Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/CAMERA lobbying/Evidence

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Press attention

FYI, this episode has been noticed by the press [1]. Cla68 (talk) 05:05, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Very interesting. And just for the record for those that don't know CAMERA in this arb case means "Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America". — Rlevse • Talk • 10:00, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Its been covered by one of the top Iraqi newsgroups http://uruknet.info/?p=m43258&s1=h1 (Hypnosadist) 10:39, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

And now also Israel's NGO Monitor (CAMERA's counterpart watchdog group--but with charities versus media)[2] has put this on their radar. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sandyfella (talk • contribs) 15:47, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Looks like this is Sandyfella's one and only comment ever on wiki. I had deleted that post to preserve the privacy of the user. Some people seem to have a serious vested interest in this case. Perhaps Sandyfella is making up a new wiki identity in order to involve himself in prosecuting this one case? My guess is that these new users are from Electronic Intifada looking to push its "anti-Zionist" & "proudly pro-Palestinian" agenda down wiki's throat by attempting to silence the voice of CAMERA and its supporters. At least that's what it looks like to me. Juanita (talk) 07:20, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Its been covered by one of the top Iraqi newsgroups http://uruknet.info/?p=m43258&s1=h1 (Hypnosadist) 10:39, 30 April 2008 (UTC) perhaps smeared would be apt. given EI point of view: "The Electronic Intifada: Palestine's Weapon of Mass Instruction." with this statement "Although EI addresses the prevailing pro-Israeli slant in US media coverage by offering information from a Palestinian perspective, our views on the conflict are based firmly on universal principles of international law and human rights conventions, and our reporting is built on a solid foundation of documented evidence and careful fact-checking."

http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article1387.shtml which within contemporary wiki guidelines (NPOV) makes it unacceptable Davidg (talk) 08:04, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

You really are confused, i'm quoting this news story on a talk page to show how far this news story has travelled, not as a source for an article. (Hypnosadist) 16:59, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Oversight?

What exactly would be Oversighted? Wikipedians violating a laundry list of policies were outed by the news media, not users here. No real names, either, and Gilead Ini long ago outed himself. What exactly is there to Oversight? Lawrence Cohen § t/e 15:55, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

What should be oversighted in my opinion are ALL the CAMERA email addresses on wikipedia, we can do nothing about EI and the other news organisations that have reprinted this information, but that does not mean we should be party to spreading those emails. (Hypnosadist)
hello big brother!Davidg (talk) 08:07, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Actually why am i bothering trying to help people who just keep insulting me, i'm striking my objection to having their emails published. (Hypnosadist) 19:30, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry, what does "Oversight" mean, exactly? i think that might be the source of the misunderstanding.
I agree with your description of their general attitude, behavior and tone. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 19:57, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Ok, i just found the following at WP:Oversight. hope this is helpful in clearing this up.

Oversight on the Wikipedia is a form of extreme deletion, intended for privacy, defamation and (at times) copyrighted information which are to be expunged from any form of usual access. Oversighted edits differ from normal deletion performed by administrators, since once removed, they cannot be seen even by administrators, nor can they easily be restored to the database.

On the English Wikipedia, oversight is entrusted to a restricted number of users, who can both oversight material if it meets the strict requirements below, and monitor each others' use of the function.

The permission is granted (exceedingly rarely and only with good cause) by the Arbitration Committee, who handle many other privacy-related functions. Users authorized for oversight must have provided personal identification to the Wikimedia Foundation.

Thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 19:59, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Dajudem's erroneous evidence

Dajudem says

One need only Google Electronic Intifada to discover that it refers to itself as "Palestine's Weapon of Mass Destruction."

In fact, one only needs to read English to know that what Electronic Intifada says is

The Electronic Intifada: Palestine's Weapon of Mass Instruction.

Bangpound (talk) 11:27, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't change the fact that their self-description is a reference to nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. The fact that they do it as a pun, rather than a direct reference, only means they are being clever about it. 6SJ7 (talk) 14:28, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Come on. When activists use WMD as an abbreviation for "Weapons of Mass Deception", in a play on words expressing their opposition to the Bush administration's wars on Iraq and Afghanistan, do we interpret that as advocacy for the use of nuclear weapons? No.
I think it would be better just to admit that Dajudem's evidence is inaccurate and misleading on this point (and really wholly irrelevant) rather than speculating as to what EI is trying to convey with their play on words. Tiamuttalk 14:41, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
I'll leave the speculating as to what others are saying to you and the rest of the full-court here.Juanita (talk) 22:51, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
I strongly suspect that Dajudem simply misread this. I gather it would be impolite to speculate as to why she misread it that way. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:02, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Annie Lennox must also be evil for using Songs of Mass Destruction as the title of her most recent album. (Hypnosadist) 16:03, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
In fact I did misread it and I apologize. As to speculating on the reasons why someone might misread something, polite of otherwise, I would entirely expect such an inquiry from this incredible witchhunt. Juanita (talk) 14:31, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
ps I corrected it Juanita (talk) 14:57, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Press coverage

This dispute reached the pages of the Boston Globe today [3] Bangpound (talk) 14:27, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

You mean the same way that Electronic Intifada was TAPPED here at wiki to characterise the evidence against us? Juanita (talk) 15:03, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Read the boston globe article Jaunita, your famous. (Hypnosadist) 15:08, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Where? The only individual I see mentioned is Ini. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:49, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Ah - dajudem is mentioned in the American Prospect piece - but not the Globe, as far as I can see. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:51, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes your right! (Hypnosadist) 16:40, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I posted my comment there.Juanita (talk) 03:29, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

[6] --68.72.34.126 (talk) 12:37, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

An interesting item at the Jerusalem Post [7] which says:

even the contention that something secret and nefarious is going on is given in the lie by this page from the Camera website [8], titled "How and Why to Edit Wikipedia." The page is one of the top links on the Camera home page, so it's not like the organization was trying to hide something.

