42.187.118) is in violation of Wikipedia's behavioral guideline on disruptive editting. Additionally, GreenEcho seems to be pushing very specific views, showing bias in edits involving the Druze religion, leaders, and political groups. The Druze are a minority group in Lebanon. Furthermore, their interactions with other users appear far from civil in most cases. With regards to the user's violation of WP:DISRUPT:

  • The user is tedious:
  • The user fails to satisfy verifiability:
    • Often, the user makes changes citing that they are things that "any idiot with the least required knowledge... knows," failing or refusing to cite sources.
    • Sometimes the user will cite reliable sources, but add text that isn't supported by said sources. When confronted on the issue, the user tends to argue that their sources do support their statements through synthesis, arguing things such as "the beginning sentence, if you didn't understand it, implies...", or just fall backs to "anyone who is able to read can conclude" arguments.
    • Occasionally the user will cite sources that aren't reliable, but use their own definition of a reliable source: "As far as I'm concerned, an article written by a journalist is a reliable source."
  • The user rejects community input, and most attempts for discussion:
    • If they choose to comment on the talk page, they will state their case, and then revert to their preferred version of an article. Other discussion is usually ignored or dismissed, and met with additional reverts.
    • Sometimes the user won't join in any discussion, and just continue to revert to their preferred version. Their reversions are slow enough to stay below the 3RR threshold that would result in either themselves getting blocked, or the page getting protected.
  • The user seems to be attempting to drive away editors they disagree with:
    • Three of the four Administrator's noticeboard incident reports above involved Hiram111, a user who has had content disputes with GreenEcho on a couple different articles. GreenEcho has shown little interest in resolving their disputes with Hiram111, but continues to revert their edits and report Hiram111 for vandalism.

The following is a collection of quotes (and relevant diffs), which I believe show bias (including bias against certain living people), incivility, and original research, and back up my claims regarding the disruptive nature of the editor. I've highlighted those phrases that I find to be the worst violations in bold.

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents - Druze

  • "I don't understand how you people allow such edits to go unpunished." ← Violates WP:CIVIL @ 04:34, 30 June 2008
  • "I think I made it clear on the talk page when I added direct quotations from the book. If you think they are biased, then it is your problem. Amusingly, the same sources are used throughout the article." ← Violates WP:CIVIL @ 04:47, 30 June 2008

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents - Hiram111 #1

  • "User:Hiram111 has been repeatedly removing sourced paragraphs in Druze, including here, in which he lied in the edit summary that he added the same thing in another section, and here." ← Violates WP:CIVIL @ 00:43, 30 June 2008
  • "I don't understand why you insist to keep on lying... You lie again and point out, in bold, that the Shihab family being "one of the noblest families in Lebanon" is "cited" when it is clearly not. As for Walid Jumblatt and Saad Hariri, I don't think people are stupid enough to interpret removing large heavily sourced paragraphs as enforcing the NPOV policy. I don't have time for this. This user should be dealt with for his disruptive edits, and I'm surprised and disappointed that no administrator has given this issue any attention. Someone who has done this kind of edits despite warnings shouldn't be allowed to edit and should have been blocked long ago." ← Violates WP:CIVIL @ 04:22, 30 June 2008

Walid Jumblatt

  • Edit summary: "rvv - you were warned" ← Violates WP:CIVIL @ 23:27, 30 June 2008
  • Edit summary: "rvv - you were warned more than enough times" ← Violates WP:CIVIL @ 18:02, 6 July 2008
  • "Jumblatt's FSP militia together with its Palestinian and Syrian allies, backed by Soviet weaponry from Syria, overran some 60 Maronite villages, killing thousands... Walid Jumblatt is regarded by many of his people as a National saviour, with many aims to overthrow the Lebanese government by emerging with as many sectors of the Lebanese government as possible. Walid has a very hypocritical reputation amongst the Lebanese people varying from Sunni, Shia, Christians and all kinds of cultures living among the political side of lebanon. Walid is known to "stand with the strong side" when in doubt of his own powers. In a recent document shown by Future TV Walid is shown conversing with billionaire Saed Harirri about the way the couple will plan on giving up whatever it takes to overthrow Sanyora's government so they can head the government... Jumblatt has the reputation for quickly switching sides for political gain, and a predilection for saying things that prove embarrassing once he does switch sides." ← Unsourced, violates WP:BLP, WP:NPOV @ 15:25, 29 June 2008, 23:27, 30 June 2008, 00:26, 6 July 2008, 18:02, 6 July 2008, 00:45, July 8, 2008

