Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Wikilobby campaign

The following discussion is an archived debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

• See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Statement re Wikilobby campaign for the conclusions of an administrative review concerning this matter. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:22, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

WikiLobbying campaign organized offsite by political pressure group

The lobby group Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America has apparently organized more than fifty editors via a mailing list to correct what it sees as bias against Israel. The list archives are here.

So are we going to do anything about this? Or are we going to declare the source an "attack site" and make wild accusations against everyone who brings it up? <eleland/talkedits> 14:17, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Israel is an article that gets thousands of editors' attention already, both good and bad, so I doubt 50 more would make a big dent in things even if they were rabid POV warriors, which let's not assume. They may even improve the articles. If they do not, we can take action then. If CAMERA starts getting too much non-neutral editing, we can always semi-protect it and require rigid sourcing. Neıl ☎ 14:26, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

There is one "rapid POV warrior" who is almost single-handedly affecting numerous articles on the subject by a combination of wikilawyering and attrition. Unfortunately no-one seems willing to do anything about him. пﮟოьεԻ 57 14:46, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Noting in passing that any group with the words "truth", "fairness" or "accuracy" in its name almost always stands for the exact opposite - funny old world. Guy (Help!) 14:28, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

It's highly doubtful that there are "thousands" of editors working even on a big article like Israel, let alone on the articles which were specifically targeted, such as AoIA and Causes of the 1948 Palestinian exodus. Even five editors working rationally in co-ordination could achieve massive changes to such articles, let alone fifty. And that's if we charitably assume that CAMERA wouldn't use their massive funding and thousands of members to create undetectable sock puppet accounts. They (including somebody with the same name and writing style as User:Zeq) were talking about creating accounts to edit unrelated topic areas, getting them promoted to admins, and then using them as "uninvolved admins" to ban people per the Arab-Israeli arbitration ruling. This is pretty serious. <eleland/talkedits> 14:35, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hopefully this revelation will put an end to the arguments about CAMERA being a strictly NPOV source. Statements such as "One or more of you who want to take this route should stay away from any Israel realted articles for month until they interact in a positive way with 100 wikipedia editors who would be used later to vote you as an administrator." are quite worrying. I wonder if zeqzeq2 is any relation to our own User:Zeq... пﮟოьεԻ 57 14:40, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

According to this article, he's one and the same. pedrito - talk - 21.04.2008 14:44

P.S. As somebody who works hard trying to keep these articles WP:NPOV, this really, really sucks. pedrito - talk - 21.04.2008 14:46

OK let's look at this in context, Most of what is in that document is entirely non-problematically - "stick to wikipolicies, make sure you have a policy reason for removing material you think is bias, edit in a rational manner etc". That's fine, but what's worrying is the suggestion that the end game should be that some of them because admins who don't edit those articles so that they can then dive in and lock pages as "uninvolved" (and I guess take orders off-site about what articles they should be "uninvolved" on). There is a list of articles that shouldn't be touched to start with and it's noted at the end of the list that about one article in particular - be carefully as this will get you in direct fight with all the muslims there. for now I don't touch this any more until we have maybe 20 editors who can fight and two "uninvolved" admins on our side --87.112.70.168 (talk) 14:55, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree that not all the suggestions proferred are entirely evil, at least when taken at face value. That is a sign that Wikipedia's core policies really do tend to channel people into the right mindset. However, the e-mails also reveal that conscious POV-pushers are well aware of the defects in our policies. For starters, the whole "uninvolved admin" trope has gotten way out of hand, and effectively undermined NPOV. If you actually know enough about a topic area to recognize stealth POV pushing, you're almost certainly involved in that topic area. As a result, subtle and well-crafted frauds absolutely plague our Israel-Palestine pages. <eleland/talkedits> 15:02, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

....it would be best to note on the discussion page that 'This sentence violates Wikipedia's NPOV policy, since the description of Israel's policies as 'oppressive' is an opinion. In addition, it is often noted by Middle East experts that one of the reasons Palestinians decide to become suicide bombers is hate education and glorification of martyrdom in Palestinian society ...' Sorry, that is evil, regardless of the fact that its technically bang-on and something I might post in support of. Its evil because its a Wikilaw school. Read the last sentence: they're being taught to misrepresent sources, to weasel their way around, to take advantage of assumptions of good faith. Notice the avoidance of which experts - not academic experts, you can bet. --Relata refero (disp.) 15:38, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

(undent) We can't crack down hard enough on groups like this. I'd support immediate indef topic bans from all Israel-related articles for any editor demonstrably associated with activities like that. No warnings. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:03, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Pro-Israel editors are as bad as anti-Israel editors. An indef ban seems fine here. It's WP:CANVASSing, to me. Grsz11 15:07, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, it would appear that we have one. I might try and infiltrate the group to see their distribution list and see if any other editors are on it. пﮟოьεԻ 57 15:09, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd block and topic ban on sight. That sort of conduct is completely unacceptable and must be removed immediately, before others get any ideas. Rudget 15:10, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Moreover I think the uninvolved admin notion (especially, in my own opinion, as it relates to single purpose accounts) is somewhat broken. As User:Raul654 has been saying lately, this tends to shut out those very admins who know enough about a topic and its contribution history to make the most helpful calls on what to do about PoV/edit warring, original research and source warping. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:15, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Hear hear. At the moment its impossible for me to put sanctions on the various POV-pushers in the Israel-Palestine sphere as I'm an "involved" admin (although I nearly wasn't as some of the POV-pushers tried to derail my RfA through CANVASsing, though that's another story). When outside editors get involved they don't know the history of certain editors and tend to make poorly informed decisions. пﮟოьεԻ 57 15:23, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

• My take is that the specific articles listed need to be watched more closely, and new editors entering those topics need some scrutiny, but most of what is laid out in the original document is good advice; recommending that editors follow Wikipedia's procedures and policies, and more importantly, to cite relevant materials in a civil and NPOV fashion is hardly something to condemn them for. It's collaboration, but it is specifically framed to work within Wikipedia, rather than to violate established norms. Horologium (talk) 15:18, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

An interim solution seems obvious. If Camera has indeed canvassed a stacking campaign of editors organizing themselves off-line to influence Wiki content, then it has set up an extremely dangerous precedent (of sorts: it doesn't take much editing to recognize this problem is already present). Therefore a deterrent of some sort is required. What CAMERA advocates can be repeated by other lobbies (from anywhere, on any section). I therefore suggest that CAMERA itself be declared an Unreliable Source, a sufficient warning to any external agency ringing in POV-tagteam editors that, if it tries to stack Wiki, it will suffer the consequences of not being ever cited by Wiki. Anything else is a waste of time. How this is handled will be well worth watching, it will be a touchstone on which Wikipedia's administrative integrity proves, or disproves itself Nishidani (talk) 15:19, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

No - that's a non-starter for a number of reasons. The reliability of CAMERA as a source is entirely separate to their actions here. One concern should not be piggybacked onto another. --87.112.70.168 (talk) 15:25, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

(clarifying my earlier comment after ec) Yes, CAMERA should be declared as unreliable, and use of its documents deprecated. However, if they provide reliably sourced citations (which appears to be one of the group's aims), then there should not be a problem. Horologium (talk) 15:26, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

• I've been worried about this for some time. See Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Evidence-based for just one recent related problem. In addition, there have been several problematic AfDs recently of articles that have been sourced almost entirely to CAMERA and related editorials in marginal newspapers; those have mostly closed as keep after they attract vast amounts of attention. I note that RfAs should be scrutinised more carefully. All the people who vote cheerfully for people who have never participated in any form of dispute resolution, etc., etc. be warned. I haven't read the emails in detail yet, and am going offline to do so, but I've read the summary. (I notice that while Zeq is involved up to the hilt, he seems to think that Jay, while considered a useful ally, is supposed to be generally ignorant of this machination. This is good news.) Incidentally, I have been asked about this recently by a couple of reporters, including one for the Boston Globe. --Relata refero (disp.) 15:23, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

• Block the lot for disruption, conflict of interest, and abuse of Wikipedia, and set up a long-term abuse page on them. In fact, let's get them on Wikinews and Signpost to send a message that this isn't tolerated. We don't need Zionist crazies damaging Wikipedia, or any other crazies of <insert affiliation> either doing organized trolling and trouble. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 15:32, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

From their newsletter:

"The bad news is this allows anti-Israel "editors" to introduce all kinds of bias and error into the many Israel-related articles, even the entry on CAMERA. The good news is, individual volunteers can work as "editors" to ensure that these articles are free of bias and error, and include necessary facts and context. Assuring accuracy and impartiality in Wikipedia is extremely important. If someone searches for "Israel" on the Google search engine, for example, the top result returned by Google would be the Wtkjpediapag~emQn Israel. CAMERA seeks 10 volunteers to help us keep Israel-related entries on Wikipedia from becoming tainted by anti-Israel editors. All it takes to be an effective volunteer is a basic comfort level with computers. Call or email me, and I will train you on how to become a volunteer Wikipedia editor."

This group is not here to improve Wikipedia, but Israeli/their interests' standing in Google. We need to slam the door in their faces before other people decide to do this very bad thing. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 15:37, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Gosh, you make it sound as if POV-pushing is relatively rare on WP. As far as I can see, it's all over the place, and WP is fighting a losing battle. A witch-hunt to smoke out CAMERA infiltrators would be an utterly paranoid way to go about handling what actually is a specific instance of an endemic problem. Just handle the POV-pushing as and when you encounter it. rudra (talk) 15:46, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Bollocks, its worse here than elsewhere, because its co-ordinated, methods of misrepresentation are taught, and readymade, if slanted, "reliable source" quotefarms are made available. This happens only rarely elsewhere that I've seen. --Relata refero (disp.) 15:48, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

This is an organized attack by nest of trolling POV warriors. If we don't slap them down hard and in public, others will get this same bad idea. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 15:54, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree 110% with Lawrence, i suggest a cease and desist letter from foundation lawyers would be a good start. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 15:57, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

It is much worse in this area than in others. The basic pattern of conflict here is the same as in the other ethnic fights, but the kind of stuff that would be easily, instantly identified as Albanian or Macedonian POV-pushing goes virtually unchallenged. We are literally still dealing with "questions" like whether the West Bank is under military occupation and whether territory outside the Green Line is Israeli. These are "controversies" in media punditry perhaps, in the same sense that global warming or evolution are "controversies," but in the relevant academic communities they are settled, consensus issues. <eleland/talkedits> 16:03, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Or, to add a recent and absolutely bizarre example, entire articles are for months blocked because no administrator with native English competence can come in and tell two or three editors that the word 'uprising', as established by dozens of quotations from scholarly books, the O.E.D., and over a 142 wiki pages, has been shown exhaustively to be quite normal to describe an insurrection like the al-Aqsa Intifada neutrally, being used for several hundred similar historical episodes in world historiography. Why is it blocked? Because one editor thinks using it of a Palestinian insurgency creates an unhappy analogy with the Jewish 'Warsaw Uprising'. It's rather like a Christian fundamentalist saying we shouldn't translate Tolstoy's novel with the word 'Resurrection' (denoting Dmitri Neklyodov's and Maslova the prostitute's Воскресение because it offends sentiments that associate the word with Christ's unique Resurrection.Nishidani (talk) 16:28, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

"We will go to war after we have build our army, equiped it, trained..." Good times. Actually, the mechanisms to deal with this are already in place. I seriously doubt that CAMERA-solicited POV-pushers will slip under the radar; the problem in such situations is more a matter of the will and energy to deal with obvious problems. I'd suggest the following as good general guidelines for this or any such situation:

• Watchlist requests for adminship and demand evidence of actual commitment to and understanding of Wikipedia policy in admin candidates. Wikignoming and rolling back vandalism are great, but they don't require the tools. Adminship is a very big deal in April 2008, largely as a result of a series of ArbCom decisions which have handled thorny issues by empowering the Platonic "any uninvolved administrator" with extraordinary discretion. It's entirely reasonable to oppose people who haven't satisfactorily demonstrated a grasp of core policies and conflict resolution before requesting the tools. You wouldn't give someone a drivers' license because they can change a tire, would you?
• Watchlist problem articles, even if you don't participate. Agenda-based POV-pushing thrives on a lack of outside eyes. The more these issues devolve into back-and-forth shouting matches, the less effective we are at dealing with them.
• It's not hard to identify agenda accounts which place advocacy for their POV above Wikipedia's policies. It's really not. If you observe such behavior, then request outside input, here or via WP:RFC/U, sooner rather than later. It will not be pretty - in this recently-closed ArbCom case, I spent 6 months dealing with an obvious agenda account at every level of dispute resolution, only to be accused of "biting a newbie" when the situation ended up with ArbCom - but it can be done. MastCell ^Talk 15:53, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, a voice of sanity. The watchword is patience. rudra (talk) 16:12, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

"Not hard to identify agenda accounts"? "will and energy"? What universe are you living in? If you had happened to step by recent AfDs sourced entirely to CAMERA quotefarms, you would have noticed that they became such a mess that people cheerfully closed them as no consensus keeps. Will and energy are strikingly lacking in the average AfD closer - naturally, these AfDs are hardly the straightforward closes one expects, nor are they scrutinised by higher-up muckety-mucks like that of some WR rabble-rouser. How will the standard mechanisms deal with that? When further up this page we have Durova cheerfully defending an extraordinarily tendentious editor she's mentoring, who's singlehandedly derailed normal academic sourcing on a dozen articles? When any admin is 'involved' if at any point they've edited these articles? When these "agenda accounts" are being taught to wikilawyer in such a way that it will not be easy to demonstrate, in the face of the usual cheesy uproar about character assassination and rushing to judgment and lynch mobs, that they have an agenda over and above WP's? Patience-schmatience. --Relata refero (disp.) 18:42, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

• The alarming thing is that the group is told that creating and editing with a user account is a way to maintain anonymity. It exposes incredibly bad faith! 24.12.95.171 (talk) 16:14, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

bangpound needs a cookie. i'm not trying to be ironic. i just forgot to log in myself! i claim the above edit. Bangpound (talk) 16:16, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Is there any corroboration of the evidence? The pdf file, generated by paper capture, comes from Electronic Intifada, who we could hardly consider to be a neutral on this topic any more than CAMERA. If in fact it can be independently corroborated, shut them out as fast as possible before EI gets the idea they should adopt the same tactics. LeadSongDog (talk) 16:20, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Can any other existing account be linked to the group, except Zeq? Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:23, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

If this is, as EI claims, a consipracy of many people - where are they ? Is there any evidence in Wikipedia that there is such a group ? is there any edit of mine which can be viewed as part of a group effort ? seriously - it seems that someone have not done his homework as I have never took part in any tag team. It is the other side who usualy able to gather several editors who revert my contributions. This whole thing smacks of a capmgain to deletimize what all good editors are trying to do: Improve the project and keep wikipedia follow it's own policy. If anyone can point to existance on wikipedia to an orgenized campgain to re-write history by Pro Israel group I would like to see proof of it - show me diffs ?. What I see now is mostly re-wrting of history by pro-Palestinian editors who may or may not work as a group. Also if my memory is correct I have never editted an article about CAMERA. please check out the history files....Zeq (talk) 16:38, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

'is there any edit of mine which can be viewed as part of a group effort ? seriously - it seems that someone have not done his homework as I have never took part in any tag team.'[User:Zeq|Zeq]]

Well since you asked for it, yes there is, and anyone can read the close analysis of how you operate with the full details on my talk page, where I documented how you blocked my attempt to work in reliable sources on the Mohammad Amin al-Husayni page you refused to accept, by ringing in another editor to engage in an edit-war with me, and the damage was Walter Laqueur, and Benny Morris excluded from the page, and me with a 3RR violation, after I called your game and wore an 'antisemitic' insinuation. E.g.

