From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Source and Content Rules

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:RS

[edit] How to Edit a Page

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:How_to_edit_a_page

[edit] Arab-Israeli Conflict

Shortcut: WP:AIC

• The AIC Oasis - General discussion for all.
• /Project Articles - works like the Village pump, specific to this topic.
• Shortcuts to this and related pages.

[edit] Israeli-Palestinian Conflict

Israeli-Palestinian_Conflict - Israeli-Palestinian Conflict

[edit] Dispute Resolution

Hi Dajudem, welcome and thanks for your kind words. The best place to start is at the article's talk page: bring your encyclopedic arguments there. If those args are of high quality, they may even make it into the article later. More personal messages may go to the editor's talk page (like this one). If that doesn't seem to work, you may want to follow WP:DR processes such as WP:RFC or WP:ArbCom, etc. Earlier, I kept my own policy of not engaging into RV wars but found that this does not always work well: while most people are reasonable and do listen to sensible arguments, some just won't listen. In any case, it is imperative to act within WP:RULES, assume good faith and WP:NPA. Best regards and happy editing! ←Humus sapiens←ну? 01:08, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Palestinian Jews

Hi - I noticed you reverted yourself in regards to some Jews being considered Palestinians. I was going to fix a comma issue but wanted to make sure you did so intentionally and not by accident. Ramallite ^(talk) 20:52, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] =how to put up a disputed label

{{npov}}

[edit] Welcome to WikiProject France

Welcome Dajudem, to WikiProject France! Please direct any questions about the project to its talk page. If you create new articles on France-related topics, please list them at our announcement page and tag their talk page with our project template, {{WikiProject France}}.

STTW (talk) 06:47, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Causes of the 1948 Palestinian exodus

Hello, I noticed that 2 years ago you added this link [1] to Philip Mendes which is clear, neutral and of good quality on the topic.
If this topic interests you, you are welcome to contribute to this article which becomes more and more pov-ed... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.246.197.147 (talk) 19:18, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Gelber

Hi, you can find Appendixes II and III here. At the end of the list of documents. This more pleasant to read than through google books. Ceedjee (talk) 18:44, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi,

I think you misunderstand something

You don't like Morris but you like Gelber ?

Do you know they are very good friends ?

Ceedjee (talk) 06:41, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] FYI

Please review this, and weigh in here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents/Wikilobby_campaign#New_evidence_surfaces Lawrence Cohen § t/e 19:19, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Its pretty obvious to me they caught you.Your best course of action now is to be contrite, apologize, learn WP ethos and spirit, and accept a quite generous topical ban. Then contribute to other articles unrelated to your pro-Israel agenda.Giovanni33 (talk) 00:39, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

lol 'caught me' at what? I don't have an "agenda," unlike you, whose agenda seem to want to get those who are pro-Israel off the topic, imho. People who have opinions do not necessarily have an agenda, only to have their side fairly heard, instead of banned by association. Collective punishment, McCarthyism, Big Brother.... it's all there. The wiki spirit? You're a fine one to talk! Why don't you find a distortion or NPOV that I've put up and deal with that, instead of witch-hunting the enemy! Juanita (talk) 04:11, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually I took a quick look and found almost all of your edits to be clearly POV. :) And, your "associations" and membership of a group with a very clearly stated goal provides a pretty good definition of what an "agenda" looks like. It's just happens to be one that is incompatible with WP norms.Giovanni33 (talk) 04:50, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

A small sampling if your edits confirms your POV disposition. In fact your account looks like a single purpose only account along these pov lines: [2] I found this a little disturbing, as it shows an artificial division along ethnic/religions lines, applied to WP editors!: "I find it amazing that non-Jews want to define Jews. Seems like Arab Palestinian sympathizers want to define Mizrahi Jew for the Jews. Isn't that weird? Are Jews over in the Egyptian section telling them what their history is about? And who they are?"'' Here are some other edits, taken pretty much at random that clearly shows POV editing: [3] [4] As far as I can see all edits you have made serve to advance a single POV. This doesn't make you unique, however, the connection of your account to the off wiki organizing agenda does puts it in a completely different context, supporting your role in such an enterprise. Why not improve articles on other subjects? Just the fact that there is evidence connecting you to this should make you want to voluntarily avoid impropriety giving yourself the topic ban. This will allow you to regain the trust of the community. Giovanni33 (talk) 04:53, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I am interested in the Israeli/Palestinian conflict mainly. I read a lot of books and histories about it. I am interested in history and the middle east conflict and politics. I have a POV of course, but not to distort or falsify anything intentionally. Good luck finding editors about the issue that don't have an opinion. Also I do not buy your contention about the user group, ie that it was intended to undermine wiki. That was a spin that was put on it. I did not read every email but I wanted to contribute if there was something that was unfairly or wrongfully represented in wiki I would be able to help correct it. It is a shame to paint everyone with the same brush. None in the group is responsible for what others have think or have written but the original intent was a simple and honest one that has been given a nasty spin. Juanita (talk) 05:59, 23 April 2008 (UTC) I

[edit] I'd hate to imply it's a foregone conclusion

But in light of the crap that jew hating website has stirred up, are there any minor articles you think need an eye kept on them? My email feature has been enabled. John Nevard (talk) 01:57, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

No comprende, por favor. which jew-hating website are you talking of? What exactly is a foregone conclusion? confused Juanita (talk) 04:23, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, I guess it should be obvious now. Pathetic. It always bothers me that the burden of protecting the articles on Judaism and Israel from the anti-semites falls on so few shoulders. My consolations. John Nevard (talk) 10:49, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. I guessed that you meant what you meant but I wanted to give wiki the benefit of the doubt. I have never got involved in the personality issues here, just did some editing regarding what I know to be fact and such. Tried to be fair and balanced within my POV. It is enough to make one cry. As you can see, Leonard Cohen(?) put it up for arbitration (link below). Is that a foregone conclusion as well? Juanita (talk) 20:43, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Going to answer