Saad Hariri

  • Edit summary: "rvv - you were warned" ← Violates WP:CIVIL @ 23:27, 30 June 2008
  • Edit summary: "rvv - don't push it" ← Violates WP:CIVIL @ 00:25, 6 July 2008
  • Edit summary: "rvv - you were warned more than enough times" ← Violates WP:CIVIL @ 18:03, 6 July 2008
  • Edit summary: "rvv - two paragraphs are completely cited in the references and the rest is common knowledge, we don't need references to say that Hariri is anti-Syrian" ← Violates WP:RS, WP:BLP @ 22:50, 6 July 2008
  • "Hariri has been suspected of funding the Fatah al-Islam group to counter the Shi'a Muslim Hezbollah, immediately prior to its assault on the Lebanese Army... Saad Hariri is mainly criticised for having inherited his position in politics through no merit of his own, and thereby benefiting from Lebanon's heavy system of patronage." ← Unsourced, violates WP:BLP @ 15:28, June 29, 2008, 23:27, 30 June 2008, 00:25, 6 July 2008, 18:03, 6 July 2008, 22:50, 6 July 2008
  • "It isn't up to you to decide which sources are reliable. You've been more than disruptive on Wikipedia and it really stuns me that no one has moved to block you yet. So now, Hariri doesn't have a militia? And virtually no resistance? Almost every news agency that covered the fighting reported that Hariri's thugs abandoned their guns like cowards merely few hours into the fighting. But, again, I don't have to explain anything to you. It really disturbs me that people like you are allowed to edit on Wikipedia and admins just ignore your frequent violations of policies." ← Violates WP:CIVIL @ 23:18, 6 July 2008
  • "The tone of your writing, Coppertwig, is very provoking. I don't need references to show that Hariri is allied to the Lebanese Forces and the Progressive Socialist Party nor do I need sources to show that Hariri is anti-Syrian, or that Hariri is pro-American or that his father, unlike him, didn't oppose Hezbollah. This is common knowledge. As for Hariri funding Fatah al-Islam, any idiot with the least required knowledge about Lebanon knows that the government is led by Hariri's Future Movement, and when Seymour Hersh talks about the Siniora government funding Fatah al-Islam, he also means Hariri's Future Movement. As for Hariri's militia, I'm not sure if you follow the news but Hariri's militia and Hezbollah fought a war in May, and it is pretty basic knowledge that Hariri has a militia. So please, be civil and, next time, don't argue the basic stuff." ← Violates WP:CIVIL, WP:RS, WP:OR @ 23:18, 6 July 2008

Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests - Behaviour Problem

  • "Nice try. Both User:Emilyzilch and User:Hiram111 have been repeatedly removing sourced paragraphs, for example here. Hiram111 has done the same to other articles, here and here, where he removed large heavily sourced paragraphs, calling them "unreferenced" in his edit summaries. I already posted the incident on the noticeboard here and I asked that Hiram111, who should have been blocked long ago, be blocked for his disruptive behavior and dishonesty that can be seen from his edit summaries and his reply to my post on the noticeboard." ← Violates WP:CIVIL @ 05:08, 30 June 2008