Bangpound (talk) 22:34, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

That must stick in the craw, Bangpound. It is so unlike our dozen "anti-Zionist" editor-friends who have POOF! just vanished! One has to wonder if Electronic Intifada has crew over here? After all, 'disinformation' is one way to wage war. I never ever go to the Electronic Intifada site myself because by its own freely chosen name/identity it supports a violent solution to the Middle East conflict. I guess it is a site for those who wish to wage electronic war against.....guess whom????? Juanita (talk) 05:04, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps it would be wise, especially when one is the subject of an ArbCom process, to, y'know, not slander other users around here as "anti-Zionist", or to suggest without actual, y'know, evidence that they are employed by EI? You only harm yourself with this garbage, really. Tarc (talk) 05:19, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Only we do know that there are some 12 editors on wiki that define themselves that way. Have you forgotten the WikipediansforPalestine group at Yahoo!? I have not slandered them. Those are their own words. And I said nothing about 'employment.' I was thinking in terms of volunteers, you know, sorta like the CAMERA volunteers that I believe have been slandered with the words of Electronic Intifada. Juanita (talk) 07:43, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
EI only reproduced the words of you and your fellow Isra-Pedia group members, so unless y'all slandered yourselves, that charge is a bit ridiculous. As for the other part, what I am taking offense at is you leveling these charges at other editors here. I am certainly not a part of any wikiforpalestine. Tarc (talk) 13:07, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Not true. This is what EI said and what was reproduced and charged here on wiki:

On April 21, 2008, the Electronic Intifada (EI) website published allegations that the Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America (CAMERA) was "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."

That is what is generally known as an interpretation (spin?) of the content and slanders me and others on the mailing list as to our motives. You may agree with it because it coincides with your POV. But that doesn't make it true. You object to me leveling charges against the secret(now disbanded) members of wikiforPalestine, yet it is naive to believe that none of those who are prosecuting us now (or were involved in the initial votes to censor us) were not. I am not making accusations against anyone in particular since I don't know who those members were, not having infiltrated this group. Nor do I think the Mossad will be involved anytime soon, lol. I will say that this whole business of going outside of wiki to prosecute people for private emails sets a very bad precedent for wiki in the future. So I am glad it will be adjudicated. It needs to be. Juanita (talk) 16:13, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
You say it sets a "bad precedent" to prosecute based on outside emails. then you say that members of wikiforPalestine should be prosecuted, and that they may have already infiltrated us. so which is it? do you feel people should be prosecuted for this sort of thing or not? you seem to be contradicting yourself somewhat in a number of statements. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 16:25, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
I don't know what emails wikipedians for Palestine are exchanging nor do I have any idea what they might be doing to promote their "anti-Zionist" agenda here. When their group was discovered, they quietly disbanded and slipped into the woodwork. We cannot find them and yet they may have been responsible (in part or in total) for cleansing wiki of a despised perspective. By banning Israpedia members for their membership, you end up punishing one side and not the other. Unless you somehow find WP emails and members, you have rewarded a particular side for an 'action.' Did you notice how the wikiforpalestine group was under a banner of divestment and boycott of Israel? (If my screenshot had been allowed to stay I could show you) This demonstrates that they were activists on wiki, not merely a group of like-minded individuals espousing NPOV. These actions will continue to happen everywhere, but banning one side and not the other will only make you a party to the other side. Since you can't go looking for emails everywhere, it makes sense to strengthen structures within wiki to deal with such things, and the best way to me seems to me to judge everyone by his own words and actions, not by a group membership. I hope this clarifies my position for you. Juanita (talk) 02:36, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Juanita...the first part of that paragraph needs some proof becaue it contains serious allegations and otherwise is a serious lack of AGF. Please link to the evidence or refactor the statements. Everyone be more careful in their statements or you'll force my hand. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:56, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Changes made. Hope this meets muster. Juanita (talk) 23:29, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Camera try it again

This has been posted on there website by a Banned user[9] (Hypnosadist) 18:29, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

On the bright side, it appears to be in the open and not directly encouraging anything bad faith as far as I can tell. I am curious what COI issues may arise with any of their other employees though.--68.72.34.126 (talk) 18:43, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Notice the absence of "Fair and accurate reporting" of the facts about Gilead Ini getting blocked or why this article has been created. (Hypnosadist) 18:48, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. I think the article and archived Wikipedia histories provide a fair assessment though. --68.72.34.126 (talk) 18:57, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with any group, CAMERA or other, encouraging people to edit Wikipedia. That's something we welcome. The problem comes when groups are seeking to coordinate editing on Wikipedia from behind the scenes, as the "Isra-pedia" group sought to do. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:52, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

COI issues for the employee of an organization also seem relevant.--68.72.34.126 (talk) 03:30, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

The more minds trying to achieve fairness and balance, the better. Your characterisation as 'coordinated editing' is a demonstration of your bias. What we did was nothing more than what you all do whenever you discuss any project or article with like-minded people. The rest is all gossip, assumption and innuendo. Juanita (talk) 03:38, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

"The rest is all gossip, assumption and innuendo" Nope we have Evidence, read the emails again. (Hypnosadist) 05:07, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
What goes on in the talk page of every article is 'coordinated editing.' Every thing that gets up and stays up is the result of discussion. All you object to is really what you consider 'stealth' editing ie "behind the scenes." But that concept is still nonsense because every edit is available for review and change by anyone, unless the article is protected. Even if 20 people got together on an edit, stealthy or not -- anyone else can come and revert it. What people say to each other in what is assumed to be private emails, really has no bearing on wiki, particularly if one doesn't even have proof positive of identity. One should really have to prove, it seems to me, that edits were somehow not true, fair or balanced. As for conflict of interest, if you read the whole of the wiki page in that regard, it seems to me that it is arguable, in regard to Gni; as opposed to cut-and-dried, as you would have us believe Juanita (talk) 06:53, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Playing of the Race Card