'Very early on October 26 Zeq asks User:Armon in New Zealand, long invisible on the page, to email him here. Quickly afterwards User:Armon begins to edit vigorously against my content contributions, often wikilawyering.

No one will notice. I never reported it. But (1) You disliked my reliable sources, (2) asked Armon to email you (3)Armon immediately began to tagteam edit with you against me, and I got banned while the two of you continued on your merry way. Go to my talk page and enjoy the full details. Nishidani (talk) 17:24, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Dont't ask us if we have proof. You tell us the truth. Are you claiming the whole thing is a fake, yes or no? Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:40, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

It never fails to amaze me how often Wikipedians give themselves away simply by not denying the charges against them. <eleland/talkedits> 16:45, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Guilty until proven innocent ? I am asking again a simple question: Where in wikipedia there is even a shred of evidence to show there is any such group. I edit some of the articles mentioned by EI (not all) and I follow most of them for years. I can tell you flat out that these article have no hint none what ever as to any pro-Israeli group who edit in these articles. The opposite is true: many such articles are WP:Own by group of pro-palestinian editors - this is the real issue Wikipedia need to address. take for example the article about Israeli apartheid. All other articles on such apartheid (like in Saudi Arabia) have been removed - except the article about the so called "israel apartheid" - an article that again and again by an orgenized group that prevent it from being deleted as it should have. Zeq (talk) 16:47, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

One 'shred of evidence': [1]. This was intended to be sent to Pinchas Cohen, Beit Or, and Humus Sapiens when it was "sent in error" to the WikiEN-I list. 66.82.9.77 (talk) 18:15, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Certainly guilty if you can't even be bothered to plead not guilty. I asked you a very straightforward quesion. Why are you not answering it? Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:51, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

...and even after I prompt you, you don't deny that you wrote those emails. <eleland/talkedits> 16:52, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Wait, are you implying that User:Zeq is organizing this off-Wiki CAMERA disruption and attack? Lawrence Cohen § t/e 16:54, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

That is what the document shows. Unless all the mails in it are fake, he is the organiser (or would-be organiser). As he isn't actually denying he wrote those mails, I would say I've seen enough at this point. I don't believe it's a fake; it's too well done for that. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:59, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

No. Future - You are not a court and I don't need to "plea" anything. If there is suc a group that include anyone but me - who are the group members ? where are diffs with their edits ? I suggest that instead of chasing ghost group wikipedia once and forall will take a look at how history of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is being re-wriiten by pro-palestinian editors using clear violations of wikipedia NPOV poliocies. Zeq (talk) 16:56, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Zeq, are you a member of this off-Wiki group in any capacity, or the one who wrote this email notice to disrupt Wikipedia? Lawrence Cohen § t/e 16:59, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

If you are not part of this group just say so, why not deny it if its a lie? ^{(Hypnosadist)} 17:05, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I have not tried to disrupt wikipedia in any way. My record as good faith editor is very clear. I have my viwes _ which do not fit any group - and I edit in good faith providing sources to any of my views or edits. This record is clear over the past two years. Zeq (talk) 17:13, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

The "group" may well not yet exist of course - assuming the EI docs are genuine, canvassing for volunteers only started recently. Plus any participants are being advised to keep a low profile to start with. So this denial of any active group editing isn't really worth very much on its own, even if Zeq has nothing to do with this at the end of the day. And what is particularly galling about this is that in the past I and others, often genuinely uninvolved outsiders, have faced utterly spurious allegations of biased tag team editing, simply for making NPOV edits to articles in this area. How far did COI discussions about User:Gni get as well? I've noticed they were accused of editing from a CAMERA-associated IP address and have been barred from editing the CAMERA article. The username looks oddly linkable to name of the "senior research analyst" quoted in the documents, Gilead Ini (apologies if I'm a bit behind with this one, I've only had a quick glance around the history) --Nickhh (talk) 17:01, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

The Google Group where the discussions originate does exist. http://groups.google.com/group/isra-pedia But it is invite only. Bangpound (talk) 17:03, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

There is another very disturbing issue, which does not yet seem to have been picked up. In the exchange of emails, the correspondent identified as "Isra guy ([email protected])" urges people to make edits to Mohammad Amin al-Husayni, writing "this is an article that the Palestinians will fight for. You want to get them into trouble: make legitimate edits on this article by bringing quotes from ACADEMIC sources (not jut from links on the web). get them sanctioned after they delete this info." So we have here evidence of a deliberate campaign of edit-warring, designed to get less-experienced, or careless, editors, banned from editing. I would urge all admins to check very carefully before applying any sanctions to an editor who appears to have been deliberately entrapped by such a manoeuvre. RolandR (talk) 17:02, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

• Let's get this stright: According to this accusation I am accused of telling "members of the group" to use proper academic sources and make legitimate edits... Nice. And where is the evidence for "deliberate campaign of edit-warring" ? Zeq (talk) 17:16, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh look Zeq has editited that article a lot. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 17:09, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Is there any thing wrong in editing this article ? Zeq (talk) 17:12, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I did not say that but its a 1 in 2,000,000 shot that you Zeq edit the article zeqzeq2 wants people to edit. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 17:22, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Properly speaking, CAMERA senior research analyst Gilead Ini is the organizer. Zeq was helping out, though - start on page 5 of the pdf. <eleland/talkedits> 17:02, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Page 5 of which PDF? Link please? The one at the thread start is only one page. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 17:10, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Pdf at bottom of this page http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article9474.shtml ^{(Hypnosadist)} 17:14, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

No it's 13 pages long, I don't think you have fully downloaded it. --87.112.70.168 (talk) 17:13, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

A thought: if electronicintifada.net has these e-mails, it will almost certainly have more. Plainly someone has signed up to the Isra-pedia Google Group with the intention of acting as a mole. I think we can expect further exposés from that source in due course. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:07, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

You can sign up for the "isra-pedia" group at Google Groups: [2]. This requires a Google account. --John Nagle (talk) 20:44, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Ban proposal

So, the upshot so far is: Zeq is denying that the group is currently active on Wikipedia; he is not denying that the mails are genuine and hence that he was trying to organise the group. Whether its alleged or real non-activity is part of his plan, or whether its a sign of the failure of his attempts, is immaterial. What counts is that he tried to organise it. In light of this, I hereby formally propose a community-imposed topic ban on Zeq from all Israel- and Palestine-related articles, for a period of no shorter than a year. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:11, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

• based on what Proof ? I ask again : Show me shred of proof that there is such effort. Show me any diff that fit an orgenized group edit ? I deny taking part in any effort which tried to disrupt wikipedia. last time I checked EI is not a WP:RS source...I would submit that there is actually an orgenized group by People such as RolandR who take turns in reverting m edits. If you want to see Diffs showing that I cam provide them. Zeq (talk) 17:22, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Based on the fact you've been asked to deny being part of this group and you don't. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 17:27, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

The right to confess or profess is his, and a lack of profession does not constitute a confession. I am not aware of any Wikipedia policy whereby one editor is required to answer to another for his innocence or guilt, and protest is a perfectly legitimate explanation for falling mute on the accusations. Screen stalker (talk) 01:54, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

This isnt a legal proceeding. If Zeq refuses to deny this, it is an act of bad faith. And to quote zeq; "last time I checked EI is not a WP:RS source" - I think we'll keep in mind you may be a less than impartial judge of that matter. Wageslave (talk) 04:18, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Zeq is an incredibly tendentious editor to begin with. I really don't want to have to deal with whatever tactic he'll come up with to skirt the ban, or listen to him wikilawyer about how X isn't really a Isr-Pal article, and anyway Y is an involved admin with no right to control him. I propose that Zeq be hardbanned and blocked indefinitely. <eleland/talkedits> 17:18, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

• Not the first time someone who does not like my edits suggest to ban me. Zeq (talk) 17:22, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I find it incredibly concerning that Eleland does not want to ban Zeq for something that he did, but for being "tendentious."

@Eleland, not liking someone is not a reason to ban them. Frankly, it makes me question your motives for raising this whole stink. Screen stalker (talk) 01:56, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

let's not get into wikilawyering and bullshit, nobody here has the stomach for it and you are wasting our time trying that one. You have been asked a number of times and have failed to give an answer - so let me ask once more - are you saying 1) that the emails are not from you 2) that the emails are from you but are faked/altered in some way 3) that it's all faked. What is the answer? --87.112.70.168 (talk) 17:27, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Let's be clear about this - he should be banned, not because he was trying to WP:CANVASS but because he was trying to fundamentally undermine the neutrality of the project. Attempts to install 'sleeper' admins who are answerable to off-site interests is NOT an attack on a specific topic area, it is an attack on the fundamental nature and integrity of the project. A clear signal must be sent - let's be clear this is not about I/P, this is about protecting the project from those who wish to use the project for their own purposes. He should be banned for a minimum of six months. --87.112.70.168 (talk) 17:21, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

• I agree based on the above discussion and per 87.112.70.168's comments. I also hope, that for Wikiipedia's benefit, that no major media groups pick up this story. D.M.N. (talk) 17:23, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

• And I hope, for Wikipedia's benefit, that many do. Larry Sanger was right; Wikipedia is a polity, and a democratic polity needs a free press keeping it honest. <eleland/talkedits> 17:29, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

There are a couple of issues here. Is this email genuine? I don't think we can answer that easily, and I'm uncomfortable sanctioning someone based on an email exchange reproduced on a partisan website with zero accountability or fact-checking. I think that's a very dangerous precedent. That said, Zeq's respone - a combination of evasion and aggression - is not particularly reassuring. If the reproduction is genuine, then I think there's more than ample grounds to topic-ban Zeq under the terms of the Israeli-Palestinian ArbCom case. It may be worth consulting with ArbCom about this, since I suspect any remedy will likely be appealed there. MastCell ^Talk 17:28, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Is this what you meant when you said the existing systems are adequate? Because this very post seems to indicate that they aren't. --Relata refero (disp.) 18:31, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

What do you mean? We're discussing a potential future problem and ways to head it off. Even if these emails are accepted at face value, they describe plans for future action. We're discussing whether some sort of remedy should be applied preventively, or whether we should wait and watch. I've voiced my opinion. What inadequacy are you seeing? MastCell ^Talk 18:48, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

See above. You're assuming rather neatly that this 50-strong effort is the first one they've made. The COI noticeboard had something similar copied from April last year, IIRC. The fact that this may have been going on without our current structures noticing (well, except for the occasional self-righteous editor jumping up and down about original research and quotefarms and coatrack articles and sockfarms) seems to suggest a certain inadequacy, what? --Relata refero (disp.) 18:56, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

• Given that my wikipedia ID is meared in such way it is reqsonable that I will be a bit angry - don't you think ? I have stated very clearly that I have not participated in an effort to disrupt wikipedia and that if you look at the articles I edit (there isreally a limited group of such articles - my watch list is maybe 50 articles) there is no evidence of any pro-israel group editing them. Zeq (talk) 17:37, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Some simple yes/no answer questions;

1)Are you a member of the Isra-pedia google group?

2)Have you ever used the email address [email protected]?