Are you going to answer any of my points on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents/Wikilobby_campaign or have decided that your only option is to claim your being discriminated against. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 02:52, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't know about you, buddy, but I have a life and do things besides sit in front of the computer breathlessly waiting to answer your charges. Your 'points' have now been answered, but your grammar still leaves a lot to be desired. Juanita (talk) 04:26, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Speaking of grammar, you write: "dumped the Allon quote. It is supposedly "aleaked censored version of Rabin memoirs, pub in the New York Times, 23 October 1979" Unless verified, it is more slander than anything eles)" (SIC)[5] There seems to be some similarity with errors I've noticed, although I don't necessarily make anything out of it, without looking at a larger sample of your writing.Giovanni33 (talk) 05:02, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Ah so you are beginning to look for some facts instead of indicting me for my group membership. That's a start anyway. Typos are not the same thing as errors in grammar such as confusing 'your' and 'you're'. What is interesting to me is that you are picking up on what you consider an error made in 2005, but want to ban me for membership in a group started in 2008, lol. Let's face it. It has only to do with the fact that my bias is not your bias, doesn't it? You are one of those who would like to ban anyone who might believe that Israel is a good country doing the best it can in a bad neighborhood? Or are you one of those rare editors with absolutely no bias at all? lol Juanita (talk) 05:22, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Please assume good faith. Attacking everyone like this does not help you. I started with your most oldest edits. That is why I found that one. I did not look at more than a few, starting from the oldest. Naturally, I don't think you joined this group by happenstance. It flows from your goals on WP, as can be seen from your very first edits up to today. You don't edit that much anyway, so its not a big deal for me. I just tried to help you come to terms with the issues and advise you as to what would be the best course of action in your own interests, if you wanted to become a trusted participant and put these issues behind you. Unfortunately, your responses have not been conducive....Giovanni33 (talk) 05:32, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Assume good faith? I am not attacking everyone. I am only attacking those who are attacking me. I will tell you again and again. I don't have 'goals' on wiki other than to have a fair and accurate representation of facts on an issue on which I am fairly knowledgeable. I have nothing to apologize for.

I found this on your talk page:

By the logic used to support this block, all I have to do is create an account, follow you around, adopt your vernacular, and support your POV, then someone can claim "socketpuppets!" It is too easy, hence do not unilaterally block on such flimsy grounds. An admin can, but is that justice? That there are other users who simply share a similar POV is no crime. To say I am connected to them, or they are one in the same, is, but then there should be solid evidence, not negative, bad-faith speculations, prompted by people who edit war with me over content disputes. (Giovanni33 (talk) 05:55, 17 April 2008 )(UTC)

Sounds a bit like the way they railroaded Zeg, and how it is planned for me. See my new notes on CAMERA the other pageWhy is this stupid thing in a code box?? Juanita (talk) 05:44, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I beg to differ. The crucial difference is that in the case of Zeq, there was solid evidence. It was not mere speculation, and coincidence. Also, there is evidence of your membership to this wiki-lobby effort. In fact, I do not believe you even deny being a part of this volunteer group? Do you understand that this group's goals are antithetical to how Wikipedia is supposed to function? There seems to be a failure on your part to grasp this quite essential point.Giovanni33 (talk) 05:55, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Did you see my notes on CAMERA? the other page Bottom of the page. Not antithetical. Signing off now Juanita (talk) 06:07, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ok, fine

Per WP:ARBPIA you are banned for a year from all articles relating to the Arab-Israeli conflict. The length of this may be reduced if you show conclusively that you really understand the principle that Wikipedia is not a battleground. Please note that this topic-ban will be enforced by blocks if necessary. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 08:51, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi Dajudem

I don't see any solution for you except asking for an ArbCom with all involved editors but you should prepare your argumentation because what you are accused of with the others is not anecdotical.

From my pov, the only argument in your favor is that you didn't disrupt wikipedia (even if in the email what is written is a preparation for that...)

Sorry for the situation and good luck... Ceedjee (talk) 14:04, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] FYI - arbitration on Israeli Wiki Lobbying

I have filed an arbitration request in regards to the Israeli Wiki Lobbying and attacks uncovered: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Israeli Wiki Lobbying. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 16:18, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The (not so) aborted statement for arbitration

I have so many issues on this it isn't even funny and I hardly know where to begin. I have edited wiki occasionally for several years now based mostly on my area of interest and expertise, and for which I have an obvious & acknowledged bias, ie the middle east conflict. I have not got involved with personalities on wiki because I really believe that wiki is not about personalities, but to get valid information and facts on wiki regarding the conflict. Obviously it is very much about personalities. Because suddenly I find myself in a brouhaha that has nothing to do with my edits here but everything to do with personalities.

Obviously there is propaganda on both sides, as this conflict is one of words as much as of actions... Those who would deny it haven't been paying attention, or mistakenly believe that not acknowledging the propaganda war demonstrates a neutral POV. Propaganda in itself is not bad -- in fact one definition of propaganda might be the propagation of one's own POV. What is bad is fiction posing as fact, whatever side you are on. Facts can be fictionalized a number of ways, including perversion of context, false or unverifiable references, or simply by omission of a different POV.

Anyway, I initially forgot that the email went out at least appearing to come from CAMERA. I belong to a number of web groups. Of course for all one knows it's possible that it was a fraud perpetrated by the Electronic Intifada on CAMERA stationary. Someone from EI apparently joined the group. This person obviously had motivations never conceived of by CAMERA, so clearly neither wikipedians nor CAMERA know what each of our motivations were for joining, except and unless they scan our private emails and determine guilt or innocence based on our leaked and private emails. Which apparently is what has been done in the case of Zeg.

I honestly can't understand the enormous mountain that is being made out of a small effort to recruit some pro-Israelis editing and even administrating on wiki. Surely there must be one or two or even quite a few Palestinian partisans writing in the Israeli/Arab conflict section?