One of the other editors here said: "Jesus didn't nail himself to the cross..." Apparently race is part of it. Juanita (talk) 15:43, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Here it is, by another one of our 'persecutors' lol:

":::Jesus didn't nail himself to the cross, and we wouldn't have felt sorry for him if he did. Nothing unfair occurred here. They broke the rules, they got banned. Simple as that. If you don't respect the rules, then you deserve a ban. Titanium Dragon (talk) 02:20, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

-- wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents/Wikilobby_campaign

If it's good for the goose...Juanita (talk) 15:48, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Do you have a link to the diff? This sounds inappropriate, but it also sounds like a completely separate issue..--68.72.34.126 (talk) 17:23, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Here is the diff. This is again inappropriate, but is also not the topic of arbitration.--68.72.34.126 (talk) 17:28, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
not the topic of arbitration but user:Hypnosadist, referred to "playing the race card" in his statement on the Evidence page. I guess the idea is to throw as much mud as possible and hope some of it sticks. Juanita (talk) 21:18, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Mr 68.72 Arb com can sanction anyone they want, that Jesus quote is either a mistaken metaphor about martyrdom or a Gross anti-semitic "Christ killer" reference. They may choose to apply a block or ban or AGF that it was a mistake. (Hypnosadist) 21:34, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
I just thought they were concerned with the main issue of CAMERA lobbying. Fair enough though. --68.72.34.126 (talk) 02:57, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Or perhaps more to the point, it could have been a reference to "nailing yourself to the cross", which is a common way of saying that someone making a martyr out of themselves. This is exactly what happened here. The guy was claiming to be persecuted when he wasn't, he was claiming wrongful prosecution when it wasn't wrongful at all. This is a very typical tactic of groups like CAMERA, claiming people are anti semetic for saying anything negative about a Jew, when it has nothing to do with them being a Jew.

Perhaps more to the point, Jews aren't even a "real" race; they have interbred with many other groups throughout history, and if you look at the Middle East a lot of Jews and a lot of Muslims look pretty similar. If it was anything, it would be persecution on the basis of religion.

As anyone who is familiar with my history of edits on Wikipedia, I'm an irreligious atheist. I've got some pages on my watchlist to prevent people from vandalising them; this includes vandalism by muslims on articles like Banu Nadir or however it is spelled. I also was involved in the debate over including stuff like his holiness on the Pope's page at the beginning of it (I was, for the record, against it, and we ultimately got all the articles to match because there was no neutral way to apportion out such titles). I've been called a racist for trying to get Afrocentrism to present a more balanced acedemic perspective on the subject (namely, the article was, at one point, really poorly written and rather POV, both for Afrocentrism in many parts and against it in some; it reads much better now), I've been called names for fighting for evolution elsewhere, I've been accused of being pro-Jewish because of my perspectives on Race and Intelligence, and people have even thought I WAS a Jew for talking about the fact that Jews in America have much higher average IQs than normal (as obviously, people will only present reality if it is beneficial to them).

Do I have a POV? Certainly. But the point of Wikipedia is to present the NPOV, and the NPOV should be able to enable people to understand reality as it is. We don't feed people conclusions, people should be able to make them from articles on the subject matter. We don't say "Hitler was evil" because it wouldn't be neutral, but more to the point, we don't need to - his actions speak for themselves.

People like CAMERA hate the neutral point of view, because there is no such thing as a "good guy" when it comes to that particular conflict. The Israelis commit atrocities against the Palestinians; the Palestinians commit atrocities against the Israelis. There are no good guys, but CAMERA (and pro-Palestinian groups, on the other side) CONSTANTLY attempt to portray themselves as the good guys, and call anyone who disagrees racist. I'm sorry, but presentation of reality trumps your pathetic agendas; you're small ants in the grand scheme of things, as are we all, and to understand reality you need to take a step back and look at how things truly are, not how you want them to be. The person playing the race card here is you. I quote:

Playing the race card is an idiomatic phrase referring to an allegation raised against a person who has brought the issue of race or racism into a debate, perhaps to obfuscate the matter. It is a metaphorical reference to card games in which a trump card may be used to gain an advantage.

That describes you quite well. It is ironic that those who attempt to play the race card are, themselves, most often racist.

I thought about not making the comment at the time; I knew you might try to turn it into "OMG WE ARE PERSECUTED BECAUSE WE ARE JEWS." But on the other hand, nothing else, I think, would have gotten the point across as well. Was it not particularly civil? Probably not. But let's face it - you abandoned civility long ago when you accused us of being Palestinian operatives not operating in good faith.

We aren't banning you because you're Jews. We're banning you because you tried to mess with Wikipedia. You broke the rules, you got caught, now you're getting punished for it. Idiocy is unfortunately completely independent of religion; it is epidemic across all groups. If it was a pro-Palestinian group, I'd be banning them just as fast. You're telling the same old story you tell in the middle east, the same old story to make yourself feel better about your wretched actions. Or perhaps you understand how wrong your actions are, but due to your complete amorality simply do not care. What you did was wrong. When you do the wrong thing, revenge is to do it right back. Justice is to prevent both you and others from doing it again. This is not revenge; this is not us blowing up busses because we bulldozed your houses because we settled on your land because you went to war with us because ect. ect. ect. God said so. This is us putting an end to it and hoping it doesn't happen again. Of course, there will always be people like you out there, attempting to subvert the NPOV of Wikipedia. And there will always be people like me, who will fight you tooth and nail and call you on it.