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents - Hiram111 #2

  • "If I were to delete every criticism and controversy section I didn't like, it wouldn't be considered disruptive? You allowing this user to do whatever he wants is a precedent set." ← Violates WP:CIVIL @ 12:25, 1 July 2008
  • "This user has been engaging in disruptive editing and removing large paragraphs not only in Druze, but in other articles including here and here, where he used intentionally misleading edit summaries. As for labeling my edits as "vandalism", when his own edits can be described as such, he was already warned by an administrator for doing so. He was also warned for using personal attacks against me such as "totalitarian", "sectarian hatred" and "religious fanaticism", terms that anyone who knows anything about the politics and the history of Lebanon would apply to User:Hiram111 and his likes. Hiram111 also makes a habit of repeatedly lying in his edit summaries and in talk pages. He calls the information I added controversial and claims I didn't use the talk page when I clearly did, and the information I used is not controversial, just very embarrassing to the followers of the Druze sect. The edits added to the article are very well referenced, including books by John Esposito and Mordechai Nisan who are authorities on the issue. Hiram111 and User:Emilyzilch, who I suspect to be Hiram111, have been violating WP:NPOV every time they removed the paragraphs and action should have been taken long ago against User:Hiram111 for his disruptive edits. Please disregard any request by this user to un-protect the article. He has done enough disruptive editing as it is. Thank you." ← Violates WP:CIVIL @ 15:38, 1 July 2008

Progressive Socialist Party

2008 conflict in Lebanon

  • "The United States is widely thought to have planned for these events and to have armed the Future Movement, the Lebanese Forces and the Progressive Socialist Party to oppose and discredit Hezbollah" ← Violates WP:WTA @ 12:51, July 4, 2008, 13:09, July 5, 2008, 19:27, July 5, 2008, 19:55, July 5, 2008
  • "The second source says, along with other things: The US game in Lebanon is hardcore. It involves $60 million support for a Hezbollah witchhunt operated by the Internal Security Force at the Interior Ministry; and generous, active support to al-Qaeda-affiliated Sunni jihadis. Seeing that the government provoked Hezbollah and that the US is funding the pro-government militias, we can safely say that the US planned for these events to happen." ← Violates WP:OR @ 01:35, 6 July 2008
  • "It is an article written by Peter Chamberlin who is apparently "an op-ed writer for the Herald-Dispatch newspaper in Huntington, WV". As far as I'm concerned, an article written by a journalist is a reliable source. Also, it doesn't mention funding but the beginning sentence, if you didn't understand it, implies that the US planned the events... The sources show that the US is funding both the Internal Security Forces, which answers to the Hariri-controlled Interior Ministry and is practically a legal Sunni militia, and the Future Movement militias. All the sources are clear on this matter and anyone who is able to read can conclude that the US both planned for the events and funded the pro-government militias. I don't see any reason to discuss this further." ← Violates WP:RS, WP:OR @ 20:26, 6 July 2008

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents - Hiram111 #3

  • "User:Hiram111 keeps removing large heavily sourced criticism sections he doesn't like in the articles Walid Jumblatt and Saad Hariri, despite being warned twice. He removed the warnings twice, see here and here. I reported him and I asked for both articles to be protected, but his edits don't seem to be disruptive enough. Does it mean that if I were to remove every criticism section I didn't like on Wikipedia, I could get away with it? This isn't content dispute. His edits, removing large sourced sections and calling them unreferenced in his edit summaries, are nothing short than disruptive POV-pushing and I've wasted enough time dealing with this person. He should have been indefinitely blocked long ago." ← Violates WP:CIVIL @ 18:30, 6 July 2008
  • "It makes me sick that no one has bothered to give this issue the time of day. So people are now allowed to wander around Wikipedia, delete whatever section they didn't like without even being warned? I'm out of here." ← Violates WP:CIVIL @ 23:22, 6 July 2008
  • "Hi. I'm addressing you because no one has bothered to answer my post on the noticebard. User:Hiram111 keeps removing large criticism sections in Walid Jumblatt and Saad Hariri. I reported him and asked for the articles to be protected but his edits didn't seem to be disruptive enough. Apparently, people can delete whatever section they don't like on Wikipedia without it being considered disruption." ← Violates WP:CIVIL @ 23:22, 6 July 2008

Sorry, in advance, for the lengthy nature of this entry. ← George [talk]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents/GreenEcho&oldid=224738082"