Anyway, the call for an editing group at CAMERA went out very respectful of wiki. That can be seen by anyone who reads the letter with an open mind. A number of people signed up. I don't know how many actually signed up and from that group how many actually edited anything. As I recall there was quite a limited response and most people there had never edited a thing themselves, though there were a number of people who were professors and instructors at universities. I brought up the possibility of using members there as a resource, to have use of their libraries and what they had read, to do some fact-checking -- which indeed I did do. One of the people on this list had a Uri Milstein book and checked a quote for me. The university has research resources that the average person cannot access. It seems to me that fact-checking is something really positive for wiki. That of course is down the tubes now thank you very much fellow wikipedians. "Assume good faith"... yah!

As one can see from reading the emails (if they are all there at EI, I have been too busy to check), a few people were more into discussion and guidance than others. I don't pretend to know the motives of others. Editing wiki is not an easy matter and takes a lot of practice to learn the language. I am still very bad at it and some of the college professors were lamenting how hard it was to make even the smallest edit.

I didn't read every email from the group because I already knew how to edit and because I am a busy person that cannot read every non-personal email that comes across my desk. Then suddenly the list gets shut down and within a day or so I am banned from wiki! LO!

Up til now, hardly anyone has made a negative comment regarding my edits... BUT NOW! I get suddenly a note on wiki that to answer charges about belonging to this subversive listItalic text. Here it is:

Please review this, and weigh in here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents/Wikilobby_campaign#New_evidence_surfaces Lawrence Cohen § t/e 19:19, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

The subversive part had already been assumed by most editors on this wikilobby page and by the time I weighed in, they had already feathered and tarred Zeg, claiming he was Gilead or Israguy or someone at this list, and an evil being.

Under the section under my user name I read this, for starters:

Yes, that seems correct. Further, I'd be interested in finding out who this I <3 (email yonathan@ou.edu) character is. Seems like he's been at this game for a while. What, then, do we do about Dajudem (talk · contribs)? Moreschi (talk) (debate) 19:53, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Whatever happened to the "assume good faith" part of wiki anyway?

In fact, prior to editing for 'clarification' after I took offense, one wikipedian referred to pro-Israelis as "like terrorists" and "like criminals justifying their crimes."

"Won't there be that much more ammunition on the pro-Israeli side for screaming "oppression!" and for using even more underhanded methods" Couldn't disagree more, they will always scream oppression, they (edit added later for clarity; they includes ALL POV warriors of ALL races, religions, group or creed) will use any method to push their POV. Just like terrorists they need to justify their crimes by claiming it is legitimate resistance against a superior force, they believe they can do what they want. Since the start of the year i've been called anti-american, anti-semitic, islamophobic, too right wing and too left wing when i have dared to disagree with a POV warrior,Bored Now!. (Hypnosadist) 02:45, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

later he claimed it that I made it up:

"One of the editors on this page called supporters of Israel "terrorists" and criminal."NO but keep pushing that LIE, it might eventually become a BIG LIE.

CAMERA was reviled and it was suggested that it was taken off the 'reliable source' list. Others added their comments above, exhorting me to have the proper wiki spirit etc and apologize, etc etc. They are there to read.

Then I get this on my talk page:

Per WP:ARBPIA you are banned for a year from all articles relating to the Arab-Israeli conflict. The length of this may be reduced if you show conclusively that you really understand the principle that Wikipedia is not a battleground. Please note that this topic-ban will be enforced by blocks if necessary. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 08:51, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

So my sin, then, is one of not understanding a certain principle which in fact I believe I understand quite well. I did not get to discuss it with anyone prior to being told I didn't understand it and being banned according. I reiterate: I am not here to do battle but to make sure that the Israeli side is fairly represented. There are Palestinians on wiki making sure that their side is fairly represented as well. Perhaps even some that are disruptive and push their POV, whether or not they are part of an email list or possible or would-be editors and administrators.

Then I got this -

* FYI - arbitration on Israeli Wiki Lobbying I have filed an arbitration request in regards to the Israeli Wiki Lobbying and attacks uncovered: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Israeli Wiki Lobbying. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 16:18, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

So I get notice of an arbitration at 16 hours today and before the evening is up I read this at the arbitration page:

*Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/1/0/0)'

• Reject. No diffs, no case. Arbitration is led by evidence of onsite bad editing behaviour, not perceived "threats". Be assured that with diffs, we would not be slow to act. Charles Matthews (talk) 21:20, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I guess that means it's finished. Never mind with the 'statement' anyhow. The whole thing has been what? two days or less? What a whirlwind. Another pro-Israeli poster bites the dust. Yawl must be very proud. Juanita (talk) 05:35, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

No, no, it's not over. See how we all have statements there? On that page? Just copy the formatting of the last statement that is there now on that case, replace their name with yours, and place your statement under it. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 05:38, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

thank you for clarifying. I did that. What does that Arbitrator's opinion mean then?Juanita (talk) 11:52, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

That he thinks the case is largely without merit for them to investigate, but he's just one of many, and is one of the more conservative ones in their views on this sort of thing. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 13:33, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedians for Palestine

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/wikiforpalestine/?v=1&t=search&ch=web&pub=groups&sec=group&slk=1

This is the description of the group.

This group is for experienced Wikipedians actively working to combat anti-Palestinian and pro-Zionist bias in the English language version of Wikipedia. It is not the purpose of this group to introduce a POV bias into Wikipedia; however, this group is for those who are consciously and proudly pro-Palestinian even as they are committed to, and work for, an NPOV. In order to verify their status as both a Wikipedian in good standing and someone who is pro-Palestinian and anti-Zionist, those wishing to join this group will be asked to provide their Wikipedia user ID.

It is quite possible that some of these members (whoever they are) are actively involved in this CAMERA dispute and in voting for bans on pro-Israel (should I say consciously and proudly pro-Zionist?) wikipedians such as myself. hmmmm..... could be have a conflict of interest here?

Note the use of the word combat to describe their activities. Also notice how the group requires verification of the pro-Palestinian and anti-Zionist (anti-Israel) point of view before they are accepted into this "secret" society. Could it be that these 12 wikipedians do not understand the principle that Wikipedia is not a battleground??