The only answers i'll except are yes or no. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 17:43, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

MastCell is correct. The evidence against Zeq at this point is entirely from electronicintifada.net. I don't think that can be accepted as fair evidence from an unprejudiced source. At the least, it would certainly be correct to say that they openly take an opposite view to CAMERA, and, among other things, are openly dedicated to trying to destroy its credibility. They may well be right--extreme POV does not prevent someone from actually being in the right; they are dedicated to finding evidence against CAMERA, and they may indeed have found some. But I don't think we can take their word for it. If an editor is organizing a campaign of this sort, that ed. and anyone cooperating in it should be banned, but first we need some reliable evidence that it is the case. I have an opinion on this matter also, but that's not evidence either. DGG (talk) 17:29, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't buy anything from EI.net if they offered to throw in an adorable puppy, and the moment Zeq denies that zeqzeq is him, we will have to move on. I merely note that the articles zeqzeq is supposed to discuss, and the idiosyncratic spelling and grammar on display, appear to be truly remarkable feats of impersonation. --Relata refero (disp.) 18:31, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Zeq has not denied being zeqzeq2, nor even addressed the question, Relata. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 20:33, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

• I will support a topic ban of Zeq from the Israeli-Palestinian articles unless he denies his involvement in the offsite email campaign in a forthright and believable manner. Since misbehavior by editors pushing CAMERA's POV was previously discussed at WP:COIN I believe the evidence given there was enough to show that CAMERA was trying to organize a campaign to perform POV editing of Wikipedia. The evidence wasn't sufficient (at that time) to show how much that campaign had actually done. I note that Arbcom has given authority to individual administrators to impose article bans in this area. See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel_articles#Log of blocks and bans. EdJohnston (talk) 17:43, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

• Support EdJohnston's particular version of a proposed topic-ban with the same conditions. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 17:44, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
• Support Topic ban with no qualifications, based on this exchange where Zeq finally addresses the "Did you send the zeqzeq2 email?" question with a dismissal. I meant what I said--all you have to do is say 'No, not me', and that should be enough for anyone. If ever there was a free pass given someone to get out of a community topic ban, this was it. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 20:45, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

• Agree. Fut. Perf. puts his finger on it: "As he isn't actually denying he wrote those mails, I would say I've seen enough at this point. I don't believe it's a fake; it's too well done for that." I can't say I'm particularly familiar with Zeq, since we don't seem to edit the same set of articles, but I've compared the language used in the e-mails quoted by electronicintifada.net and Zeq's own posts on Wikipedia; they seem to be very, very similar. I suppose one could claim it was a clever fake but there's simply too much detail, and it's too similar to Zeq's style, for that explanation to be convincing. The area of editing (and the specific articles mentioned in the e-mails) are identical. Frankly, if this was a simple case of sockpuppeting I would feel confident in blocking Zeq based on the evidence. Given the weight of evidence against him and his non-denials, I think this has to count as a cast-iron violation of the stipulations of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles, specifically that editors are expected to "adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process." This sort of off-wiki aggressive meatpuppetry is plainly far from our expected standards of behaviour. (added) I have now posted an analysis below - see #Lingustic analysis - based on my comparison of the zeqzeq2 e-mails with Zeq's Wikipedia contributions. -- ChrisO (talk) 17:49, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
• Support topic ban - The last thing this encyclopedia needs is organized groups of POV-pushers, particularly on I/P issues. This has the ability to disrupt and destroy the credibility and integrity of the encyclopedia. FCYTravis (talk) 18:03, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose - What I've seen so far is shaping up as a witch-hunt. The evidence so far consists of (a) a PDF from a biased source, and (b) Zeq's lack of disavowing the identification with zeqzeq2(at)yahoo, to which IMHO he's perfectly entitled, by the usual understandings of anonymity. Besides, I haven't seen any analysis of things like writing style, characteristic typos and the like to substantiate the identification. The basic problem with the PDF is that it's a selection. Posts to mailing lists aren't dissertation theses with every word scrutinized in advance. I don't know how many times I've posted follow-ups to mailing lists clarifying infelicitous turns of phrase or other potential sources of misinterpretation in earlier posts. One simply can't judge from incomplete histories. Yes, the selection shows zeqzeq2 "aiding and abetting" meat-puppetry, but he offers plenty of sound advice while doing so, which taken on board could make someone coming to scoff remain to pray. I just don't see reasons to panic. rudra (talk) 18:38, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

• If it's not him, that wrote that email, why doesn't he just say that? Lawrence Cohen § t/e 18:51, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I have no idea. But I don't think that he must answer. That's too inquisitorial an attitude for my tastes. rudra (talk) 19:03, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is under attack, here, from a known advocacy group who we have evidence intends to disrupt us. We have a smoking gun that implicates an editor here with a long-standing history of the same advocacy as the troll organization in question. Is Zeq being setup for a fall? Maybe. If it's not him, though, all he has to say is "No". I AGF, so that would be enough for me, as I noted in my Support of a proposed community ban. The fact he's completely ignored this very, very, very easy out tells me that zeqzeq2 is our User:Zeq. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 19:07, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Under attack? If only half as much indignation, energy and enthusiasm were directed at dealing permanently with known problems already here on WP. (See Relata's comment ealier about patience-shmatience). rudra (talk) 19:20, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

That email from CAMERA was a month ago. And we've seen inappropriate offsite canvassing even as early as:

http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2007-December/087744.html

http://nonbovine-ruminations.blogspot.com/2007/12/oops.html

December 2007 related to Judaism/Israel articles. Given we have multiple troll groups coordinating off-Wiki actions to get their preferred POV into an article, yes--that's a direct attack on WP:NPOV and Wikipedia itself. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 19:27, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Rudra, in answer to your question about "analysis of things like writing style, characteristic typos and the like", I've now done just this; see #Lingustic analysis below. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:36, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

• Support a Full community ban, clearly Zeq is part of this Trolling group and a point must be made that this is NOT ACCEPTABLE on wikipedia and must be stopped. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 19:19, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Chris, I am not a member of that Group. Is that enough of a denial for you ? The list of articles I edit is small and anyone can compile such list from looking at my contribution page. This is really going too far. What you are doing is giving to an outside source EI the power to ban users who edit (according to policy) in a POV that EI does not like. You have to ask yourself if I was a pro-Palestinian editor and member of such group would EI publish this article ? The siomple answer is no. I suggest that if you want further evidence you look in wikipedia itself and so I simpley ask again: Is there any evidence within wkipedia that suggests that over the time EI claim this group exists it has been doing anything in wikipedia ? Since I know the articles mention in the list very well (these are indeed the article s I tend to edit) I can tell you 100% : there is no pro-israeli group working on those articles, In fact there is an effort cordinated by several pro-Palestinian editors to WP:Own some of these articles. Zeq (talk) 18:02, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Were you a group member in the past? <eleland/talkedits> 18:07, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Forget were you a member--did you write the cited email on page 5 of that PDF? Thats what is critical here. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 18:14, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Are you zeqzeq2 in those emails? --Relata refero (disp.) 18:31, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

• Support if EI's assertions hold up, as this is a very disturbing allegation. Its one thing to face off with those of opposing points of view; as tenditious as they may be, it is still just one person and one opinion. To find that there really may be a cabal behind it gaming the system kinda undercuts what this project is trying to accomplish here. The broken Engrish of Wikipedia's Zeq and [email protected] are certainly strikingly similar for what its worth...I've had to read that stuff for 2+ years here now. But the part I find kinda damning is on Page 13 regarding the Allegations of Israeli apartheid and Uri Davis page numbering discussion. Zeq was heavily involved and had been fighting that for awhile, and per usual, Jayjg leaped into the fray and the issue eventually got tied up over at WP:V. [email protected] touting this on the e-mail as a victory is precisely how Zeq would see that. Feel kinda sorry for Jayjg in all of this, as it appears that this cabal has been keeping him as an unwitting shield. Tarc (talk) 19:18, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

• Jayjg's hands are not clean in all this, so we can deprecate or ignore any views he may have on this matter. He's done the exact same thing as Zeq:

http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2007-December/087744.html

http://nonbovine-ruminations.blogspot.com/2007/12/oops.html

• I found this on Google looking for similar instances of things like this, and it's frankly disturbing. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 19:29, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

• So now Jay IS part of this. Below Chris O has evidence against me based on the fact that Jay is not part of it. You have to get the story stright. Zeq (talk) 21:21, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

And the denials just don't cut it I'm afraid, from where I'm sitting. The constant claim that he is not part of a group that aims to "disrupt" Wikipedia (see below) is a cheap get-out, based on Zeq's apparent perception that this sort of behaviour is not, or would not be, disruptive, but rather part of a legitimate attempt to hit back against the "pro-Palestinian" bias here. That premise of course is odd enough as it is, as well as being symptomatic of a wider malaise where one or two highly partisan and involved editors that I've encountered believe that if Wikipedia content doesn't accord with their right-wing Israeli POV, it is somehow not NPOV. But this effort to pull together a committed group to manipulate and bulldoze content, rig administrator appointment processes etc, and do so under the guise of following the rules here is something else. Although perhaps hardly surprising. --Nickhh (talk) 19:44, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

No it based on the simple fact that I am not a memebr of any such group and that I am not aware that such group operating in any of the wikipedia articles I am editing. Zeq (talk) 21:21, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

And another group here coordinating Israeli/Zionist actions offline against Wikipedia, this is a trend. http://www.israelactivism.com/index.php?mode=newsletter#article11 Lawrence Cohen § t/e 19:48, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

• I support a topic ban (at least) of Zeq, based on my review of the above and of http://electronicintifada.net/downloads/pdf/080421-camera-wikipedia.pdf. Judging from his evasive non-denials and writing style, I think it is sufficiently likely that Zeq is the editor "zeqzeq2" on that mailing list. Recruiting people to be meat puppets in order to fight a "war" on Wikipedia, and asking them to stand for adminship so as to more effectively push a POV, is extremely disruptive and needs to be sanctioned. As for any editors who may follow Mr Gilead Ini's somewhat more reasonable proposal to join Wikipedia and to follow its policies – including NPOV, V and NOR – they should be judged on their individual merits, if there's no indication of meatpuppet-like concertation. Sandstein (talk) 20:52, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

• Support per Lawrence Cohen. --Marvin Diode (talk) 21:23, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
  • This vote shows the danger in such votes. Marvin Diode had several edit dsiputes with me in the article Rachel Corrie - mentioned in the EI article. Now the same person - based on the EI witch hunt - voted to ban me so that he can get the upper hand in placing the emphasis in that article in a way that would fit what he and ISM wish. If I am not miasken there was a pervious dispute in which someone was trying to use EI as a source for wkipedia article. Zeq (talk) 21:35, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

• Support - yikes, I remember blocking him two years ago. Clearly hasn't changed despite AC case. Sceptre ^(talk) 23:16, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

• Support me too, the evidence seems pretty damning.--Aldux (talk) 23:46, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose Not sufficient evidence to support a ban at this time. Zeqzeq2 could easily be an attempt at libel at this user, and I am not sure it really is Zeq. Yahel Guhan 00:06, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
• Support It's quite clear that Zeqzeq2 is User:Zeq. The fact that he initially refused to answer the question as to whether it was him that wrote the emails and weasled around the fact that he didn't edit CAMERA articles, and now that he's had time to think, has launched a counter attack on EI and other editors just seems to be deliberate obsfucation to try and avoid getting his just desserts. I think the remedies section of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Zeq might be worth a read too. пﮟოьεԻ 57 08:19, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose: Lack of a confession does not constitute a profession. There is evidence that Zeq (or someone else who may use "Zeq" as a shorhand for "Isaac"... just a guess) may have been involved in isra-wiki. But I have see no concrete evidence that this ever translated into actual wikipedia edits. That kind of evidence might help corroborate (though it wouldn't totally confirm) EI's claim. Why haven't the articles concerned burst at the seams with pro-Israeli edits all of a sudden? Screen stalker (talk) 02:35, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

• Support complete permanent ban. Wageslave (talk) 04:41, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
• Support a complete permanent ban. This is not the first time Wikipedia has encountered this sort of problem, and it should take a clear stance; this sort of organized action attacks the very principles Wikipedia stands for. Any editors known to be participating in this activity with Zeq should also be banned, and some sort of COI rule should be discussed and enforced. csloat (talk) 01:52, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
• Support a complete permanent ban. POV-pushing is unacceptable; organizing an external group in order to undermine Wikipedia's neutrality in order to put ANY sort of bias into Wikipedia is BEYOND unacceptable, and attempting to create "uninvolved admins"... well, the whole thing is despicable. We need to take a firm stance against it, and I have no sympathy for anyone who tries to pull this sort of thing. I'm sure the Middle East related articles are problematic enough without people like this. Titanium Dragon (talk) 04:55, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
• Support a complete permanent ban. We're seeing Denial (eg over the Deir Yassin pogrom) at least as serious as gets people imprisoned in some countries. We've lost lots of good, scholarly editors by the tactics that Zeq (and other illiterates) describe and have practiced. He's not only been cheating consistently, he's helpfully told us that he knows at least one very senior editor who has been doing the same. I don't deny being partisan - but I've never attempted to damage articles. And I don't ever recall seeing any regular "pro-Palestinian" editor damaging articles (correct me if I'm wrong). I've never colluded or seriously attempted to collude with people who might share my view-point - while fielding mostly slaps from editors who might have benefited from my "support". It's time this cancer of gang activity was cut out. PR^talk 21:20, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Question for Zeq

The email in question is on page 5 of this PDF: http://electronicintifada.net/downloads/pdf/080421-camera-wikipedia.pdf Zeq, is this you? The writing style, language, and unique formatting of using ? with a space does appear to be. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 17:35, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

An earlier CAMERA ANI case is here. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 17:38, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Zeq, please address this, as this is the apparent key issue as relates to you. Otherwise, this is something for RFAR, if you do not. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 17:40, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Circumstantial evidence

On 12 and 13 February 2006, at time when Zeq was defending himself in an ArbCom case which resulted in him being banned indefinitely from editing 1948 Arab-Israeli War and Palestinian exodus, an editor using the IP 85.64.196.2 posted on the talk pages of several editors on the Hebrew Wikipedia], soliciting their intervention in the article in English Wikipedia. Although the edits, using Tel-Aviv based IPs, were anonymous, one of them asked an editor to reply to the address [email protected]. Although not conclusive evidence, it is certainly worth noting. RolandR (talk) 20:02, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

This is the first time I see a wikipedia case in which :

1. No diffs are presented
2. An e-mail address is discussed this way.

It seems that it does not matter what I say, people have made up their mind. The simple fact that everyone seems to ignore is this: Was there anything in wikipedia that violated Wikipedia policies ? I am not aware any such violation, surly by myself and furthermore I have not seen (in the articles I edit frequantly) nor do I know of any group effort that tries to disrupt wikipedia. What I do know is that EI is not a WP:RS source, that it is a strong advocacy web site. I again chalange anyone to come up with support for the claims made by EI. I comaned RolandR (who is part of a revert tag team that frequantly revert my edit - tag team is a "group effort") for draging an unrelated issue from over two years ago. It seems that if Roland had to go so far to find some evidence clearly he looked well enough closer to home and found: NOTHING. Zilch, Nada. Zeq (talk) 20:17, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

By what right do you "command" me to do anything. This is not the army, you know. RolandR (talk) 20:32, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Zeq, if this is not you, why don't you simply say, "the zeqzeq2 in question is not me"? AGF would lead me to believe you--my support of the topic ban is contingent your answer, as are others. You won't even say why you won't say. Is zeqzeq2 on the Hebrew wiki and that mail you? Lawrence Cohen § t/e 20:20, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Why ? because outside EI there is no proof that this all thing even exists. If you show that such effort exist and you have some diffs showing I took part in it - at that point I will have to provide you for an answer. So far no one have shown any such evidence.