I know it is difficult for someone within which such perspectives are so engrained, but there are people who do not think of you as good people because of your actions, not because you call your god Allah or Yaweh or the Invisible Pink Unicorn. We aren't all on "sides" here, little as you comprehend that reality. Titanium Dragon (talk) 03:02, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

That was an awfully insensitive reference, given the history of Christian antisemitism centered around the "the Jews killed Jesus" claim, but in context it's clearly a boneheaded choice of idiom rather than an antisemitic statement.
More generally - can anybody explain to me what this RfArb is about? Is this anything more than a "Juanita gets to appeal her ban and attack everyone who she doesn't like" event? What is the point? <eleland/talkedits> 04:24, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
I challenge this user to provide evidence that I have attacked anyone? On the contrary. That is in fact an attack on me, when I was simply bringing up a response to someone else's 'evidence' that someone else "played the race card." Juanita (talk) 15:19, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
eleland, i'm surprised at you. you should know that the point of this is to appeal past decisions, call for future ones, question the present ones, and deny the potential ones. also to use up any excess electrons which may be floating around. also did any palestinians say anything to israelis which might be construed as not being entirely free from that which might charitably called an utter lack of inattention to not being considered benighted? or was it vice versa? thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 19:14, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Juanita: [10]

[11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23], that's from the first few days, after which I got tired of looking, because honestly >50% of your contributions since the Isra-pedia thing broke have contained personal attacks or egregious assumptions of bad-faith and most of them are just minor variants on the same tiresome themes. And quite frankly, if you were saying the same things about Zionists and Jewish cabals instead of anti-Zionists and Palestinian conspiracies, you'd have been hard-blocked indefinitely as a blatantly antisemitic conspiracy theorist. <eleland/talkedits> 20:45, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I didn't look at them all but I was minding my own business here and have since 2005 when suddenly I am attacked I find myself attacked by all sorts of people I don't even know. I wouldn't be human if I didn't respond. I am the one that you people have ganged up on for essentially no reason, for membership in an innocuous group which has been blatantly slandered including most of its members. I have been given a huge ban way out of proportion to anything that I did or said, innocent people have had their private emails exposed, and ugly spins have been given to all of our intentions. Yes I am angry and one person after another here has attacked and slandered me. People came to my talk page and want to know why I don't hurry and answer his charges. Gni is given the : "Are you now or were you ever a member of the Communist Party?" treatment. Don't talk to me about "assuming good faith" -- there has been precious little my way, frankly, or toward any of the members of Israpedia. The egregious assumptions of bad faith have been coming from you folks first. I tend to be polite when I am met with politeness, instead of a steady drumbeat of accusations of stealth and bad intentions. Juanita (talk) 08:06, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

More examples of race/religion having been brought into this discussion, by others, including the very others using it as 'evidence':

Your high level of paranoia combined with your devotion to your cause lead me to believe you are destined for departure. I am an antireligious intellectual upper-middle class caucasian engineer, yet somehow, I manage not to tell you to go back to bulldozing the homes of Palestinians, the conservative Christians to go back to burning crosses, the fundamentalist Muslims to go blow themselves up, the homeopathy folks to go take a dilution of cyanide, ect. Titanium Dragon (talk) 04:37, 27 April 2008 (UTC) [24]

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) [25]

"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) [26]

Juanita (talk) 22:46, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] meatpuppetry

how does this : "...and because of you rather obviously being another CAMERA meatpuppet" Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:54, 27 April 2008 (UTC) Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Judadem"

reconcile with what what i stated 7 hours before??:

i state here that the members of any agenda driven group exposed should suffer the consequences even when other agenda driven groups escape exposure. that goes even if the pro palestinian/anti israeli group is never found. i also state that that is an existential flaw in the wiki model because the presumption of neutrality cannot be judged from within, an essential condition of wiki world. i do not believe in god thus i do not believe in perfect knowledge. Davidg (talk) 00:33, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents/Wikilobby_campaign

did you act in ignorance or were you caught up in 'group think'? Davidg (talk) 03:43, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Future_Perfect_at_Sunrise" mr future perfect might argue that davidg is not judadem, but if mr future perfect had thoroughly invested he would have come across this post which anteceded his decision:

Note that the sig points to User:Judadem, he learned that trick quick for a newbie. Anyway Davidg if you don't like NPOV go to Conservapedia. Just don't insult wikipedians in general or specifics WP:CIV. (Hypnosadist) 06:51, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