As of today Wikipedians for Palestine has 11 members. Today being 25th April. However, on 7th April, (see cached version here ) there were 12 members. Apparently one member quit recently-- perhaps in fear that the group would be infiltrated and his/her private emails exposed. Who knows?

Anyway I have made a screen-shot [6]of both.Juanita (talk) 18:03, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Looking again at original accusation against CAMERA from Electronic Intifada:

A pro-Israel pressure group is orchestrating a secret, long-term campaign to infiltrate the popular online encyclopedia Wikipedia to rewrite Palestinian history, pass off crude propaganda as fact, and take over Wikipedia administrative structures to ensure these changes go either undetected or unchallenged. A series of emails by members and associates of the pro-Israel group CAMERA (Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America), provided to The Electronic Intifada (EI), indicate the group is engaged in what one activist termed a "war" on Wikipedia. A 13 March action alert .... calls for "volunteers who can work as 'editors' to ensure" that Israel-related articles on Wikipedia are "free of bias and error, and include necessary facts and context."

Secret long-term campaign? Wikipedians for Palestine has been "underground" for 2 1/2 years. About 2 1/4 years longer than CAMERA's. Wikipedians for Palestine is secret in that all members are screened for the correct POV, ie pro-Palestinian and anti-Zionist. So far it is secret enough that they have not been exposed nor their private emails exposed.

It seems to me that those who claim to be so neutral in their POV and yet are actively engaged in their attempts to get me and other members of the group banned, should infiltrate this group and publish their private email addresses as a matter of fairness. In point of fact, it is possible even probable that some of these 11-12 wikipedians are active in prosecuting this CAMERA issue and getting us pro-Zionists silenced, is it not?

The assertion that one of the Israpedia members called for a "war" on Wikipedia is certainly no worse than this group's description of what they are doing as "combat," protestations of NPOV aside. What in fact wiki has done up til now (perhaps arbitration will change the end result?) is to buy into Electronic Intifada's spin against CAMERA and the Israpedia group. No one seems to see the irony of the name. Juanita (talk) 19:45, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I wanted to make sure this got kept, Huldra posted it at the CAMERA lobbying case here:[7]

[edit] screenshot

screenshot can be found here

[edit] Wikipedians for Palestine

from Huldra on the CAMERA-lobby page:

Regarding Wikipedians for Palestine; I went over there to look, and somebody has updated the page there. I´m copying it here:

In light of the recent CAMERA/Isra-pedia scandal [] and seeing that Dajudem/Juanita wants to compare this group to the CAMERA/Isra-pedia effort she was involved in let us point out some key differences:

• 1. This group never recruited neophytes to edit Wikipedia; only editors already in "good standing" were allowed to join.
• 2. Unlike the Isra-pedia group, the existence of this group has never been hidden. It has always been public and purposely so (Yahoo does permit "unlisted" groups).
• 3. Unlike the Isra-pedia effort, this group has always been explicitly committed to NPOV.
• 4. This group has always been independent and never bankrolled and backed by any organization, let alone one as well staffed and funded as CAMERA.
• 5. This last point may help explain why Isra-pedia had more message traffic in one week than this group had in the last seven months.

Regards, Huldra (talk) 09:49, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

1. This group never recruited neophytes to edit Wikipedia; only editors already in "good standing" were allowed to join. - with a proven anti israel bias.

2. Unlike the Isra-pedia group, the existence of this group has never been hidden - if this were so then let us have their names. we have israpedia names.

3. "Unlike the Isra-pedia effort, this group has always been explicitly committed to NPOV." - if this was so then why the need for the proven anti israel/anti zionist editing record??

4. This group has always been independent and never bankrolled and backed by any organization, let alone one as well staffed and funded as CAMERA." really, you made the assertion, how do you know that? wikiforpalestine is the personification of stealth! the assertion was made in ignorance.

5. This last point may help explain why Isra-pedia had more message traffic in one week than this group had in the last seven months. that supposition can be questioned. one could equally say that the 12 stealth members of wikiforpalestine have a vested interest in getting the anti israpedia position out there. you see the problem with may is that it implies maybe not. a demonstrably weak statement.Davidg (talk) 04:39, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedians for Palestine

has eleven members who by their own criteria, are members of the wiki organization in some capacity acting in a clandestinely promoting their agenda while remaining 'wikipedians' in good standing. surely that is the very definition of stealth. no mechanism exists by which wiki is able to detect these agenda driven wikipedians. unless there exist some redress to this problem, the rules of wiki will apply to some but not all thus voiding the fair application of justice. this is a flaw in the wiki model and as a flaw it will affect what is wiki especially when these individuals sit in judgement. it appears the model in which wiki prides itself has faltered and is not the answer to the achieving a neutral point of view promoted as axiomatic to the wiki philosophy thus making wiki no better than the encyclopedia that use to be given away in supermarkets. other evidence of this is demonstrated in the contending 'universes' of contentious issues. perhaps the john stuart mills model would serve better! "If all mankind minus one were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind." http://www.utilitarianism.com/ol/two.html at least mills would not contrive barriers to free speech which seems to be part of the herding instinct at wikiland. Davidg (talk) 07:40, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Please note

The topic-ban I placed on you above does also extend to talk pages. My apologies for not clarifying this earlier. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 08:52, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] POV debate

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Folantin/Userspace_Folantin5Juanita (talk) 05:50, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Request to UnBlock