Your descision to ban a pro-israeli editor would be based on an article in an advocay Pro-Palestinian web site. One more step for wikipedia. You might even prove CAMERA to be right if they claim wkipedia is biased....(BTW, I am not now and never been a memeber of CAMERA nor did I ever edited any article about CAMERA) Zeq (talk) 20:39, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for finally addressing the question directly. I did not !vote to ban you from the topics; I said that based on your answer to the "Are you the zeqzeq2?" question I would. Since you seem to be completely unwilling to even say "I'm not zeqzeq2 that sent that email", even if you were, I have to conclude you are. Sorry. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 20:43, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

You haven't replied, Zeq to my demonstration that you indeed have employed group-team editing tactics, which you deny here. It may just have been missed in the flurry, but you did challenge anyone to come up with evidence you have ever organized group-editing in wiki, and I provided the evidence of this very specific request regarding the Mohammad Amin al-Husayni page, to another editor, User:Armon, to email you. A few hours later, Armon joined in and tagteam edited with you to get me to violate 3RR. Result you two managed to keep out highly reliable Zionist sources off that page on a crucial point.Nishidani (talk) 20:46, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I did not and I can not be responsible for your 3RR violation. In fact on many cases I have given up trying to fight your edits on that article simply because I wanted to avoid edit wars. You on the other hand seem to take part in them and you had a tag team that supported your edits and reverts. Zeq (talk) 20:51, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

My current page and archives show that I have consistently turned down requests to activate my email because I believe everything in wiki must be above board, and therefore no private contacts. You are entitled to believe what you believe of me. The fact stands that you contacted Armon privately, and he began to help you edit-war. You asked for proof. I gave it, and you now dodge the obvious evidence by accusing me of the same tactic, but without evidence (for there is none). Nishidani (talk) 21:08, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Before I was driven off in exasperation, there were lots of occasions when I could have done with your non-collusive advice over sources, wording etc - no relation atall to the brazen cheating that we've had described. There is another top "Palestinian sympathetic" editor I've really wanted to contact but who has been similarly impervious to my advances. PR^talk 21:47, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I am impressed with how much material has built up in this discussion so soon, and I am only beginning to get the big picture of what everyone is getting at here.

@Nixhidani, no one forced you to violate 3RR. They put you in a position where you had to either (a) follow wikipedia policy or (b) accept a version of the article that you didn't like. You chose option (a); they did not choose it for you.

@everyone, I must say that I tremendously respect Zeq's courage. It would be extremely simple for him to dig himself out of this hole by just professing his innocence. But what is easy is not always right, and I think he is making a very powerful protest. In fact, this ought to show us the kind of editor that Zeq is: extremely dignified and distinguished in his regard for decorum. Those character traits lead me to believe that he could not have done what he is accused of doing. If he did, he would have said "I didn't do it" in a heartbeat. Screen stalker (talk) 02:26, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

3RR is easily breached by productive editors making incremental changes and responding to apparent vandalism. I know this for sure because, while rigorously refusing to edit-war, I was caught out in similar fashion. PR^talk 21:47, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and I forgot: It's also worth noting that he did deny being a member of CAMERA in particular, and any similar organization in general. He denied it twice. But other editors have changed their request to a more specific denial, so that what he says will never suffice. I think the goal here is clear: Other editors want Zeq to submit; they want to shame him. First they say they want him to repudiate this group. After he does, they want more. They want to show the world that they can push him around, and maybe that's why he resists. That's just what I imagine. I can't say for sure (though it would be nice if I were psychic).Screen stalker (talk) 02:29, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

This is not the first time that editors have been apparently caught out in really serious breaches of the principles of the project and have refused to confirm or deny their involvement, a situation that simply leaves a dark cloud over their involvement. I'm sure User:Zeq would wish to clear his name from allegations this serious. PR^talk 21:47, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Related sock farm?

I note that a few days ago a checkuser run by Thatcher discovered a large farm of sockpuppets, which had been editing (sometimes rather disruptively) mostly Israel-Palestinian articles. See Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Evidence-based for details. I wonder if this is related to the CAMERA campaign discussed above? -- ChrisO (talk) 17:31, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

This is intersting. I took a look at the group described here Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Evidence-based. I reconized one name Susan somthing. I stumble upon several of her edits when her user page was RED. So I tried to e-mail her but there was no e-mail. I asked her to open an e-mail account but she did not do it so at the end i told her on the talk page (if I recall correctly) to open a user page so that her name in history file will not apear red. This is pretty much as far as my involvment with any of the names on that list. Surly not very "disruptive" . I also did partyicipate in one AFD in which she participated in (I think) - hopefully that is not a crime either. Zeq (talk) 17:42, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I say "disruptively" because the sockpuppeteer didn't have much idea about reliable sourcing and repeatedly insisted on inserting thoroughly unreliable sources (FrontPage Mag, Michelle Malkin's blog etc) in the one article where I interacted with the sockpuppets. It wasn't very disruptive, just typical of the sort of thing you get when you deal with people who are convinced they alone are in possession of The Truth™. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:02, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Why will you not just answer the question? --87.112.70.168 (talk) 17:50, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Some simple yes/no answer questions;

1)Are you a member of the Isra-pedia google group?

2)Have you ever used the email address [email protected]?

The only answers i'll accept are yes or no. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 17:54, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

If the answer to #1 is "Yes", what does that prove? Last I checked, being a member of a google group doesn't mean that one agrees with everything posted there.
If the answer to #2 is "Yes", what does that prove? Emails can be faked, y'know.
Even so, what, exactly, would answering "No" prove? Either Zeq would be honestly answering if he wasn't involved, or lying if he was involved. Either one would believe him/her or not -- it comes down to reputation and believability, and, besides, it seems like the questioners already have their mind made up either way. I can understand getting my hackles up at those questions and refusing to answer -- the line of interrogation is too much like the loyalty oath fever of the American 1950's for my taste.
If there's a group plotting to abuse Wikipedia (pro- or anti-Israel, f'rinstance) (and it wouldn't surprise me in the slightest), root it out, no matter what the cause they are fighting for. But let's try good old-fashioned methods, like evidence and analysis, instead of the new trend towards badgering and character assassination.
Oh, in case anybody wants to know (and wants to believe me), I'm not a member of any such group, I have not been a member of the Communist party (although, in high school, I did put up posters saying "Leon Trotsky for Student Body Treasurer" as a joke), I have not advocated the violent overthrow of the Government of the United States, and I don't think I have edited any article dealing with Israel or Palestine except possibly for vandalism reversion (and if I have I am deeply sorry and promise to try not to do something apparently stupid like that again). I'm just not sure I like what is happening here in general. -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 18:24, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia demands loyalty to its policies and its objectives if not you get banned. Zeqs constant unwillingness to answer a simple question is what makes me believe this aligation to be true. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 18:29, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Loyalty is shown by deeds and actions -- oaths and interrogation are useless. Again, I ask, what if he answered "no"? Would it change anything? Would it mean anything? Would it change your mind? -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 18:37, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Not now, if he had said that over an hour ago i would have believed him. But more evidence has turned up in that hour, such as the links between Zeq articles and zeqzeq2 articles and also grammar/spelling simularities. Now the only line of defence is claiming persicution. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 18:45, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Nonsense. Due deference, yes. Respect, yes. But loyalty? Puhleeeze. rudra (talk) 19:38, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

That is exactly the point. Indeed e-mails can be spoofed but so many have already supported to ban me despite the fact that there is absoltly no proof of any such activity. I have went a step further and said that I am not a member of that group. This whole "interogation" smacks of McCartism at it's best.

If anyone have a proof that I took part in an effort to disrupt wikipedia - surly that person can bring one diff that supports this allegation.

Anyone who fiollow my edits over the last two years or more can see that I am not part of any group. My edit are my own. In good faith and in an honest effort to improve the project.

My edits are not liked by many of the large group of pro-Palestinian supporters in wikipedia. They have done a good job in re-writing history except in few places where I was able to stop them. I have been editing under a list of restrictions and for the past 2 years have not violated them. yet, time and time again there are editors and admins who come up with a reason to ban me ? and now we have this.

If anyone will come up with a proof that anything in wikipedia has any connection to the allegation i.e. show me a group effort, show me editors who became admins show me SOMETHING to support te allegation. Where is your proof ? Zeq (talk) 18:48, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Look, the most damaging thing in the email collection is not a specific edit that you or anyone else has made. It's the naked intent to use Wikipedia as a battlefield, to "train and equip an army" of POV-pushers and admins. The "proof" or disproof of that is in your behavior. Even if the articles were 100% biased to a pro-Palestinian point of view, this would be a destructive and inappropriate approach. If your behavior (past, present, and future) gives credence to the idea that you view Wikipedia as a battlefield on these terms, then a topic ban would be not only appropriate but lenient. If your behavior contradicts the assertion that you treat Wikipedia as an ideological battlefield, then I wouldn't worry about what EI has to say. MastCell ^Talk 18:53, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

It seems you have took your shot and now paint a target circle around it. I have said all along: I am editing wikipedia on my own. I do it to improve this project. If my edits over the last year would be the reason for this AN/I discussion it is one thing. They are not. We are here because of an EI allegation that has no proof inside wikipedia. EI speaks of a group effort to disrupt wkipedia. No such group that I am aware off. No edits in wkipedia that are even suspects of being made by such group. that is the key issue you ignore. It seem you look for a reason to ban me and base it on that allegation - without such allegation the issue of my edit would not show up here as I have been very aware to edit within the limitationmof my probation. Zeq (talk) 21:09, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Exactly Mastcell. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 18:55, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

The battlefield metaphor is rather frequent. When User:Jaakobou came in for a one week sanction, a fellow poster lamented the fact that he was 'missing in action'. It is very hard to edit when one's adversary is looking for a salient into 'enemy terrain', rather than looking for salience on the topic.Nishidani (talk) 20:55, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

This could have been an issue if this discussion would arrise from my edits in wikipedia. In fact in the last year or so I have avoided getting into fights. In many cases left articles in which I was alone and a group effort against me (2-3 editors) was reverting all my edits. Is wkipedia battlefield ? I have suggested long ago that the only way to deal with articles in the I/P conflict is this way:

1. create the article off line - visiable only to editors 2. Vote on the article by a large number of editors (who did not edit the article). 3. The vote should be on one issue: Is the article NPOV ? 4. If the answer is yes by consensus - only at that point would the article published to the rest of the public 5. In the backgroud - work on the next rev of the article to be published in 3-6 month. (or if urgent fixes/upadtes in 2-3 weeks)

As things stands right now. Most wikipedia articles are tilted to a pro-Palestinian POV. Most other editors from Hebrew wikipedia have left the english wikipedia because they can not deal with on going fights by pro-palestinian editors.

This is the real issue, the issue wikipedia refuse to deal with for years. banning me is indeed a solution : To ban a single voice that tried to keep a small list of atrticles NPOV.

the issue of how I view wikipedia as nothing to do with this ban. never before was an editor subject to Thought police. Also to pretend that there are no off-wiki coordination (by e-mail and such) is false. So I suggest agaim that you look to find ANY EVIDENCE in wikipedia itself. If you find disruptive behaviour ban that editor. If you find such behaviour in a group ban the group. I am not and have never been part of a group that disrupted (or intended to disrupt) wikipedia. Zeq (talk) 19:05, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Some simple yes/no answer questions;

1)Have you ever been a member of the Isra-pedia google group?

2)Have you ever used the email address [email protected]?

The only answers i'll accept are yes or no. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 18:50, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Since you've said above that you won't believe a "no" answer, why are you repetitively posting your questions? -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 19:20, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Someone else might believe him. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 19:21, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I highly doubt that. People here do not like me so much but if in order to ban me they need to rely on Electronic Intifada - this would be an interesting case. It means that despite all the probation, limitations, restrictions, tag teams that reverted my edits in the last month - none of my edits have violated wikipedia policy and in order to ban me some alleagtion by a Pro Palestinian web site has to be dragged in to get me banned.

It seems that this is indeed Mcaratism. No due process. Question are asked based on some allegations and if you don't answer the right answer people support your being banned. Is this the spirit of wikipedia ? if so banning me is a good idea. Zeq (talk) 20:22, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I've never heard of you before and never edit I/P article - why don't you answer the very simple question ? did you write those messages? The fact that your defence seems to consist of "well we haven't done anything yet so there is no problem" frankly does not sit well with me. --87.112.70.168 (talk) 20:25, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

This whole business is really ridiculous. What is this, the Inquisition? It sounds like McCarthyism for heaven's sake. No one did anything wrong here except exercise their right to associate and speak privately with others regarding issues they consider important. Do you honestly think that Electronic Intifada does not get its members together to disseminate propaganda -- on wiki and elsewhere? Do you think just because you don't have the 'proof,' that it doesn't exist? No one should be punished or banned for their associations outside of wiki. If someone has done something wrong inside of wiki, base any judgments on that, not on group membership in other organisations or associations, or what has been supposedly said and 'found out' by 'spies' who spread the information to harm others. That is a very bad precedent to set. Juanita (talk) 21:06, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Anon IPs hitting I-P related pages

There may be some related anon IP vandalism as well. The edit history of both Hamas and Hezbollah are littered with one-off attempts to add some form of "...is a terrorist organization" to the article lead, all of which are reverted in accordance with guidelines found at WP:WTA. There's been a somewhat more frequent and concerted uptick in the last few days though to get these changes into these articles; unfortunately the report of this denied at WP:AIV, but since other editors have jumped in to rv as well, it seems to have abated somewhat. Note that the IPs in question; contributions, contributions, contributions, contributions, contributions, contributions. Tarc (talk) 19:44, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

They all resolve to Petah Tikva, so it's probably not related. CAMERA's base are American Jews. <eleland/talkedits> 20:02, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

That name rings a bell -- that's where User:Jaakobou edits out of. Every once in a while he forgets to log in and I've traced a number of those IPs. Anybody want to start a Checkuser over this? Cheers, pedrito - talk - 22.04.2008 06:28

Hardly surprising. Almost all Israeli ISPs maintain their offices and communication centers in Petah Tikva. Thus your ip is likely to resolve to Petah Tikva regardless of your actual whereabouts in Israel. Rami R 10:52, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Outing at Zeqs Talk page

Extended content

User:Future Perfect at Sunrise is a sockpuppet of User:L****P****** (L**** P****** being his real name). Cheers. 77.183.86.62 (talk) 17:58, 21 April 2008 (UTC) reposted and redacted by (Hypnosadist) 18:09, 21 April 2008 (UTC) someone (whom I don't know) left on my talk page a note suggesting that one of the people making this accusation is a sock ppuepet. This whole thing is getting beyond my ability to resond (this page is edited so frequantly so there are amny edit conflicts). I have said all I have to say: I am not a member of the group described above and I am not aware of any such effort to disrupt wikipedia. In the articles I frequantly edit and mentioned in the PDF I have not seen any evidence to suggest there is a pro-Israeli group working there. The opposite is true: I have seen an effort by pro-Palestinian editors who many times revert my edits. Anyone who will review my edit will see that in the last 2 years I have edited according to policy and alone without coopration from any one. Zeq (talk) 18:12, 21 April 2008 (UTC) Haven't bothered to remove it though have you. (Hypnosadist) 18:18, 21 April 2008 (UTC) Oh, that guy again :-) Don't worry, he's totally unrelated to this case. He's just got a habit of going round trying to contact people I'm involved in blocking and stuff, hoping to enlist them in a campaign of harassing me. It's getting boring. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:20, 21 April 2008 (UTC) I've removed it. The IP is a TOR proxy and I've blocked it. Let's move on. MastCell Talk 18:20, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Linguistic analysis

As the evidence in this matter rests heavily on comparing the edits of Zeq to those of the person who signed himself "[email protected]" in the e-mails, I thought it would be useful to do a side-to-side comparison. Comparing the use of language is a key tool in detecting sockpuppets, and it's something I've also done professionally at an academic level (I'm an historian by training).