perhaps aspiring toward 'concensus' wiki devolves into group think or perhaps mob thought for whom the concept of 'civ' doesn't apply. Davidg (talk) 05:54, 5 May 2008 (UTC) Davidg (talk) 06:02, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm looking into this. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:01, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm guessing that "Davidg" = User:Dajudem. -- ChrisO (talk) 10:19, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Guess all you like. We are two different people.Juanita (talk) 22:00, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
"Davidg" definitely = User:Judadem.[27] The names are apparently anagrams though. --68.72.34.126 (talk) 14:35, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
User:Future Perfect at Sunrise blocked User:Davidg for a month on 27 April, if I recall correctly.
--NBahn (talk) 12:50, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Davidg has no blocks, contribs, deleted contribs, nor log entries that I can find. Apparently it's never been used as an account at all, BUT User:Judadem signs himself as Davidg, as seen here. I've seen elsewhere on en.wiki, but can't recall where, and it's been confirmed that User:Judadem and User:Dajudem (obvious anagrams as mentioned already) edit from the same IP but use different computers. If meatpuppetry concerns existed or continue, present the evidence in this case. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:13, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Rlevse to help you out, JU(Juanita) DA(David)...two people, two computers, two minds ... one computer connection. Until recently I had not read about what wiki expected one to do under these circumstances (ie put up the fact at our user sites). Davidg is a newbie here as you can tell by looking. He sure got more than he bargained for when he joined up, lol! He does have some recent contributions, mostly on the discussion pages, and he was indeed blocked as noted above. He has also been banned for two months from editing Israeli/Palestinian articles as per the note on his talk page (in relation to the assertion that he is CAMERA meatpuppet) by Fut Perf-- so there should some evidence in the block logs. Juanita (talk) 22:09, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Are you or are you not on the same IP and location/office as Davidg? Is this a CAMERA office? Lawrence Cohen § t/e 15:25, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
lol. lol. lolololololol. how about enough lol. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 19:10, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
camera guys, a suggestion: stop talking about actions of camera, or groups for israel or groups for palestinians. exactly what are you defending? yourselves? wikipedia? israel? camera? at this point, i'm not sure. If your record is clean, that will speak for itself. if there are problems, even if not your fault, why prolong this? thanks.
the only way to resolve this is through discussion of wp principles.Frankly, i think many of the sanctions have been overdone. but I don't think that my defense of that viewpoint will be helped by constant nit-picking over others' actions, statements, etc. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 19:12, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Are you or are you not on the same IP and location/office as Davidg? Is this a CAMERA office? Lawrence Cohen § t/e 15:25, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
"Is this a CAMERA office?" we are not that kinky lawrence, we don't have cameras in the bedroom. Davidg (talk) 04:53, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Yet you do not deny it. Why? Lawrence Cohen § t/e 15:17, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Lawrence, if you read Davidg comments here on this page and at the evidence page I think you will see they speak for themselves. He has already denied being a member of the Israpedia group. I appreciate your having brought this up to the ArbCom but your questions are beginning to sound like McCarthyism. "Are you now or were you ever a member of the Communist Party?" It is over the top, frankly. If you have evidence to prove your allegations, fine, Otherwise your demands for denials are an attack that does not show good faith in my view. Juanita (talk) 16:25, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
My questions are the height of good faith, as I've said more than once if someone like Zeq had simply denied being the zeqzeq2 in question I would have been satisfied. If Gni for example simply posted here, "I am not Gilead Ini of CAMERA," that would have been good enough for me. The fact that people refuse to take a free out is baffling, unless they don't want to lie in case they are "caught" later with new evidence. But for any of these people tied to the mail list: that's all I require under my own standard of good faith. Say it's not you, and I'm personally satisfied. Again, the fact that these people won't do that is baffling. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 16:28, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
There is not right to non-incrimination on wikipedia, as such the failure to answer a simple yes/no question is often seen as bad faith. All it takes to answer is a maximum of three letters, mean while screeming persicution at the top of your voice Is Bad Faith. (Hypnosadist) 16:53, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Precisely. "Is this you, that did this action?" "No." "OK, we're five by five then, thank you, I am satisfied." Barring later evidence to the contrary, this is again the height of good faith and not persecution or incrimination in any way, shape or form. Quite the opposite, in fact. The original Zeq ANI thread would have been a lot calmer if he'd just actually responded to queries instead of screaming his Anti-Zionist opponents were out to get him. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 17:58, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Is this a CAMERA office?

no. Davidg (talk) 19:48, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] end game

this is to inform all that having made my single assertion i am out of here. i find gossip mongering unattractive and intelllectually beggared. let me repeat my assertion. no entity is fit to judge itself thus voiding the possibility of 'neutality'. judgements are always external. thus wiki, not being fit to judge itself fails the neutrality requirement it imposes upon itself. consensus is group think. group think happens when consensus is met. consensus is met when dissenting voices are silenced. thus the model fails.

thus my john stuart mills quote: "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." Davidg (talk) 04:57, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

LOLS!!!!!111! So let me get this straight the people from an organisation that works to get academics fired from their jobs because of their political views is complaining about about "dissenting voices are silenced", even if that was true it would be hypocracy of the highest order. Consensus works when those in the minority are either convinced by the majorities arguments or decide to acceed to the majorities wishes. I've often had concensus go against me and i have to accept that, POV warriors because they are Allways Right about Everything are incapable of doing that especially on articles they are going to war on (such as IvP). As for the model not working Hewlett-Packard Information Dynamics Lab have released peer reviewed scientific papers showing that the model works and has exceeded the limitations of all previous collaberative projects, making this the largest in human history. (Hypnosadist) 08:15, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] the broad brush at work

"So let me get this straight the people from an organisation that works to get academics fired from their jobs because of their political views is complaining about about "dissenting voices are silenced", even if that was true it would be hypocracy of the highest order."

if you are alloying me with camera, perhaps you need to establish a modicum of evidence. but since there is no connection, you do not have it 'straight' but are imposing ignorance. you need to read my statement concerning 'agenda driven' groups. then get back to me.

"i state here that the members of any agenda driven group exposed should suffer the consequences even when other agenda driven groups escape exposure. that goes even if the pro palestinian/anti israeli group is never found. i also state that that is an existential flaw in the wiki model because the presumption of neutrality cannot be judged from within, an essential condition of wiki world. i do not believe in god thus i do not believe in perfect knowledge. Davidg (talk) 00:33, 27 April 2008 (UTC)"

what my statement says is that we (all of us) are constrained by 'limited knowledge' and that precludes neutrality. that you chose to ignore what i say in interpreting what i say speaks to your bias.

now to H.P: "Hewlett Packard Information Dynamics Laboratory found that the best articles on the English Wikipedia are those that have been edited the most frequently, by the largest number of people."

http://209.85.173.104/search?q=cache:Ig_eOF_U9OUJ:wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Press_releases/10M_articles+Hewlett-Packard+Information+Dynamics+Lab+wiki&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=2&gl=us

it could be argued that that speaks against marginalizing individuals because of the company they keep since it serves to reduce "the largest number of people". but since wiki rules against 'meatpuppery', and rules should be enforced then what will happen is that stealth will be introduced as it has successfully been done with wikiforpalestine given the claimed membership and requirements for wikiforpalesinte.