Not true. I have a fellow user in my household. He does his own thing and I do mine. He made no personal attacks, but attacked the wiki model. My case is under arbitration. I should have the right to make my case. If he is blocked he will remain blocked. I deserve the right to make my case while it is still in arbitration. I wish to remind you (editors)that you have exposed my email address and exposed my private correspondence which is considered harassment under wiki rules. I should at least be allowed to edit in regards to this issue. I urge you to try to imagine how you would feel if the shoe were on the other foot. Again, I have done nothing wrong. Juanita (talk) 15:13, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

indeed not true. i have called for all members of israpedia to be punished even if no members of wikiforpalestine are not punished. and i have done so repeatedly. totally ignored by the powers that be, ie the administrators that ganged up to ban/block me. a truly remarkable circumstance considering their reputed neutral point of view! i did notice that future perfect at sunrise did contact DieWeisseRose to do the right thing and list the members of the wikiforpalestine stealth groups 12 members active at wiki. ah, but alas not only has DieWeisseRose not answered the wiki administrators in their wisdom have not even admonished DieWeisseRose for promoting wikiforpalestine with membership of proven "pro-Palestinian(s) and anti-Zionist(s)".[8]

my interest at wiki is the wiki model and for the wiki model to have any chance at working rules must be fairly employed. in as much as they are not wiki fails the wiki test of neutrality

Davidg (talk) 05:06, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Notification of review

Please see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Statement re Wikilobby campaign for the conclusions of an administrative review concerning the CAMERA mailing list. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:17, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Answer to whats a diff?

See this page --> Help:Diff Also you should ask for any refference to your email to be WP:Oversighted if you did not know that existed. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 00:09, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] A diff

A diff is created when two page versions are compared on the "History" tab. For example, this diff should demonstrate why you don't need to tell me what that paragraph on private correspondence and harassment says: I'm actually the editor who gave it its current form, which seems to have held up for at least six weeks. A lot of us didn't like the idea of adopting a policy which would endorse shooting the messenger in cases of whistleblowing, or letting ArbCom expand it's domain via fiat to be the sole arbiter of all such matters. Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? as the Romans used to say. As you can see from WT:PRIVATE, this one little declaration from the ArbCom caused a lot of community discussion, flailing, etc. -- Kendrick7^talk 04:20, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

That's a lot of reading but the first question that comes to my mind is why would 'whistleblowing' be an issue in a properly set up system. The creation of an encyclopedia, no money is involved, what's to whistle-blow? I guess that would be the hand on the scale to provide UNDUE weight. To make the decision as to whether something is UNDUE or not is in itself based on a POV. In conflict areas like Israel/Palestine that's the biggie, the other side always calls it POV- or agenda-pushing. It reminds me of the verse Great fleas have little fleas upon their backs to bite 'em,and little fleas have lesser fleas, and so ad infinitum - Augustus De Morgan. I'm not sure it can be solved. Juanita (talk) 04:01, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I, in turn, am reminded of an old Burr Shafer cartoon, where, in a moonlit clearing, J. Wesley Smith dressed in a toga holds out a bag of money to another, similarly dressed, bearded man. The caption reads something like: "Thank you for coming, Augustine, I was hoping you could see fit to leave a few things out of your Confessions." Any such enterprise presents an opportunity for corruption; as Shafer wryly suggests this has always been the case. That's why things need to be kept as transparent as possible, and gloomy backwoods goings-on are so rightly frowned upon. Anyway, to follow up your point, I agree that WP:UNDUE shouldn't be used to trump WP:YESPOV; there's some ongoing discussion here on that regard. -- Kendrick7^talk 20:25, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] List of blocs and bans in "Palestine-Israel Conflict Section

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:ARBPIA#Log_of_blocks_and_bans

I have not got into personalities but would just ask: What percentage of the users banned and blocked or even sanctioned are POV -sympathetic to Israel? Are any one the list sympathetic to the Palestinian cause? Just wondering Juanita (talk) 22:25, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Not sure who this question is directed to, but since I saw it, I'll say that off the top of my head, of those listed, Nagel and Eleland would not be considered to have a pro-Israel POV. There are only a couple about whom I'm not sure of, so you are correct in suggesting it's disproportional, but I don't think reflects a dis-proportionality wildly different from the general English-speaking wikipedia community. Perhaps the pro-Israeli editors were a little more in the habit of being able to throw their weight around before the sanctions and as such it took them a little longer to adjust. Having cut my teeth in that corner of the project, I can tell you CAMERA's suggestion that there's a radical cabal of pro-Palestinian nationalists controlling a large swath of articles related to the conflict is unfounded. -- Kendrick7^talk 21:00, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your response, Kendrick7. The original CAMERA letter did not characterise it that way. It said:

What is the problem? It's (WIki) influential and popular, but it isn't always accurate. Wikipedia has a series of policies and guidelines meant to ensure that the encyclopedia develops in a fair, accurate and reasonable manner. Unfortunately, these guidelines are often ignored by editors (even while these same editors loudly and speciously cite these guidelines in order to defend their unfair edits). And as we all know, "controversial" topics like the Arab-Israeli conflict tend to attract an especially large number of partisans hoping to warp the public's understanding of the Middle East. This is happening with many Wikipedia articles, ranging from the article about CAMERA, to the article about Nablus, to various articles about anti-Israel activists, and beyond.

They say "a large number of partisans"....If anyone is accused of being a 'radical cabal' it appears to me to be the pro-Israeli side. Any other suggestions came from personal emails NOT on CAMERA stationary. I am wondering if the sanctions against the pro-Israelis are more serious. For example Eleland got a 48 hour ban and I got a year off from editing the topic. Is there a differential between sanctions? Thoughts? Juanita (talk) 03:29, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Well I'm conflating somewhat that with the original warning from the memo the page before it in the same PDF by the same author; I thought that was the basis gist when I recalled it from memory, but I may have exaggerated accidentally.

As far as what passes for justice around these parts, it's mostly luck of the draw. The randomness factor keeps editors more inline generally, if you think about it. Knowing the right people doesn't hurt; you can see in the log where certain blocks were shortened, and that's usually what was going on there. What you have going for you is some longevity having joined the project back in 2005; but, then again, you have only a few hundred edits.[9] You're being judged, certainly, by the company you kept by being part of that list where some teachings very contrary to the Wikipedia's ideals were being discussed, and it's not clear (from what I've seen, I haven't delved) whether you were in there speaking against those teachings in any way.