In analysing the use of language, one looks for "fingerprints" in a person's phrasing, spelling and punctuation. Everyone has their own writing style; also, particularly if English is not a person's native language or the author has a linguistic disorder such as dyslexia, there are often distinctive errors in grammar, spelling and punctuation.

Zeq's writing is no exception to this rule. His contributions to the English Wikipedia show a distinctive style and distinctive errors, most notably 1) the frequent accidental reversal of letters ("presreve" for "preserve", "vesrion" for "version", "suing" for "using" and so on); 2) repeated errors in the conjugation of verbs (such as "undiscussded" for "undiscussed"); 3) erroneous breaks in words ("my self" for "myself", "can not" for "cannot") and 4) inconsistent capitalisation of sentences (starting one sentence with caps and the next without). The tone of voice, which is admittedly a more subjective thing to assess, is also an important fingerprint.

Looking at the [email protected] e-mails, we see exactly the same linguistic pattern. The following table, illustrating examples of Zeq's Wikipedia posts and zeqzeq2's e-mails, illustrates the "fingerprints" identified above. It might be a coincidence if we saw only one or two fingerprints but not all of them at once, repeatedly. In my judgement, this is something that would be very difficult to fake convincingly on a sustained basis. Occam's Razor suggests that the simplest explanation is that zeqzeq2 is indeed Zeq on Wikipedia.

An additional point which suggests to me that the e-mails are not fakes is the mention of Jayjg. As some people will know, I've had some disgreements with him in the past but the e-mails make it clear that he's completely uninvolved in this meatpuppetry (and I hope people don't try to drag him into this). The e-mailer states up front that "We also don't have any admins". If the e-mails were faked, the forger would have been very likely to have tried to implicate admins (or even fake the e-mails as coming from an admin). Pro-Israel admins such as Jayjg and Humus sapiens would have been very major targets for someone intent on setting them up; I don't think any self-respecting forger would have passed up that opportunity. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:34, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Chris - this is very sophisticated. It is not a fake because a forgerer would do more.....It seems you know all too well what other people think and how they act or would act. Indeed Thought Police at it's best. Yet a simple proof that any such group editied ANY wikipedia article over... what doe EI claim that this had been going on for 2-3 month. Surly there would have been a single edit that you can find to prove this "group effort". Zeq (talk) 21:15, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Zeq	[email protected]
After waiting few days tio address the concerns raised above I found my self with no other option but to revert the undiscussded major changes. I have reverted back not to my prefeered version but to the last vesrion by Tarc (withwhom I have a dispute). At least the tarc version presreve the delicater balance this article had before the massive changes by the new editor who refused to accept that other editors edit with good faith. (see his accusations above) Zeq (talk) 15:52, 9 April 2008 (UTC) [3]	We will go to war after we have build our army, equiped it, trained right now we do not have the needed number of people who have enough Wikipedia expiraince and deep knowledge of Wikipedia policies to use for articulating out oint from a "policy" precpetive. We also don't have any admins. admins can "close" a vote and declare a result. (Not as stright forward as it seems. I know alefty admin who wait until his bodies vote and close the vote soon after ) so please if you want to win this war help us build out army. let's not just rush in and achieve nothing or abit more than nothing
Every army has what called contigency plans for many possible scenarios. Hizbullah action provided Israel suing such plan. As it turned out Israel did not execute on the plans it had and instead used a different type of plan. this is all covered by the Winograd report. Zeq (talk) 06:42, 8 April 2008 (UTC) [4]	They can be very informal, someone suggest something on the talk page and a vote tally is taken. usualy ends up in 3:4 5:2 or so. imagine such votes who used to end up in 5:2 for the pali side suddenly end up 6:6 or 15:6 to our side. At first thsi would stop them the latter may even get our way. there are more formal votes: deletion of articles, renaming. Such cases there may be 20 participants but can go up to 100 in rare cases. the palis bring all the islamic and lefty friends (a group of 30-40) ... there are votes on people becomeing an admin. A majority of 80% or so is needed. these can be 40 votes (with 37 for and 3 against) or can go up to 120 or 200 in rare cases (i.e. if there are 20 against the other side bring his big guns and try to have 100 for) numbers may change. key is that being orgenized can be a big advantage but this advantage does not need to be seen as cordination.
Giovanni33, I respect your view as well as Tiamut's view. The point is that we can not go but what we think the reality is (You question: "what is it that the Palestinians are commemorating?" is indeed the right question to ask and to propvide an answer to). We can not even answer this question by what we know (that would be OR and POV). We have to go by the sources and the good sources (such as the Guardian who is very favorable to Palestinian POV) are very clear. [5]	There is in wikipedia the ability by an administrator to set significant limits on other editor. in 90% of the cases sanction placed b one administrator are not chalanged at all. they stick. In the issue of Israeli-palestine articles there is now additional restrictions that can be placed by an administrator AS LONG AS HE IS AN "uninvolved administrator". One or more of you who want to take this route should stay away from any Israel realted articles for month until they interact in a positive way with 100 wikipedia editors who would be used later to vote you as an administrator. This is not the only reason but just an example why you should take the marthon view and not rush in for a fight about a not so important article (about a very important orgnization) rememebr we are not dealing here with convincing the exterme antisemite and anti-israel activists (those on discussion boards) We are not dealing with convincing people who share our views either.

I don't see what this evidence bring. Is there an evidence inside wikiepdia that a policy has been violated ? the simple answer is : No.

The fact that people go out of their way to dig unralted evidence (such as this one) shoes that closer to home - in wikipedia - they found none. Show me anywhere in Wikipedia that I have wrote something like "we will go to war after we train an army".. this is riduculs claim as I have always edit on my own - never part of any group effort. that is a very clear behaviour from my part on wikipedia. I don't take part in any group. Zeq (talk) 20:44, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

It is strong evidence that you are [email protected]. You keep trying to change the question. Wikipedia edits are one issue; efforts to organize a long-term campaign, for future activity, are another issue. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:51, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

It's hardly unrelated evidence, as I've explained above. For the record, the specific policy that you are accused of violating is Wikipedia:Sockpuppetry, specifically the section on meatpuppetry. To quote: "Do not recruit meatpuppets. It is considered highly inappropriate to advertise Wikipedia articles to your friends, family members, or communities of people who agree with you, so that they come to Wikipedia and support your side of a debate." zeqzeq2 was very clearly aggressively recruiting an "army" of meatpuppets to support his side of the debate. If zeqzeq2 is you - and I believe that's the case - then it's a very serious violation of Wikipedia:Sockpuppetry. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:57, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Chris, this is an allegation I willing to respond to: I have not recruited anyone to wikipedia to be part of any group effort that would "take my side". If this is your comclusion that I did I will flat out tell you that you are wrong. Check how you arrived to this false conclusion and correct yourself. Zeq (talk) 21:02, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Did you write the messages that were presented in the PDF at the start of the thread? this is a YES/NO question. It is a simple question, it is a straight forward question. The simple fact that you refuse to even acknowledge it is pretty damning. So once again - did you write those messages or not?--87.112.70.168 (talk) 21:05, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Chris, it is interesting that you should mention Jayjg. I say this because the advice given in the damning evidence is nearly identical to that which another well respected, well protected admin passed on to various boards for animal-rights activists awhile back in an effort to CANVASS. The same info on how to operate "under the radar" and how to become an editor in good standing. Even the specific encouragement to get as many sleeper admins recruited as possible, so that pro-animal-rights would WP:OWN all material that concerns their cause. This admin is currently very active on IP articles, too, and works very closely with Jayjg to push pro-Israel POV. So the notion that they and Jayjg would try something similar with CAMERA is not beyond the realm of possibility. I won't name any names, but many know exactly who it is I am talking about. If we don't put a stop to this now, it's going to be another media scandal waiting to blow up in our faces. --Dragon695 (talk) 08:08, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

If you have hard evidence of misconduct, post it on WP:AN/I so that it can be discussed. I can guess who you're talking about, but let's not make this into a witchhunt against editors in different topic areas. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:16, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

As much as I sympathize with Dragon695's frustration, his comments above reflect the problem when people are afraid to mention specifics--if he is talking about what I think he is talking about, that situation was a fairly obvious trolling situation and was not an editor trying to organize WP:OWNership at all. This is just fair warning to him, as he may have a valid concern, but I believe what he describes did not actually happen (if we are thinking of the same thing). daveh4h 16:48, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Contacting CAMERA

Out of interest, anyone contacted CAMERA for their take on this? I don't mean in an aggresive manner but a polite email outlining our concerns with those (alleged) plans and trying to establish from them if a) this was happening and b) if they have now abandoned any plans to try and game the system. --87.112.70.168 (talk) 20:39, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I actually did email Gilead Ini a while back during the Gni business offering a friendly recommendation to chill on the conflict of interest, as it would ultimately reflect badly on CAMERA. I received no response. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 21:39, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Look. Not my role to defend CAMERA (as I am not connected to them) but the same issue as I am trying to raise here aplly to them as well: If there is a group effort to infulance wikipedia - where is the evidence for it ? If there would have been a group effort to support Israel in Wikipedia one might think wikipedia articles would not be so pro-palestinian.....Zeq (talk) 20:48, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

"If there is a group effort to infulance wikipedia - where is the evidence for it ?"

• http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2007-December/087744.html
• http://nonbovine-ruminations.blogspot.com/2007/12/oops.html
• http://www.israelactivism.com/index.php?mode=newsletter#article11
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=201354635#Editor_working_for_CAMERA.E2.80.99s_ongoing_POV_pushing_on_that_article
• http://electronicintifada.net/downloads/pdf/080421-camera-wikipedia.pdf

Is this enough evidence that groups are organizing online to illicitly influence Wikipedia content? We even have administrators internally doing this inappropriately, let alone outside parties. If they have been unsuccessful in hurting the WP:NPOV standards we cherish, that's a testament to the community having successfully stopped them. This "[email protected]" fellow coaching them in how to specifically sneak in is dastardly and I would venture an escalation of the recent FRINGE and NPOV wars underway. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 20:53, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

What does any of those links has to do with me ? I am not working for Camera Iam not part of any of those links you mention. I aksed for a simple proof that there is a cordinated edits by a group of pro Israel editors in any of the 50 or so articles I frequantly edit. You have no such proof because there is no such group effort. I know sine I edit those articles and I would have noticed it. Zeq (talk) 20:59, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

another complete non-answer against some strawman charges that have not been made against you. How many more times are people going to ask you before you provide a straight answer to a simple question? did you write the messages to that google group or not? it is a question that requires the answer of YES or NO - because either you did write those messages or you did no. So what is it? your constant evasion and wikilawyering about the matter is one of the most unconvincing spectacles I'm seen here for a while. --87.112.70.168 (talk) 20:52, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Gni offered the same evasions when similarly queried. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 21:12, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

This is about me. Not about whoever Gnui is. Did I edited from CAMERA address ? have I edited any CAMERA article. seruioulsy - to drag into this more and more unrealted evidence show just one simple fact: No such group effort exits. Zeq (talk) 21:17, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I didn't say you were the puppet master--simply pointing out that the evasive response when confronted is similar to that offered CAMERA's wikipedia editor. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 21:23, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I am not evasive, I refuse to answer questions about my e-mail based on accuastions from external source which is known to be biased. I hold the view that evidence from such source should not infulance wikipedia at all and therefor I refuse to take part in it.

The only issue that I was willing to discuss was in the context of the COI case (within wkipedia) about CAMERA. Clearly I deny being part of CAMERA. I am not a meber of CAMERA group and never editted articles on CAMERA. Zeq (talk) 06:59, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Zeq, you can't expect people to accept that position. Of course the source is biased - it wants to expose the activities of CAMERA. But that does not mean that what it says is not true. You have consistently refused to deny that you wrote those e-mails. That is really the only operative question here. People are going to draw an obvious conclusion from that. -- ChrisO (talk) 07:45, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Consensus or RFAR

Is there consensus for the topic ban proposal in that section, or should this go to RFAR? Lawrence Cohen § t/e 21:19, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

A ban won't address the bigger problem. I'm not saying it is inappropriate, but it's a sideshow, relative to what will turn into the main attraction. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:33, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

There concensus for a minimum of a topic ban, but a community ban is what is needed. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 22:11, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

The real issue

Excuse me, please. As entertaining as it might be to read linguistic analysis, troves of accusations and evasions, and votes on bans - do any of you think that'll help?