"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."

http://209.85.173.104/search?q=cache:5cZUBPQ1NfwJ:groups.yahoo.com/group/wikiforpalestine/+wikiforpalestine&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us

one way the success of the wikiforpalestine agenda will manifest itself in what they termed 'combat' is how well the enemy's presence is marginalized.

now i do not wish anything bad for wikiforpalestine and its 12 stealth members. but note that others will undoubtedly learn from their successful infiltration and adapt. their presence is a wiki problem for wiki to solve. one thing for certain is that you do not solve a 'problem' by ignoring it. adapting to a changing environment is a sign of intelligence. Davidg (talk) 04:42, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi Judadem. I was going to speak up against the sanctions being imposed on you. however, your call for sanctioning the Palestinian group makes it sound like you favor this type of sanctions. Oh well. so i guess it's a no go. As you'll note, you yourself just said, "you do not solve a 'problem' by ignoring it." so you're providing arguments against yourself. I'm just trying to make the issues here clearer. i would strongly suggest you keep your comments on different issues separately. As you probably know, I'm an active pro-Israel editor. Actually maybe you don't know, since I haven't dealt with you before on articles which i've edited . anyway, hope that's helpful. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 13:38, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
i will speak to this first: "..it sound like you favor this type of sanctions"

answer: i am neither for/against whatever sanctions, i am for wiki following the rules. i do not care if the rules are fairly applied. that is the business of wiki, what i believe is that wiki is a failed model whose reputed aim is to culminate in a neutral consensus, but what i believe is wordspeak for terminating in group think.

to this: "Oh well. so i guess it's a no go"

answer: thank you, your help is neither solicted nor wanted.

finally to this: "so you're providing arguments against yourself"

answer: you speak in ignorance. i was called a meatpuppet. your statement presumes there is evidence. produce the evidence and hasten my demise. i am perfectly will to evaporate from this wikiwonderland and your assistance would be appreciated. you can be my kavorkian at wiki. but being infected with john stuart mill's ideas, i will not go gently into that good night. unless i am blessed with being ignored. let me leave in peace. thanks in advance. Davidg (talk) 16:44, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Poetry!! Or is it mixed metaphor? Or mixed something - JS Mills and Dylan Thomas. A wondrous combination. Rage, rage against it! Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:56, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
i smell a rat, i see it floating in the air but i shall nip it in the bud. look up the meaning of metaphor and stop being a metabore. --Davidg (talk) 07:39, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Judadem, your statement is kind of confusing. it's hard to note what you are for or against here. anyway, never mind. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 17:19, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
i am for clarity. i have stated several times that one of the wiki pillars crumbles in contentious issues. that pillar centers around the concept of neutral consensus. the palestine/israeli issue serves very well as a demonstration of the weakness in that pillar. just read the gossip mongering going on. it is divorced from reality with accusations and counter accusations woven with bias tainted argument. one would have to be brain dead not to see it. this ritualized hatred will not end from within unless/until one side is able to purge the other side. what will be left if that happens would be a 'consensus' that would claim a neutral point of view with countervailing argument gone. at present wiki offers no remedy. is their a remedy within the consensus 'pillar'? the answer is no. is this weakness manifest only within israel/palestine. no. i just read the endless arguments within the science of medicine about just what the relationship of chiropractic homeopathic and allopathic 'medicines' should be. it devolved in a similar fashion but with a bit less intensity. my conclusion is the neutral consensus model is a chimera.

Davidg (talk) 07:39, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Question for Gni

You do not deny in your evidence being Gilead Ini--you just say the "evidence" does not meet your standards of proof. Are you or are you not Gilead Ini? Lawrence Cohen § t/e 15:18, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

With all respect, what difference does that make? Unlesss you are an Admin or an Arbitrator, then i would like to suggest that since this matter is now in ArbCom, I would like to respectfully suggest that for the benfit of all concerned, it might be benficial if we could please simply let the Arbitrators handle this, and to do their jobs. Editors are allowed to retain their anonymity here. Thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 15:31, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
My status is irrelevant, any user can ask any questions that better Wikipedia. The problem is this Gilead Ini fellow has shown to be a hostile element to our collective interests, and their appears to be clear evidence that Gni = him. If this is true, then Wikipedia has no use of a character such as Gni--he would be a net loss to our collective goals, given his demonstrated efforts to undermine Wikipedia with Meatpuppetry, abuse of our systems, and abuse of NPOV to advance some Zionist aim or whatever their goals ultimately were. I'm basically offering him an out. The fact that he despite all that bluster on the evidence page never said he wasn't Gilead Ini is telling, and it bears pointing out to the Arbiters. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 15:37, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
I appreciate your reply. 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)
So now you're admitting that CAMERA and wikiforPalestine did the same thing? do you favor sanctions for both? --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 18:20, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

it appears there will be only sanctions for one because the promoter of wikiforpalestine, DieWeisseRose is presently quite active with no threat of ban/block for promoting a site that required proof of "Wikipedians in good standing and someone who is pro-Palestinians and anti-Zionist, those wishing to join this group will be asked to provide their Wikipedia user ID." which now can only been seen as a screen dump at a non wiki site thanks to Lawrence Cohen who decide to eliminate it presence here at wiki, thus removing evidence of a Wikian, DieWeisseRose, promoting this agenda driven group of 12. it is not even available as cache. Davidg (talk) 04:26, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Further conversation

" someone with real hostility would have assembled a group of hand-picked volunteers, and never done this in any sort of public way whatsoever" Thats exactly what he did!. The people Volunteered from a self selected group of subscribers to Camera emails. This was all done in secret until EI broke the news on their website. (Hypnosadist) 16:57, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
True, sort of; i meant something else, and have changed my comment above. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 17:00, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