It's entirely plausible that you were ignorant, or even, having worked mostly in articles related to the I-P conflict, that what was being said made a lot of sense; the longer I ever spent there, the more of a remote mirage WP:NOT#BATTLE seemed to be.

But the correct response to knowing that "wikipedia is an encyclopedia that anyone can edit" is to realize that's an awesome idea, not to come, as Gil did, to the fearful realization that your side's enemies in a civil war could use it as a public relations tool to cut off your side's foreign aid (or what have you). It's a really important experiment, but it only works right when wikipedians are working together openly and transparently each with our own voice and not collaborating in secret or being pulled around as puppets on a string. If you are here to help build an encyclopedia that anyone can edit, it's a really big wiki. Take this as an opportunity to appreciate by editing in other corners how much better our ideals work beyond the context of civil war partisan bickering and hopefully take them to heart. (You might even edit in some other civil war if contemporary military events is your thing; could be an eye-opener nonetheless.) One less or one more partisan over the course of a single year isn't going to be the straw that breaks the camel's back. -- Kendrick7^talk 07:37, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/CAMERA lobbying

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/CAMERA lobbying/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/CAMERA lobbying/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, — Rlevse • Talk • 22:35, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Latest blahblah over CAMERA issue

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents/Statement_re_Wikilobby_campaign Juanita (talk) 13:48, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] My dumped content

[edit] "Please spread the word"

DieWeisseRose, who weighed in on the discussion about Isra-pedia (see first diff below) by saying that "There is no reason to believe that this hasbara/propaganda effort has ceased or that there aren't plenty of Hasbara Fellows--independent of the CAMERA operation but with the same goals and tactics--already in the ranks of Wikipedia's editors and administrators," had herself publicized, on Wikipedia a couple of years ago, the Wikipedians for Palestine forum (see second diff), and a minute later exhorted people to "please spread the word." (third diff)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents/Wikilobby_campaign&diff=prev&oldid=207984720

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Notice_board_for_Palestine-related_topics&diff=prev&oldid=37488243 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Notice_board_for_Palestine-related_topics&diff=prev&oldid=37488334

She went on to advertise it on various people's talk pages:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ramallite&diff=prev&oldid=37488946

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Palmiro/archive3&diff=prev&oldid=37489233

08:27, 30 April 2008 Moreschi (Talk | contribs) (25,277 bytes) (→Wikipedians for Palestine --"Please Spread the Word": rmv irrelevant trolling. Dajudem, you are walking on salted ice) (undo)

Since the Wikipedians for Palestine was here first (2006), and wiki members recruited for this secret agenda-driven for-Palestinian anti-Zionist group met and with zero resistance and was tolerated by the wiki community, it set the precedent. Now least one of the same people who promoted this "anti-Zionist" site is now castigating & swarming me and members of the Israpedia group for the very same things they themselves (may well) have been (are still?) doing! (ie a"secret, long-term campaign ... to rewrite Palestinian (Israeli) history, and pass off crude propaganda as fact".) If nothing else it qualifies as gross hypocrisy. I have been hit with a year-long ban for 'breaches of Wikipedia:Sock puppetry." It appears that there may well be sockpuppets for the other side that are part of this swarm. Why is it that one side is being made an example of, and the other side given a pass? Why is it that my attempt to defend myself, by showing both sides of this conflict, is characterised as "irrelevant trolling?" In fact, it is not inconceivable that this secret group or members of it who gathered "to combat ... pro-Zionist bias" on wiki are among those who are involved in this attack on CAMERA, and the email group associated with CAMERA. One way of doing that is of course to give people year-long topic bans and/or block them from editing altogether. Note: You will notice that there is now argument on the front page of this group directly pointing to me and to this debate. Since I am not a member, I cannot defend myself there, only here. Juanita (talk) 17:50, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

12:11, 30 April 2008 Moreschi (Talk | contribs) (26,526 bytes) (→On Black Ice: ArbCom might buy the sob story: that's their purpose. But this does not belong here. Revert me and you will be blocked) (undo) Juanita (talk) 21:37, 30 April 2008 (UTC)'

[edit] Arbitration

Hi, you probably want to be weighing in on the arbitration case with any new/relevant information and arguments, rather than that same talk page. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 21:40, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Charges

The evidence consists of 4 points noted here:

1. 17. On March 28, Zeq posted a message concerning Hezbollah in which he claimed that an edit was "a subtle example how the Hizbulah PR team works" and that "Clearly the hizbulla person who did this edit understand his target audiance in the left or neutral people in Europe and US. he does not go after the extreme right wing zionist he try to capture mindshre in the undecided ... " User:Dajudem followed up by making two edits supporting Zeq's point of view (10, 11).

18. On April 9, "I <3 Israel" posted a message asking for support in changing the name of 2006 Lebanon War:

The discussion about voting reminded me that some time ago there were a few votes on how to name the article that wound up being named "2006 Lebanon war." It wound up being so named for many reasons, but mostly because the supporters of this name wanted to communicate their opinion that this war was conducted against Lebanon, not just Hezbollah. I think it might be appropriate to restart discussion on that title, if there are some people here who would be willing to support me in proposing a new title (such as "2006 Israel-Hezbollah war"). What do you guys think?

19. This was supported by several other list mambers, including Gilead, Dajudem and Zeq.

According to the above rendering, this person said it "might be appropriate to "propose" a new title such as 2006 Israel-Hezbollah war. I certainly agree that it is more reasonable in that it was Hezbollah that started the war with Israel (ie fired the first shots), and that Lebanon itself was not happy about the rogue nature of Hezbollah. Many in Lebanon feel their country was dragged into a war with Israel that it did not want; nor did the Lebanese army engage Israel. Reopening the title at least opens discussion on an important point and possibly clarifies the situation a little. I am not responsible for any supposed/presumed vote-stacking comments by others. I am not sure I even read them. At any rate, I have personally never in my life participated in a vote in wiki. .