I think this whole discussion is naive. For every such effort "uncovered", there will be a dozen which will remain secret. Working for Israel, against Israel, for the US, against the US, for the drug companies, against the drug companies, etc. We can't actually believe we'll always find out about these things. Even if you decide to ban Zeq - what will that accomplish? How will that help in preventing POV-pushing by anyone, from this supposed "group effort", or from other sources?

The focus should be on strengthening the system and procedures we have, to nullify the potential for damage such operations have. I know it's harder to do than to ban an editor, but it's the only real thing that matters here.

Just chiming in. okedem (talk) 22:12, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

So your point is that we should do nothing and be overrun by POV-pushers, spammers, and all other sorts of ne'er-do-wells? shoy 23:01, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Of course, that's what follows from what I said...

The thing is, you're all debating whether or not to ban Zeq, whether or not to disqualify CAMERA as an RS. When you're done with these discussions, everybody will feel like they did something, that "feel-good" effect of protecting Wikipedia. But really, you will have done nothing. Thinking you can actually catch most such efforts is baseless. You'll only be able to uncover the clumsiest of operations, using mailing lists and the likes.

Do you really think you can find out about such an effort if some government agency decides to do it? If some department of the US Homeland Security decides editing Wiki would be good for the US? If some Chinese agency decides to rewrite history? If some drug company decides to make another company's products look dangerous, or if some vaccine-opposers decide to rewrite the vaccination articles for their purpose?

This whole banning thing is nothing but an insignificant sideshow. When someone is obviously pushing a POV, we know how to deal with that. And maybe by whatever is done here, you'll be able to discourage CAMERA from such acts - but practically no one else, since there's no deterrence, and if an operation is carefully executed - almost zero chance of getting caught.

What we need to do, is to discuss what can be done about to fight against such operations, taking for granted that they do (or at least will) occur, and that we can't hope to discover them. What can we change in our policies and control mechanisms? What are the weak points, issues that requires change. This is the only thing that matters, not whether you ban Zeq. okedem (talk) 07:57, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Is there any reason we couldn't do both? --87.112.70.168 (talk) 23:03, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Frankly, it's very difficult to protect Wikipedia against such campaigns, given its nature as an open encyclopedia. Off-wiki POV-pushing campaigns act covertly for obvious reasons, and it's often only by chance (as in this case) that we find out about them. When they do come to light we need to take firm action against those involved - putting the proverbial heads on spikes pour encourager les autres. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:17, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Indeed it is not only dificult it is impossible. There could be the exact such "consiparcy" with editors, admins cooprating on the Palestinian side. In fact there is an edit pattern behaviour of editors such as RolandR which show participation in revert tag-team. This has been documented in the I/P arbcom case.

What is the point in appling the rules but only against one side ?

This is why I say again and again: If there was any evidence inside wikipedia that such consiparcy group exists - at that point there will be clear policy violations to ban members of that group. So far no one has produced any such evidence that a pro-Israel group exist let alone that I am amember of such group. In fact all my edits are done alone. Wikipedia has always based on transperancy: Each editor's edit are available for examination by all. based on that record an editor behaviour should be examined. Mine shows only one thing: Godd Faith edits. You may not like my edits but they are sourced and done in good faith. Zeq (talk) 06:56, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Deterrence is great, but in most cases you can't get it. As I say above, this will do nothing to discourage anyone with a bit of skill and funding, who can operate without such obvious means as mailing lists. Wikipedia is vulnerable to stronger forces, and this CAMERA thing should serve as a warning light for that, not as the main issue. okedem (talk) 07:57, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Try to focus on Gilead Ini and CAMERA, not Zeq, please

For better or for worse, Zeq (talk · contribs) has been on Wikipedia for years, and his behavior is known. Problems from that direction have been dealt with in the past, and many people know what to look for.

Worry instead about the CAMERA plan to introduce new editors and "stealth admins" committed to pushing CAMERA's POV. For starters, someone should send a copy of that PDF to CAMERA and ask that they confirm or deny its validity. That may have the effect of discouraging them from trying it. --John Nagle (talk) 03:18, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

exactly. even the Inquisition, which proceeded on the basis of anonymous accusations, made an exception for accusations that could be shown to be from a known enemy. The failure to answer a question of this sort is not reason for banning. No one can be forced in this way. If there is evidence, let it be presented and judged on the basis of what there is, not on failure to respond to a question. Personally, I think the pro-Israeli editors being discussed are in fact an organized lobby, cf [6], but they'd be just as effective operating individually on the basis of their convictions if they weren't organised. The only thing really damaging in the accusations is that of sleeper admin accounts. This is very difficult to obtain evidence about. If it is seen as a serious threat, there will be only two solutions: checkuser on all admins, or the requirement that admins disclose their identities in some other private manner. DGG (talk) 04:44, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

DGG, this is not a court of law. Failure to respond to a question of this sort, as well as evasiveness of the sort displayed, makes it hard to work with this person in good faith. If so, it might well be better for the project if we lose him now. Fairness doesn't come into it. Can you imagine what will happen if Zeq works away at one of the articles mentioned in this pdf, someone reverts him, and another account, previously uninvolved, reverts that? Chaos. And not something we can settle then, by blocking that account. The drama will take another few hours out of people's lives. Unless Zeq repudiates these methods, denies being involved, or agrees that this is not the way to fix the apparently pervasive pro-Palestinian bias on WP, we very simply don't need him as more trouble than he is worth.

On the larger point: I think we need to fix RfA to begin with. Good luck opposing the stringent vandal fighters and participants in the Bedclothes and Upholstery Wikiprojects. --Relata refero (disp.) 06:13, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

• I denied being involved . I am not a member of CAMERA.
• This is indeed the key issue:

  "Can you imagine what will happen if Zeq works away at one of the articles mentioned in this pdf, someone reverts him, and another account, previously uninvolved, reverts that? Chaos. "

  - can anyone point to even one such occurance. None. Zero Zilch. Nada. Absolutly no proof in wikipedia that the EI consipracy even exists. For all we know if there is a EI "mole" in CAMERA he/she may have created the story or created the group or spoofed e-mails . You can not go based on such accusation when there is ZERO proof of it in Wikipedia. Zeq (talk) 06:50, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Zeq, for all we know the e-mails could be "spoofed". But perhaps not for all you know. So why don't you answer the very simple, yes-or-no question: did you write those e-mails or not? 194.171.56.13 (talk) 12:30, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

It's Not Just CAMERA

In May 2007, the Hasbara Fellowships, a project of Aish International and the Israeli government targeted Wikipedia:

Wikipedia is not an objective resource but rather an online encyclopedia that any one can edit. The result is a website that is in large part is controlled by 'intellectuals' who seek re-write the history of the Arab-Israeli conflict. These authors have systematically yet subtly rewritten key passages of thousands of Wikipedia entries to portray Israel in a negative light.

You have the opportunity to stop this dangerous trend! If you are interested in joining a team of Wikipedians to make sure Israel is presented fairly and accurately, please contact [email protected] for details!

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. --DieWeisseRose (talk) 23:15, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

This sounds like we should have an education project ready for such editors -- to teach them about NPOV, RS, and AGF. We have no chance of recognizing and banning all such editors as soon as they show up, so we would be better off being ready for them and trying to teach them that they can accomplish something better by working with their critics than by being obnoxious biased jerks and getting themselves banned eventually. --FOo (talk) 05:16, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Possible motive

1. I have made these edits: [7] , [8] reverted by members of the group of those who now take part in the accusation and effort to ban me: [9],[10]

2. To avoid edit war I have let their edit (use of EI as a source) stay in the article.

3. after some time I have made this unrelated edit: [11] sure enough the group revetrted me again: [12] . I have avoided edit war and let it satnd. Other group mebers (Tiamut, Bless sinns) have added to the first edit.

4. To avoid edit war I have let their edits stand.

5. 4 days later I have made this new edit: [13]. It was reverted by RolandR (a member of the Palestinian group): [14] (who described my edit as "vandalism".

6. another editor 6JS7 made an edit: [15]. the group is quick to revert him as well: [16],[17]

7. 4 days later I have made a new edit: [18] and...

8. a member of the group is quick to revert me(again claiming that the source I added is "vandalism") : [19]

9. next, Jayjg - who -even according to Chris O is not part of the EI-described consipracy makes an edit tagging a source with a request for verification: [20] and a meber of the pro-palestinian group is quick ro revert him: [21]

10. a week later Roland adds more non WP:RS sources: [22]. I reverted him : [23] (but left his previous non RS sources such as EI in the article to avoid edit war on the issue at #1 above) another meber of the group (Tarc) revrted my edits: [24] and Roland and Elanld do the same with the other part of the edit: [25], [26]

11. A day later I removed a sentence which violate NPOV/UNDUE policy: [27] but self revted my self: [28] I decided to give the group mebers Tarc, RolandR and Eland an opportunity to discuss this on talk (as I did)

this has been going on and on in this and other articles. I work alone against a group that uses a cordinated effort. against me and against other editors who make edits (unrealted to mine) which they don't like.

The evidence (in wikipedia) is very clear: RolandR and Elaland opreate as a group to push EI sources and POV into wikipedi articles. Any editor who edit diffrently is quickly reverted. This is why this article is in such poor and one sided state that it is. The little balance that I was able to interduce into the article once ina while will be gone if I am banned. The Pro-Palestinian group will fylfill it's mission. This is documented by their behaviour in wikipedia and not by some outside source. Zeq (talk) 07:22, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

This is not about the behaviour of other people, it's about your behaviour. Please do not try to deflect attention elsewhere. Right now, you are heading for a topic ban unless you answer this question: did you write the e-mails posted by EI? -- ChrisO (talk) 07:48, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Isn't this, like, the tenth time Zeq has been asked this question? Zeq, answer the question. Cla68 (talk) 07:51, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Chris - have you bothered to see the evidence. There is nothing about my behaviour in wikipedia which cam lead any one to think that I a member of a group - I have alweays edited alone with little coopration. On the other hand I have prsented clear evidence that agroup of editors (who try to push EI as a source to an anti-Israel article) are acting as a cordianted group against me and other bonafide editors. As for the accusation made by EI - I have explained why there should be no reason for me to answer that. If there is a claim that a group of Jews got together in a conspiracy to control the world (strike that : to Control wikipedia) - such consipracy shoul be called : The (e-mail) protocols of the elder of CAMERA. I refuse to take part in an interogation based on such protocols.

I will gladly discuss any question which relates to any wikipedia edit I made. the record is clear and transperancy in wikipedia is key to this project success as much as keeping off-wikipedia disputes away from this project. Zeq (talk) 07:53, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Zeq is now employing diversionary tactics in order to confuse this discussion, and throwing around wild accusations against me. Which "Palestinian group"! is he claiming I am a member of? For the record, I have never communicated with Eleland on Wikipedia, nor knowingly off Wikipedia (since I don't know who s/he is, I cannot categorically deny any correspondence on other matters). I do not operate as part of a group, neither with Eleland nor with any other WP editors. I am not involved with any project to introduce any point of view into WP; I am not plotting with anyone to infiltrate "sleeper" accounts in order to appoint sympathetic admins; I am not conspiring to get other editors "into trouble" and to "get them banned". [29]

The evidence, however, is clear: Zeq has indeed done all of these things, and more. This should surely be grounds for an indefinite topic ban, if not for total exclusion from the entire project. RolandR (talk) 08:15, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

"Protocols of the elder of CAMERA"?? Can you possibly have written that with a straight face? The notion that is is some sort of elaborate plot against you (or against camera) is truly preposterous; this whole business has degenerated into farce. Please, someone make a decision here and kill this thing off. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:28, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

""Protocols of the elder of CAMERA"??" Is someone going to hand out a ban for such a gross racist accusation, talk about a breach of civility. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 13:14, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Zeq blocked and topic banned

In the light of the evidence that has been presented above, the ban proposal by Future Perfect at Sunrise, the views of a number of uninvolved administrators, Zeq's previous record (cf. Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Zeq and the Log of blocks and bans on that page) and his persistent refusal to answer the question of whether he wrote the e-mails cited by ElectronicIntifada.net, I have banned Zeq with immediate effect from all articles relating to the Arab-Israeli conflict (broadly interpreted as per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles), for a period of one year. I have also blocked him for one week for serious breaches of Wikipedia:Sockpuppetry, exacerbated by his uncooperative attitude in refusing to confirm or deny whether he wrote the cited e-mails. I have warned him that he will be blocked for longer periods if he attempts to evade the block or ban, and advised him not to attempt to go off-wiki to recruit other editors to act in his place or to support his point of view.

I hope that will put an end to this saga, and I strongly advise other editors not to make this into a broader witch-hunt against pro-Israel editors who have not been implicated in the ElectronicIntifada.net e-mails. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:14, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

(added) I see that my decision to block Zeq for a week has attracted some off-wiki comment. I was tempted to block for longer, but my reason for setting the block at this length is that I am unaware of any hard evidence at this stage that Zeq actually colluded with off-wiki meatpuppets to disrupt articles. He certainly appears to have been soliciting this, and would probably have collaborated with CAMERA-affiliated meatpuppets if they were active, but no convincing evidence of such collusion has been presented. As such, the block represents the lesser violation of soliciting disruption rather than an as yet unproved greater violation of collaborating in an active campaign of disruption. My gut feeling is that the campaign described in the e-mails is still in the planning stages, rather than being ongoing in any significant way. -- ChrisO (talk) 12:38, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse Quick and effective action is well deserved. пﮟოьεԻ 57 08:23, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse, about time. Sceptre ^(talk) 08:28, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
• If the conclusion others draw from this action is that the problem has been resolved, I think we are in for the rudest of awakenings. Whoever "zeqzeq2" is (i.e., whether Zeq or someone else), banning Zeq will not stop that person from proceeding as CAMERA appears to be intending (if this "plot" is real). Banning Zeq is easy; what else is now to be done? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:35, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse, obviously. Heck, I wasn't even aware of that Arbcom case when I first proposed the topic ban. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:48, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
• I have to endorse the block and 1-year topic ban at this point. I was following this yesterday, and would have initially been satisfied had Zeq simply denied writing the email. . .a lot was denied, but not (as far as I could tell) writing the email. I also echo ChrisO's caution against turning this into a broader witch-hunt. R. Baley (talk) 14:25, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse per R. Baley.--David Shankbone 14:28, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Statement of principle

Coming to this late because I've just found out about it. I hope the following statement of principle finds support; other editors who agree are welcome to add their signatures. For the record, I mentor one of the site's more outspoken Israeli editors. This statement is totally apolitical.