To anyone who hasn't been editing the article for months, Gni's problematic editing and conflict of interest are well-documented. It would be best to let ARBCom sort it out at this point..--69.210.8.93 (talk) 18:46, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Coming from someone who apparently has made all of 5 edits, ever -- all today -- and 2 of those at the CAMERA site? Perhaps you want to log in? Juanita (talk) 22:56, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Um, around here we usually don't attack people just because they edit from an IP address. see you. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 01:12, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
My point was that this user referred to "Gni's problematic editing and conflict of interest..." So he attacked a fellow in this arbitration. I figure if you are going to make a negative comment about someone, you might at least log in. Juanita (talk) 18:13, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
No negative comment was intended, just a statement of fact. That's what the link was for.--69.210.8.93 (talk) 12:38, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm the only 60. IP who has been making edits related to CAMERA over the past few months really. I'm just too lazy to sign in..--69.210.8.93 (talk) 02:35, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
NPOV - is the name of a dog that don't hunt

Davidg (talk) 07:47, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

"My status is irrelevant, any user can ask any questions that better Wikipedia"

just what are the neutral pov guidelines to the construction a question which "betters" wiki?? perhaps even those most assertive of being wiki wonks have a nuanced discordance that escapes critical self analysis. does 'any user' include users perceived as having malicious intent which must come after they deposit their posit? god forbid i serve as that example Davidg (talk) 08:29, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Cracking the Lid to the Pandora's Box

admin fut per banned/blocked me for meatpuppetry despite lack of evidence

admin fut per did not ban User:DieWeisseRose even knowing that dieweisserose was actively engaged in promoting wikiforpalestine. he merely requested that she "come clean". [28]

the wikians engaged in the israepedia/camera of agenda driven issue orientated diatribes have been selective in the enforcementof the principles they espouse. if it is the principle that is important to uphold then one should have expected condemnation of this agenda driven group,wikiforpalestine, along with israpedia/camera. the near total silence on this issue is damning of the process.

[edit] cracking the lid a bit more

this judgmental statement was made:


"Judadem (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) - we cannot link this account with any of the known active contributors on the mailing list; however, the timing of its creation (9 April) and of its first contributions (13 April on Talk:2006 Lebanon War and 14 April on Talk:Deir Yassin massacre, both exactly coinciding with the CAMERA-generated activity on those pages), together with Judadem's vociferous and aggressive involvement in defending Isra-pedia after its discovery), in our view, makes it more than likely that this is another meat- or sockpuppet. Blocked for a week and banned for two months from all Israel/Palestine-related articles per general disruptive editing."


while ignoring

this judadem statement which proceeded judadem's being banned/blocked:

"i state here that the members of any agenda driven group exposed should suffer the consequences even when other agenda driven groups escape exposure. that goes even if the pro Palestinian/anti israeli group is never found. Davidg (talk) 00:33, 27 April 2008 (UTC)"

one can't but notice the lack of action when it came to the wikiforpalestine collaborator, User:DieWeibeRose, even though wiki had evidence of dieweisserose's prohibited activity; yet judadem, who not only condemned all agenda driven entities, including israpedia/camera on several occasions, was banned by being coincidentally linked by time alone.

how can this statement by the admins be made in good faith:

"Judadem's vociferous and aggressive involvement in defending Isra-pedia after its discovery), in our view, makes it more than likely that this is another meat- or sockpuppet"

while ignoring this:?

"i state here that the members of any agenda driven group exposed should suffer the consequences even when other agenda driven groups escape exposure. that goes even if the pro palestinian/anti israeli group is never found. Davidg (talk) 00:33, 27 April 2008 (UTC)"

Davidg (talk) 19:54, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

WP:AGF says:

This guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of evidence to the contrary. Actions inconsistent with good faith include repeated vandalism, confirmed malicious sockpuppetry and lying. Assuming good faith also does not mean that no action by editors should be criticized, but instead that criticism should not be attributed to malice unless there is specific evidence of malice.

Thus, I would venture to say the involved parties had what they considered to be "evidence to the contrary". I believe some of the "evidence to the contrary" is explained here (there is more here and here). If you have issues with the evidence used in reaching the decision, you would voice that and countervailing evidence on the Evidence page. If you have an issue with the severity of the sanctions, I believe it would also be addressed on the Evidence page. --69.210.8.93 (talk) 02:13, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
"repeated vandalism, confirmed malicious sockpuppetry and lying." There is no evidence of that for me or for Judadem, unless you can point out something I missed? Apparently we are to prove the absence of the above before we are treated with the assumption of good faith? Juanita (talk) 04:11, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm just clarifying to you since you seem to not follow. I'm not the one filing the charges, so there's only so much I can explain to you. I would review the links I gave you thoroughly. You may wish to take in to account that there is a spirit to the policy as well.--69.210.8.93 (talk) 06:23, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "Failure of WP"

Just wanted to point out this article has a reply.--69.210.8.93 (talk) 08:56, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

As the "reply" is penned by one of the alleged participants in this whole affair, I'd take it with a grain of salt. Note the attempt to damage the evidence against CAMERA by linking Electronic Intifada to David Duke, noted white supremacist. Classy, and logically fallacious. Tarc (talk) 13:46, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
I was by no means endorsing the viewpoint being presented, just making everyone aware of it since it seemed relevant.--69.210.8.93 (talk) 20:22, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Good article by Gilead Ini. Juanita (talk) 23:42, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "Honest Reporting", Bangpound

Gni nows says here that a report by "Honest Reporting"† has "revealed" that Bangpound is a staff member of Electronic Intifadah; Gni's source is the Jewish Week News, story here. Now, I personally have no idea whether the claim about Bangpound is true or not. But I do want to note that the Jewish Week News story merely asserts it, without offering any evidence at all for it. Does anyone - least of all Gni - expect anyone else to accept a claim like this on such a flimsy basis? Again, it might actually be true - and if it does prove to be true/substantiated, then Bangpound's credibility is going to take a pretty big hit. But so far there is nothing more than unsubstantiated assertion here, and it is disingenuous for Gni to present this as fact. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 11:15, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