21. On April 15 and 16, Zeq posted two requests for help concerning Allegations of Israeli apartheid. He made two edits to the article on April 15 [14], [15], and User:Dajudem made one edit on April 17 following "Isra guy's" second appeal for help 16. Zeq also posted a list of "articles I consider highly important" as well as his full watchlist, consisting almost exclusively of Israel-related articles. He did not specifically ask list members to support any particular edits in those articles.

Indeed I did visit the article Israeli Apartheid as one of the users in the group requested. Apparently the author of the email was finding it frustrating and was asking for help. I quizzed him as to what part of the article he found problematic but I think the list was shut down before I ever got an answer. I did visit the article and commented out a section as awkward and mis-placed. The paragraph belongs in the paragraph(s) agreeing with the allegation, not that of the critics of it, so I merely commented it out that whoever wrote it could consider it, move it, change or delete it or add it back for further discussion. here

---

I wanted to make one further comment regarding an exposure in my emails where I said that [a certain user] was "one of us." What I had intended to purvey here was in relation to the assertion of another member of the group who claimed that Wiki had NO pro-Israel administrators. In point of fact I had discovered that the [user], who had made a welcoming comment to me when I first arrived at Wiki was indeed an administrator and apparently pro-Israel in outlook. I find it sad (and unfair) that the names of other Wikipedians were brought into this discussion from the emails, when in fact doing so is at best idle gossip, and at worst is intended to smear innocent fellow Wikipedians. Juanita (talk) 04:41, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Huldra

Huldra has published the WIki for Palestine group's argument. To answer his/her points:

1. We do not know who or what this group (WP) has done or is doing, until and unless it opens up its email archive for scrutiny. Even then, there is no knowing what was passed in private emails between group members.

2. I do not know that the Israpedia group was "unlisted." Do you have evidence of that?

3. As to 'always commited to a NPOV' we only know what the claim is, not the reality behind it.

4. Regarding the claim of independence, we only know what the claim is, not the reality behind it. What is to say that WP is not 'bankrolled' by EI or a Saudi charity? We don't know. What evidence does WP have that CAMERA bankrolled this group? The implication that anyone received any money is heinous and unfounded.

5. The last point is merely an attempt at a slur. See point 1 regarding the exchange of private emails.Juanita (talk) 16:27, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] NBahn

It was claimed:

I believe that a careful reading of the listserve postings will show that efforts were made to limit membership to those people who had expressed an interest at CAMERA's website. Specifically, it is my understanding that one needed to be invited to join the listserve in order to receive listserve membership -- no invitation, no membership.

This is not so. There was no contact at CAMERA's website. Those who responded to the initial letter were sent another as to how to sign up for the Google group. Invitation was extended to anyone who demonstrated an interest.

It was further claimed:

As far as that AN/I goes, Dajudem/Juanita was at first denying the evidence, and then minimizing it (although, to be perfectly fair to him/her, s/he was not the only person engaged in such deceptive behavior).

I did not want CAMERA implicated in something that CAMERA did not do. I was under the impression that once "Israpedia" had been established, it was an independent group run by its members. Thus I admitted membership immediately but tried not to implicate CAMERA. Since the original opening letters were written on CAMERA stationary, it is safe to assume they were part of CAMERA or at least written by a rogue staffer. I never denied that I was the individual in the emails.Juanita (talk) 16:27, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] My reply....

... is on my talk page. CasualObserver'48 (talk) 06:43, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] question

I do not consider Gilead ini a hostile element. Amateurish and non-constructive, yes...but not hostile. he simply wished to create a private initiative in a clumsy way. someone with real hostility would have assembled a group of hand-picked volunteers activists, and never done this in any sort of public way whatsoever. this has all the hallmarks of one person's bright idea which went hugely off-track. So i suggest we let the matter rest to some degree. ArbCom appears to be about to uphold all sanctions issued in this matter anyway. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 15:40, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Just like wikiforPalestine did. Proof of prior anti-Zionist edits.Juanita (talk) 17:53, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

here's my question to you: so now you're admitting that CAMERA and wikiforPalestine did the same thing? do you favor sanctions for both? --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 21:03, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

lol. Here's my answer. When I said "just like wikiforPalestine" I meant the stealth angle. Had the idea been really stealthy and meant to undermine wiki, they would have done it differently, as you suggest, similarly to that other group. Am I admitting that they did the same thing? Not really. The main difference is that we do not know who the wikipedians for Palestine are which means that it is possible that since they organised themselves in 2006 that they are well-entrenched inside wiki already, and could well be a part(even a major part)of those that are prosecuting this action. They may be members of Electronic Intifada even, infiltrating CAMERA and passing their "evidence" to wiki. If we reward that behavior, we will definitely see more of it from both sides. On the other hand, they may be entirely innocent, though personally I consider that a stretch. Since their group has not been infiltrated we don't know. You can't sanction the wikiforPalestine group because you don't know who they are. Thus I don't believe you should sanction Israpedia members. I believe that the only way to deal with this is for wiki to concern itself about what is happening here at wiki, not with private emails found elsewhere or other groups. Juanita (talk) 23:53, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

ps. How do you know that "ArbCom appears to be about to uphold all sanctions issued" if I may ask?Juanita (talk) 23:55, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

sure, you may ask. that's a reasonable question. the only reason for my belief is that it appears possible that since they have replied little if at all, they probably have little plan to change the status quo. that's my only reasoning. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 23:57, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Speedy deletion of Image:Wikipeidans-for-Palestine2.gif

A tag has been placed on Image:Wikipeidans-for-Palestine2.gif requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section I7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a non-free image with a clearly invalid licensing tag; or it otherwise fails some part of the non-free content criteria.