Statement of principle

1. Wikipedia exists to reflect expert opinion, not to shape public opinion.
2. Wikipedia seeks to be neutral and values editors who set aside personal creeds when they contribute.
3. Deliberate manipulation of content in pursuit of any ideology damages the project.
4. Coordinated campaigns of manipulation strike at the heart of this site's purpose and its goal of credibility.
5. We Wikipedians promise to halt all coordinated manipulation that we are able to adequately verify, regardless of its motive or purpose.
6. We also promise to balance this effort with appropriate restraint and good faith.
7. We promise to pursue these matters without reference to our own beliefs.
8. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and we intend to keep it one.

• Durova^Charge! 10:55, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Obviously I agree completely, and I would also point to the principle that Wikipedia is not a battleground. At its most basic, Wikipedia is an online community of people interested in building a high-quality encyclopedia in a spirit of mutual respect. While we welcome contributors from all points of view, it's simply not acceptable for anyone to seek to use Wikipedia systematically as a means of promoting one side in external conflicts and disputes.

I should add that the core of what CAMERA's Gilead Ini proposes in the now-infamous e-mails is not a bad thing in itself: that pro-Israel editors should seek to ensure that articles on the conflict should meet NPOV requirements. However, Zeq went well beyond this ("You want to get [pro-Palestinian editors] into trouble: make legitimate edits on this article by bringing quotes from ACADEMIC sources (not jut from links on the web). get them sanctioned after they delete this info.") Setting up users to be sanctioned, soliciting meatpuppets off-wiki, denigrating other editors as "lefties" and declaring that "We will go to war" against them is absolutely not acceptable.

Editors on both sides need to ensure that they are following Wikipedia's five pillars scrupulously, honestly and consistently. This means accepting that there will be times when you cannot add material you like because it doesn't meet the sourcing requirements, applying policy consistently (not cherrypicking when it suits you and ignoring it when it doesn't) and treating fellow editors with respect. -- ChrisO (talk) 12:32, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

• This statement of principles is excellent. I would add WP:Writing for the enemy (maybe reformulated) would be an excellent practice! Ceedjee (talk) 06:15, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

• Support statement. --Thinboy00's sockpuppet alternate account 05:08, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

No, no (petition to extend Zeq block indefinitely)

A block for a week? This is way too short. It should be indefinite, given Zeq's massive block log and prior ArbCom cases. The evidence is clear-cut: he was trying to recruit meatpuppets from off-wiki to push POV. That is completely unacceptable behaviour and violates WP:NOT#BATTLEGROUND in every sense. Such conduct should be rewarded with an indefinite block, not a week off and a topic-ban. Moreschi2 (talk) 16:28, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

• Agreed. Durova^Charge! 16:33, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
• Does he edit things outside Israel-Palestine issues? For some people, a topic ban effectively is a full ban. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:48, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

• Virtually all his edits are related to the conflict. [30] Lawrence Cohen § t/e 16:54, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

• I wouldn't say no to that. пﮟოьεԻ 57 16:51, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
• Would not object. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 16:54, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

That Protocols of the elders of Camera insult should show he has no good faith for any editors that do not subscribe to his world view. Thats why the ban should be extended, i was sickened by that insult. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 16:57, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

• I'm not sure that I support an indefinite block, but at this time, do not oppose. A block longer than a week does seem to be called for (at this time, I'd support anywhere from 3 months to a year). R. Baley (talk) 18:03, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

• Agreed - indefinite block. Wageslave (talk) 04:57, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree... Zeq should face a permanent, indefinite block for trying to disrupt the integrity and credibility of Wikipedia. --Gauharjk (talk) 06:33, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Zeq blocked for a year

Blocked for a year, and the topic-ban is extended to indefinite. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 18:06, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I haven't been here all that long, so please excuse what might be a naive question - but wouldn't a decision like this simply lead someone to start again from scratch right away with a new account/username? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:12, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

We have checkuser for that. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 18:20, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Checkuser is next to worthless for anyone with minor knowledge of IP addresses. okedem (talk) 18:27, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

True enough. We also have our brains to determine sockpuppetry even if the pretty tools don't work, and it is a longstanding policy that we don't avoid blocking simply because of the risk of sockpuppetry. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 18:34, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I blocked for a week on the basis that (bearing in mind WP:BLOCK's statement that blocks are to "prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, not to punish users") the actual damage or disruption caused was slight - at this stage. Clearly Zeq was intending to cause significant disruption in the future. However, there was no indication that this disruption had actually taken place yet. Soliciting disruption is a serious violation, but it's not nearly as serious as actually carrying it out.

Isn't it kinda unfair to extend Zeq's block without giving him the opportunity to speak against it? --Wehwalt (talk) 14:25, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Confirmation that Zeq is owner of the zeqzeq2 email address

I have no objection, though, to Moreschi's block lengthening. A reliable source has forwarded to me e-mail correspondence from Zeq dating to July 2006, in which he uses the [email protected] e-mail address. There can be no doubt that Zeq was indeed the person who wrote the ElectronicIntifada.net e-mails, and as such I can say confidently that he was blatantly lying in the discussion earlier. This makes his breach of trust all the more serious and more than justifies a block extension. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:23, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I think that's the final piece we need. I know this sort of thing happens all the time, but it's still sickening to find an example of meatpuppet solicitation in practice. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 18:34, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

New evidence surfaces

Electronic Intifada has released more emails. See the bottom of the original article. http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article9474.shtml

On the other hand I would encourage all of you to become admins. If we have several admins on our side this will be great. Admin are expected to be impartial so be carefull how you edit and how you will conduct yourself as an admin. There is a 3rd route: Voter. All you need to do is make 100 edits and be registed with wikipedia for over a month (this is why you should register ASAP) from that point you don't need to edit much (do edit once a week or every two weeks) and we will call upon your help t participate in important votes: about content and about running for office (admin is an elected position - we need people who will vote fro our admins) Most wikipedia cotes there is a need for 80/20 majority ("consensus") so do behave nice with others to gain their trust and try to have as many as 100-200 voters (those who don't edit much but only called to help in votes) btw, wikipedia ballots are usually open for a week so being a "voter" is really good for those who have very little time on their hands. --87.114.40.124 (talk) 19:05, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

According to those emails, Dajudem is a member of this group; on p. 16 of EI's second link, we see an email that points to this edit.

I don't doubt for a moment that this sort of thing is going on from other "points of view". But I suppose it should be dealt with where it is visible. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:06, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Also user:Jersmum, according to page 3 and this edit. // Chris ^{(complaints)•(contribs)} 19:16, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Dajudem (talk · contribs)

Yes, that seems correct. Further, I'd be interested in finding out who this I <3 (email [email protected]) 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)

I left a note on his talk page directing him here. I would not object to applying Zeq's sanction to all the users that are confirmed as connected to this troll organization that is out to hurt us. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 20:00, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't see what the big deal is. I have been editing wiki for several years now. I have always tried to follow the rules and provide facts with references, or demand references from others. I'm also an English teacher that can sometimes correct a poorly constructed sentence. The group that got together was simply one that got together through a common interest of making sure that media was fair. It was not a 'troll organisation' out to hurt anyone. It was simply there to make sure that the pro-Israel point of view was represented. After all, the Palestinians have not only the Arabs that support their cause, but the majority Muslims as well as most of the far Left. All of the world's Jews don't constitute 1% of the world's Muslims. It is not unreasonable to want to make sure that we are represented in editing an important resource such as wiki! I haven't done anything wrong except utilize my American right to associate with whom I please. I don't think sanctions are in order for me. Who was the person that infiltrated a private group and posted our names and communications here? That one might be the one who should be sanctioned! imho Juanita (talk) 20:51, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

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)

I don't think it's that cut and clear. Everyone has a POV, we can't ignore that. People usually edit what they care about, and sometimes it's political matters, like the Israeli-Arab conflict. The question is - what do you do? If you make NPOV, sourced edits, striving for better accuracy in the articles, that's great. If this coincides with your personal views, that's fine too: like taking an article slanted against Israel, and making it NPOV - you "helped" Israel in the process, but the end result is good for Wiki. The problem is if you take NPOV articles, and slant them in favor of one side. okedem (talk) 21:05, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Juanita, at first the emails seem respectable enough - making sure the issue is factual, accurate, NPOV. That's great, that's fine. The problem is the infiltrations tactics, like getting some users to become admins, while avoiding editing articles about the conflict, so they can use their powers as supposedly "uninvolved" admins in disputes. This is deception and infiltration. The problem is with getting hordes of voters, users who do 100 edits, with the sole purpose of serving as legions to be used in important votes, etc. These are tactics meant to abuse the rules we have, which were written in good faith. I don't know what you wrote there, so I can't comment on your case specifically. I'm also not an admin, and so cannot determine anything relating to sanction such as bans. okedem (talk) 21:05, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

First of all, I think that this is a very dirty job, exposing peoples' emails. Wiki is supposed to be open to all, pro-Arab and pro-Israel, whatever... that means administration is available to all as well. Editors and Administrators should be judged on what they do and write in wiki, not the content of private emails. As someone else commented, everyone approaches these subjects with a bias, but that doesn't mean one can't be fair and POV. Facts are facts. Juanita (talk) 21:16, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Your statement that "administration is available to all as well." is simply not correct. Administrators are held to a higher standard of neutrality than 'normal' Wikipedia editors. Attempting to become an admin by deliberately avoiding an article so that you can later throw your adminhood around during edit wars on that article doesn't show a legitimate desire to help Wikipedia; it shows that your desire is to advocate a specific point of view. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 21:26, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

"This sort of mind-set"-- gee sounds like Big Brother. What kind of mind-set? That I have a bias? You think being a Jew means you don't have a bias? There are plenty of Jews biased against Israel. That proves nothing. By all means, review my edits. Can I review yours? I stand by what I write. I may make mistakes, but I don't spread propaganda. Juanita (talk) 21:21, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

FYI: Juanita == Dajudem. Bangpound (talk) 21:20, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

That's correct Juanita (talk) 21:22, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

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)

Yes, indeed. It would come as a surprise to me as I have found that many people like to think they don't have a bias (ie are either pro-Israel or pro-Arab) but don't scratch them too hard. There is in fact a war going on between Israel and the Arab& Muslim world. You can read about it every day in the papers. And beyond that there is a war of facts. Israel is a small country in a world of many Arabs, Muslims and lefties, as I pointed out. Some of these people are actively putting out false facts. It is important that those who are willing to dig for the truth make an attempt to get the truth out. As for the implication that this group was a CAMERA group or advocated by CAMERA, do you know that to be the case? I do not. As far as I know this group was NOT organised by CAMERA. Juanita (talk) 21:31, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

So "Shalom Wikipedia Editors and CAMERA E-Mail Team," and being organised by a man with a Camera.org email didn't give you a little clue. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 00:30, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

In any case, with Dajudem's postings above, we can now safely put any remaining doubts about the authenticity of the mails to rest. One of the participants has just confirmed. As far as I am concerned, I stick with my proposal: indef topic bans for everybody associated with the group. That includes Dajudem.

Next question, besides the ones Moreschi mentioned above:

1. Who is that principal organiser, that "gilead at camera.org" person? Judging from their postings there, they are certainly also an experienced Wikipedia editor.
2. According to p.12 of the second leaked set of mails, the "I <3 Israel" person proposed on 9th April to initiate a renaming of 2006 Lebanon war. This was subsequently discussed on the forum by at "gilead" (who mentions that "I <3 Israel" was previously involved in on-wiki discussion of that article, and suggests somebody else should initiate the move on-wiki), "dajudem" and "d_weisb...". On 12 April, somebody indeed proposes the move: Screen stalker (talk · contribs) [31]. I'm totally new to this whole field of editors, never heard any of their names before, but from a quick check "Screen stalker"'s behaviour seems to me to be consistent with that of a person who has some behind-the-screens guiding and coordination role in a POV team. [32], [33] Is "Screen stalker" "gilead"? Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:32, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I vehemently object to where you're going with this. This really is starting to look like a witch hunt.

I don't know or care who Screen stalker is, but a quick look at the article's talk page will show he approached this issue with facts and simple, sound arguments; presented data to show which names are more common, using various methods and searches; suggested multiple alternatives, and asked for input; in the end, he suggested the name be changed to "Second Lebanon war", as this turned out to be the most common name (which doesn't jibe with the supposed intent expressed on p.12).

He acted in this matter in the most objective way possible, a fine example of good Wiki conduct. In the end, the damage from this whole affair would be in accusations of this kind, which will poison the atmosphere, and hurt us much more than any group of POV-pushers can. okedem (talk) 21:46, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Fut.Perf., the logic of the implication doesn't hold up: even if "I <3" is Screen_stalker, that doesn't mean that Screen_stalker is "Gilead". I agree with okedem: the contributions on that page are entirely unproblematic.

I think if it is discovered that "Gilead" is indeed an active editor here, then a robust block is in order. But I really do hope to see great care taken before accusations are made (even in the form of questions); please have your ducks in a very straight row, don't just speculate. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:06, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I didn't mean to imply "I <3 Israel" and "gilead" were the same person. (Why would they be using sockpuppeting inside their own mailing list?) But either of these two could be Screen stalker, or indeed some other participant in their group. But one thing seems clear, the fact that Screen stalker initiated the move proposal just a few days after the topic was brought up in the forum can hardly be a coincidence, can it? I find it more than likely that this account is in one way or other linked to those activities. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:11, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Exactly - I think the fact that the suggested renaming came up three days after the e-mails were exchanged is pretty damning evidence that he's on the list, and I think theres a pretty strong case for sanctions against anyone on the list, as it's clearly designed for a POV pushing agenda - anyone signing up to it must have known its purpose. пﮟოьεԻ 57 22:18, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Is this really your idea of "pretty damning evidence"? Really? Truly? This is becoming more and more disturbing by the minute. Unless you have any actual evidence, this is almost persecution.