†I like Guy's characterization of "Honest Reporting", here: words come to mean their opposite... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 11:23, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
unlike some, gni wishes to protect the identity of bangpound. but when bangpound is proven to be a member of EI, the wiki will find itself an unwitting accomplice to promoting EI agenda bangpound/EI was in the world of the unknown unknowns, it is now in the world of the known unknowns and will soon be in the world of the known knowns. and that is fact certainDavidg (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 16:46, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Whether he's a member of EI or not, the Israpedia group still violated Wiki policy.. Perhaps CAMERA could provide the emails in the interest of openness.. --72.243.237.122 (talk)

00:38, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

i am addressing the issue that bangpound was on the staff of EI and without disclosure of his position fed wiki EI propaganda about camera's intent as EI interpreted it. i do think that falls under some form of puppetry. i have also point out that diewiesserose promoted wikiforpalestine group in 2006 whose requirement for membership was being a wiki editor and having a pro-palestinian anti-zionist bias. what ever camera's status it needs to be noted that dieweisserose's promotion of wikiforpalestine anteceded camera's efforts and also that bangpound was a member promoting EI. what wiki does will define wiki. i am of the opinion that the wiki model is flawed and that consensus/npove are chimeras. the very fact that wiki permitted the promotion of wikiforpalestine without criticism and that israpedia/camera has met with intense criticism speaks volumes about the reputed wiki npov/consensus model. now with other established interest groups being exposed and evidence presented perhaps one no longer has to wonder. i am not interested in the conclusion of this process, i am interested in the process. ban some/ban all/do nothing. the battle will go on. if i might be permitted:

Volume 4, Book 52, Number 268: Narrated Abu Huraira:

Allah's Apostle called,: "War is deceit".

[29]

The evidence of Bangpounds identity is part of my research which was provided to the press. I have commented on it here [30]. The Jewish Week obviously did their own fact checking before publishing it as an assetion. I have not published the details I found, but I have published a description that lead to the match. It will not take anyone very long to check this fact. If people would like my collection on this published I will do so. Otherwise... it should take any of you (who follow that link) all of 2 minutes to reproduce enough evidence for the match to be considered solid. I can ofcourse provide further details to those running the arbitration if they wish, including publishing the evidence (with links) as I did with other aspects I investigated. I will do this if asked. Bangpound is not trying to hide who he is. Oboler (talk) 14:54, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Will protect the evidence page if I have too, ie, knock it off

While we've more tolerant of trolling and personal attacks on arb cases than at other places, my patience is very thin here on the evidence page. If these behaviors don't cease immediately, I'll protect the workshop page and its talk page. As the case has now moved into voting, you should have made all pertinent points necessary by now and unless you have something significantly new to add, you may want just watch the voting. — Rlevse • Talk • 13:03, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Are all e-mails from Camera's list available somewhere?

If so, they could help assert if the people on the list actually did a lot of bad-faith ediding, or if most of the edits were trivial or even good. -- Heptor talk 16:07, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

The answer is here. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:27, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
quote from Fut.Perf. :

"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: ([31], [32]). "

  1. Review of the two edits mentioned in the diff show them to be completely benign edits. They have nothing to do with the so called "Zeq's point of view" (as it is quoted from the EI letters)
  2. The list of diffs in the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Statement re Wikilobby campaign is limited to 3 articles: One is the CAMERA article itself, another is the name of the 2006 war and the 3rd are those two benign edits to the Hezbollah article: [33], [34]
  3. None of those edits show any significant violation to wikipedia policies – especially in light of the accusations made by EI that there was conspiracy to re-write history.
  4. None of the edits support the assertion by the 3 admins that there was a long-term threat on wikipedia
  5. None of the edits seems to correspond to the pattern of edits that EI claim the group was operating on. There is no one that was shown to make edits in non Israel-Palestine articles in an attempt to become an admin, there are no edits that targeted Trac (as the EI document seems to suggest)

To sum-up: There is wide disparity between the various claims made about the edits and the diffs showing the actual edits. --Southkept (talk) 01:14, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Gotta love these new users who jump right in to Arbitration cases for their first edits. The Israpedia conspirator's transgressions are all well-documented by now. Making the full archive available to the public would be quite irrelevant, as it doesn't really matter if the likes of Zeq or anyone else posted 99 nice things and 1 wiki policy-violating thing; the fact of the 99 would not ameliorate the seriousness of the 1. There is nothing benign in any of their actions, whether plotting to "get" me or plotting to game the system to ram their POV into encyclopedic articles or planting sleeper admins.
You defend the indefensible. Period.
Tarc (talk) 02:32, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
"Making the full archive available to the public would be quite irrelevant" – does this imply that you also have access to it? That you are in position to decide on publication of the full archive?
Other than providing us with this interesting information about yourself you have not addressed points number 1,2,3,4 and 5 made above.--Southkept (talk) 04:57, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
I do not imply a thing, and I have neither the need or the desire to reinvent the wheel and address your points, no. Read through the Evidence and Workshop pages and see where these assertions have already been made by others, and rejected. If you have something new to bring to the table, they will certainly listen. Tarc (talk) 12:32, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Future perf: I've seen through the mail that was made available by EI. What I want is a general picture of what Isra-Pedia actually did on WP. The problem with using the stuff EI made available is that it is unlikely to be representative, and it may very well be that most of the actual edits done by Isra-Pedia was benificial for the project (with Zeq likely to be an exception).
Could you maybe remove the personal information from the rest of the correspondence and make it available? -- Heptor talk 13:24, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
PS: Tarc: I've been on WP for three years. -- Heptor talk 14:01, 22 May 2008 (UTC)