If you can find a valid tag that expresses why the image can be used under the fair use guidelines, please replace the current tag with that tag. If no such tag exists, please add the {{non-free fair use in|article name that the image is used in}} tag, along with a brief explanation of why this constitutes fair use of the image. If the image has been deleted, you can re-upload it, but please ensure you place the correct tag on it.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 05:30, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Refactor or delete

Re [10], that comment is out of line. Refactor it or delete it, or I'll delete it. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:19, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Lack of Civility or AGF by fellow Wikipedians

Just a few of the insults and accusations coming my way the first day or so of this investigation. It has been nonstop since, and every effort to defend myself is met with new accusations of disruption, meatpuppetry, badfaith, battlefield mentality. Not only did I get a year-long topic ban on the 23rd, but now they are trying to give me an indefinite block.

Lawrence Cohen's first comment to me after informing me of the review & I first weighed in and presented my perspective:

This sort of mindset is completely incompatible with Wikipedia's ethos. People here for an advocacy role are a problem, as we follow WP:NPOV. Pro-Israeli, Pro-Jew (I'm a Jew), Pro-Palestinian, Pro-Arab points of view are garbage and not welcome here. Whomever "infiltrated" this nest of editors did us a great service, unfortunately. I suspect your edits are now going to be reviewed in short order. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 20:54, 22 April 2008 (UTC) [11]

Note the judgmental and unwelcoming tone.

The accusation that I CAMERA is using wiki for as a battlefield and that I 'embraced the tactics rather eagerly.'

Dadujem, this might come as a bit of a surprise to you, but many people here do not fall in either category, pro-Israel or pro-Arab. If you are treating Wikipedia as a war or contest, where one uses tactics in order to win, you've missed something very basic. Obviously that point applies to anyone coming from a point of view that differs from yours - and as several people have already said here, no-one would be surprised if there are similar efforts organised by people with a pro-Palestinian bias. But that doesn't justify the tactics advocated by CAMERA, which you appear to have embraced rather eagerly. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:23, 22 April 2008 (UTC) [12]

Hypnosadist's first comment to me. To the point that I 'fail[ed] to mention being a member of the group' --that is simply not so.

"I thought in America we were all allowed to join any groups and were responsible only for our own words, not the words of others in a group. Ditto with our actions." So if i turned up to your school wearing a Nambla t-shirt you would leave me alone with the kids? Get a Grip. "I have not tried to push any "agenda" but to see that my side is fairly represented." Thats you agenda! When you first commented on this thread you failed to mention being a member of this group, where i'm from (the UK) thats called being deciteful. (Hypnosadist) 00:15, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

"The implication and accusation being generated here is that every member of this 'private' group is "pushing an agenda" as opposed to wanting the truth and the facts to get out" No the Accusation is YOU and your mates are "pushing an agenda" by deliberately trying to get around wikipedia policies. (Hypnosadist) 00:19, 23 April 2008 (UTC) [13]

I deliberately haven't gone fishing for "bad edits" but like all members of this group a topic ban is in order to nip any possible future problems in the bud. The evasiveness and bitching about "Collective Punishment" mean i have no Good faith for her. (Hypnosadist) 01:31, 23 April 2008 (UTC) [14]

"Won't there be that much more ammunition on the pro-Israeli side for screaming "oppression!" and for using even more underhanded methods" Couldn't disagree more, they will always scream oppression, they will use any method to push their POV. Just like terrorists they need to justify their crimes by claiming it is legitimate resistance against a superior force, they believe they can do what they want. Since the start of the year i've been called anti-american, anti-semitic, islamophobic, too right wing and too left wing when i have dared to disagree with a POV warrior,Bored Now!. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 02:45, 23 April 2008 (UTC) [15]

When I called him on his edit he "refined comment:" (edit added later for clarity; they includes ALL POV warriors of ALL races, religions, group or creed) [16]

No i acknowledged what i think of bitching POV warriors like you, like the muslims who have said i'm islamophobic etc, No i'm not an admin so you can stop adding that to your supposed lists of wrongs. I notice you still haven't answered a single point i've raised anywhere on this page and are just screaming oppression. PS i missed anti-christian of my list of things i've been called and i'm still bored. (Hypnosadist) 04:03, 23 April 2008 (UTC) [17]

Perhaps this is when he came to my talk page as well demanding that I answer his questions or would I simply "scream oppression?"

Give it a rest, Camera got caught trying to game the system. I don't edit IvP articles, but am a member of the terrorism project on wikipedia. I've worked to get actually anti-semitic editors off wikipedia (check the top of my talk page) but of course you don't care about that, i'm The Enemy. (Hypnosadist) 04:10, 23 April 2008 (UTC )[18]

Which one of us is having trouble with Wiki is not a Battlefield?

And then the following exchange, in which I answered a charge that I had admitted participating in a discussion which included advice on how to get Palestinians sanctioned. The part that galls is that Moreschi deleted my denial without explanation.

Perhaps it would serve to remind Juanita that the email exchange in which she has admitted participation included advice on how to get Palestinians sanctioned. Did she protest to her email group about that advice, or are her moral convictions only recently acquired? Tegwarrior (talk) 23:17, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

This is not accurate! I did NOT admit to have seen or participated in an email exchange which included advice on getting Palestinians sanctioned. This is FALSE. I do not remember seeing anything about that. Juanita (talk) 21:59, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Moreschi (Reverted edits by Dajudem (talk) [19] Juanita (talk) 01:16, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

You are free to submit as evidence on the evidence page, if it's not there already. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:29, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] More BlahBlah

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents/Statement_re_Wikilobby_campaign

[edit] Final decision in CAMERA lobbying arbitration case

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. Mere membership by an editor in some external group that has been involved in violations of policy is not actionable without evidence that the editor has some personal involvement in said violations. Sanctions previously imposed are confirmed. An amnesty is extended towards any editors who may have been involved in this external group and who have not been sanctioned for their participation in it. This is coupled with an expectation that these editors will not participate in similar efforts in the future. Members of the community who may have information regarding similar efforts by external groups to unduly influence our content are urged to forward that information to the Committee for review. Hypnosadist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) is admonished to maintain an appropriate level of professionalism at all times, and to avoid misrepresenting Wikipedia policy to other editors. For the committee, — Rlevse • Talk • 20:17, 28 May 2008 (UTC)