The only facts we have in this matter, are what anyone can read on the article's talk page, showing excellent conduct on Screen Stalker's side.

Regarding the list - you can't sanction people simply for receiving emails. If you can prove someone wrote things intended to abuse Wikipedia, that's another thing. But simply receiving emails does not mean you agree with them. You also have no basis for the assumption: "anyone signing up to it must have known its purpose." It might have started as something relatively innocent - calling for volunteers to promote NPOV, and then deteriorated as some users started making "evil" suggestions (like getting supposedly uninvolved admins). okedem (talk) 22:38, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I would like to thank Okedem for making me aware of these charges. With all the work that some editors have put into this incident, I would have expected that they would invest at least a few minutes letting me know that I was the subject of discussion. I guess not, and I suppose this is typical of the style of behavior in this dispute.

Also, please note the many (probably dozens) of discussions about changing this article's title. It may be the most controversial name for a war at the present time. Screen stalker (talk) 02:53, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Shocking McCarthyism. Where does one go for a hearing? I did not verify anything except that I was a member of this group that the Electronic Intifada has dug up some emails. As I said, as far as I know it was not a CAMERA group. But that aside. 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. I deeply resent and dislike this situation. I am being judged not for who I am or what I have written, but by people I don't know and for my membership in a group and for words that did not get written here. I have not tried to push any "agenda" but to see that my side is fairly represented. I don't know zeg and who he is, but he seems to have been banned for a year for something that he apparently denies. Now you people want to ban anyone who was a member of this group. Talk about unfair. Juanita (talk) 22:26, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

"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)

PS calling McCarthyism un-american, who said the americans did not know what irony was!^{(Hypnosadist)} 00:15, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

And while we are talking about bias, I suppose the Electronic Intifada does not have a bias? It looks as if it is in lockstep with some of the people here. It looks like the bias of the Electronic Intifada will get reflected here at wiki now that it will succeed in getting certain voices silenced here. And not on the basis of what was written here but on the basis of membership in a private group outside of here. And not on the basis of what any individuals in the group wrote themselves, but on the basis of what someone else wrote. Shocking! UnAmerican.Juanita (talk) 22:32, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

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)

I didn't and don't read every email. I have a life. Do you read every email you get? Do you respond to every email with which you disagree? Did it really say "getting Palestinians sanctioned?" Maybe.... Maybe not. I don't believe in sanctioning people because they belong to some group. Only by their own actions and words. I thought that was clear enough. Juanita (talk) 00:15, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

It might have escaped your notice that Wikipedia is an international encyclopedia; those of us who are not Americans aren't too bothered about being seen as "unAmerican" (and some might actually regard that as a compliment). Of course Electronic Intifada has a bias, but that doesn't mean that its reports can't be accurate. There's certainly no reason to believe that any of its reporting on this issue so far has been inaccurate - the leaked e-mails all check out. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:24, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes true. I am aware that wiki is international, and your anti-American bias is noted. I guess (I hope) you don't edit articles having to do with the U.S.? Here we believe in freedom of association as one of our basic rights. I would like to think that wiki shares such great values. If Electronic Intifada members edit wiki, and EI is biased as you say, then shouldn't you ban any members of EI? 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. There has also been talk of considering CAMERA a poor source when there has been no reason to believe that any of its reporting on the Israeli/Palestinian conflict has been inaccurate either. Guilt by association. I don't think so. Juanita (talk) 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)

If you're aware that Wikipedia is international, then why are you attacking it as being un-American? I might as well say that it's un-Belgian or un-Swedish for all that it matters. Are you going to accuse me now of having an anti-Belgium or anti-Sweden bias? And no, we shouldn't ban all members of EI, because there's no evidence that they've made a coordinated assault on Wikipedia's neutral point of view, as opposed to the members of CAMERA, where this has been documented. Bias alone isn't cause for ban, because everybody is biased on something. It's when you try to rally a bunch of similarly-biased members to edit articles and become administrators with the specific purpose of pushing a particular point of view that we get into problematic territory. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 00:24, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

This is not McCarthyism, as its based on solid actuality, not false smears and suspicions based solely on the "crime' of membership or association, or of political views. So there is no comparison here to McCarthyist tactics (not to mention WP is not "society"--its a colaborative effort to write an encylopedia. What we have here is an organized group that is antithetical to this purpose. It describes itself as conducting a "war," of "raising an army" and getting sleeper admins in place to abuse their tools--all in an effort to violate NPOV, Consensus, and other core policies. They are not here to help the project but to treat it as a Battlefield in the advancement of their POV as SPA, against both the rules and spirit of WP. A topical ban is in order at the very least.Giovanni33 (talk) 00:11, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

No indeed it is based on the crime of membership and association. I don't know about sleeper admins, but perhaps it is true that pro-Israel voices are getting silenced on wiki by stealth members who are actually members of Electronic Intifada and other push-groups, but no one has yet infiltrated their group and implicated its members. Ask any Palestinian if he/she is at war with Israel or if there is a propaganda war and you will see that they believe it as well. Just because one recognizes that one is at war isn't a bad thing. The war analogy was in private conversation. Even if one believes that one is in a propaganda war does not mean that one cannot be fair and balanced and POV. I don't for one moment believe the intention was to "abuse their tools" in the least. If an editor even got to the position of administrator.... it is most unlikely he/she would keep it long if they violated NPOV, consensus and other core policies as you suggest. If you read the email again that was put up earlier, members are enjoined to use proper sources like newspapers! That is exactly what wiki is about. The only way you will get POV is through the tension of opposing points of view. Juanita (talk) 00:37, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

"members are enjoined to use proper sources like newspapers!" Then they are advised on how to rig votes (you must not have read that email) and violate concensus (again did you read that email?). ^{(Hypnosadist)} 00:44, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I have been at wiki for some years now and have a record. If I am not POV, consensus etc, go to my contributions and prove it. I have contributed enough so it should be easily demonstrated whether my contributions are distorted. If it is true that all members of this group are NPOV and abusive, you should be able to find plenty of evidence there. Otherwise, it is McCarthyism pure and simple. Collective Punishment one might call it!Juanita (talk) 00:45, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh look at the complete failure to answer the points raised, did you read those emails or not? ^{(Hypnosadist)} 00:52, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I have taken a look at Juanita/Dajudem's contribution history as well as her one email included in the CAMERA exchange, and, while I think she has a clear bias, she doesn't seem to have been actively looking to game the system in the manner that zeq or even Gil Ini have been. I don't think a block is warranted. Tegwarrior (talk) 01:23, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

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)

What do you think the effect of a collective ban will be, though? Won't there be that much more ammunition on the pro-Israeli side for screaming "oppression!" and for using even more underhanded methods, which will be even more effective and which Wikipedia will be even less prepared to deal with? It's easy enough for anyone in a contentious debate to come up with reasons for playing dirty - "Israel is a small country in a world of many Arabs, Muslims and lefties," for example - why not present a reason for playing clean, which would in this case (to my thinking) adopting the attitude, "We have seen your machinations, and aside from mild disappointment in you, we are not impressed." To ban with prejudice is to accept that the system can be gamed, and, unless you imagine you can ban everyone involved in such conspiracies, to accept that the system has been gamed. If that is to be done, then it would be better for Wikipedia to admit that its model fails when it comes to covering contentious topics. While this may very well end up being the truth, do you want to admit it right now? Tegwarrior (talk) 02:16, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

"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)

It's true that you can't stop people from throwing mud, but you can make sure it has no where to stick. And eventually people's arms get tired. Tegwarrior (talk) 20:41, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't suppose Hypnosadist recognizes his own bias in what he just said. Clearly stereotyping the pro-Israeli side... 'they are always screaming oppression, using any method to push our (in this case mine, because I take this personally, with reason), 'just like terrorists', 'justifying their crimes.' Well excuse me for living...I am a crime-ridden terrorist now, thank you very much. Does Hypnosadist think this 'mind-set' (to quote Cohen above) is an example of an objective POV? And he wants to ban me? In fact he just acknowledged what he thinks of the pro-Israeli side. Is Hypnosadist an administrator by any chance? Small wonder someone wanted to start a group to counter a perceived anti-Israeli bias in wiki! Juanita (talk) 03:45, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

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)

Tegwarrior is clearly right that it is the wiki model re contentious issues that is at stake here. Ban the "terrorists" who support Israel, who justify our crimes, who believe we can do what we want" and what will you have left? Those who don't support Israel, who consider Israeli criminals and terrorists and yet believe that they are unbiased and that their edits alone will provide a neutral point of view. No one will take wiki seriously on these issues then. It will become nothing but another anti-Israeli screed. Juanita (talk) 03:56, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

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)

How many of the Hasbara Fellows have you identified so far, Hypnosadist? If Dajudem's involvement with the CAMERA group is a banning offense because the effort could compromise Wikipedia, isn't Wikipedia clearly already compromised far beyond the point where there's any hope of redemption? 66.82.9.85 (talk) 12:38, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Note The continuing failure to answer any questions. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 14:31, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

So, can we be more productive now?

Now, after Zeq has been blocked, can we deal with the actual problem?

There are probably such groups in action right now, covertly. If not, I guarantee you - there will be. If operated by anyone with some cunning, we have little hope of catching them. This means our only defense is to review and strengthen our policies and procedures. Make no mistake - such operations will happen again. What are the weak points in our system? Where are the vulnerabilities? We can be changed to reduce the risk? How vulnerable are we, really? Where can such groups really come into play?

With this data, these emails detailing an attacker's method of operation, it should be easier to identify failure points.

okedem (talk) 18:58, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Well the emails list a number of 'problematical pages' (2006 Lebanese War') So it would be useful if someone could list in here the specific wiki pages nominated in all the emails (I would do it but my computer keeps having trouble with downloading one of those files), in order that editors can be notified to be careful on those pages.Nishidani (talk) 19:24, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I noticed that someone went to an extra little bit of effort in getting a biased POV into an article by altering a map to include a controversial term, and then adding that map to an article: The Map; The Article. Tegwarrior (talk) 20:10, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

April 2007 was a time where I, ChrisO and Timeshifter were engaged in a large scale discussion+slow paced reverts (habits have changed since) regarding the main map. ChrisO's initial map was rejected, and we settled i think on his 3rd version which was eventually accepted by the majority.

btw, I think there's a serious tag-team problem on Israeli-Palestinian related articles. Also, several extremely involved admins should not make ban support/oppose !votes. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 20:55, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Please, this is not the place for specific cases. POV pushing happens all the time, from both sides, regardless of any possible group efforts. I opened this section to try and stimulate some useful discussion for general changes, ways to bolster our "defence mechanisms" against such group operations. okedem (talk) 20:21, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

That map is a POV fork by User:Jaakobou of this one that I produced. It should be deleted from the Commons as it has no value other than POV-pushing. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:48, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, ChrisO. I was hoping to find a neutral replacement. Tegwarrior (talk) 22:09, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Please avoid making POV-pushing suggestions when your initial map was not much better and raised many complains by far more than one editor. It is uncivil to be a pot calling the kettle black.

p.s. being that we've settleed on a differnt map, I wouldn'd mind having this one removed.

With respect, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 20:55, 22 April 2008 (UTC) clarify 20:58, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Getting back to the question, yes there are some useful things that could be done to make the system more resistant to these attacks, for example:

• bot scan watchlists and user contributions for statistical signs of off-site coordination
• pp-semi any and all articles that are repeatedly subject to POV warriors (good faith IP editors have lots of other articles they can work on)
• permit either side to flag a talk page as controversial, to be removed only by STABLE concensus.
• throttle the revert/readd rates on controversial articles to limit the team attack advantage (each cycle gets slower to make the system stable)

I'm sure there are others. LeadSongDog (talk) 21:26, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

We've certainly seen group POV-pushing before, but the group has typically been small. Sometimes it's a leader and a few sockpuppets/meatpuppets. Sometimes it's a few editors who edit in concert. The number of people involved is usually in single digits. Wikipedia's ordinary mechanisms can manage that class of problem.

If CAMERA recruits fifty active editors and creates a few stealth admins, as they supposedly intend, that might overwhelm the mechanisms in place to deal with POV-pushing.

As a policy issue, we may have problems dealing with "stealth admins". Wikipedia has two unusual policies with regard to adminship: 1) admniship is anonymous, and 2) adminiship is usually forever. CAMERA's purported attack plan relies on those features of Wikipedia. --John Nagle (talk) 23:35, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I think people need to look at what help calm down Waterboarding, namely article probation. Also 1rr and topic bans need to be handed out more. Topic bans especially need to be handed out more as we have 2,000,000+ articles and even if IvP covers a 100,000 articles then those topic banned can still edit 95% of the encyclopedia. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 00:06, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Don't know if this is the right place to raise this, but how wide is the definition of Israel/Palestine issues? From my experience the edit-warring (or let's just say the controversy and strong feeling) extends to everything related to Judaism and its history, Islam and its history, the Arab peoples and their histories, and anything in any way related to a geographical area including all south-eastern Europe, all of Africa north of the Saraha and most of western Asia. Itsmejudith (talk) 10:08, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Yep i'd say its that wide. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 14:18, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Another stealth group

If we're currently in the mood to root out groups of POV-pushers, another possible one may have been identified in this blog post [34]. Cla68 (talk) 23:40, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you have identified another group of POV-pushers: the editorial committee of the National Post, I'm relatively sure they would concur with that assessment. Grab yourself a copy. Franamax (talk) 03:43, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I know that the guy who runs that blog has a political agenda. However, I looked at his attempts to edit the articles, and he was shut down unfairly, by the same familiar names who watch all of the Global Warming articles like hawks. Why don't you go try an experiment, try to add a cited paragraph to Global Warming stating that not all scientists agree with the UN's "consensus" that humans are causing the earth to overheat and watch what happens. Or try merging the Global Warming controversy article into the main Global Warming article while correctly pointing out that "controversy" forks are usually used by POV-pushers to bury inconvenient opinions away from their main article and see what happens. We can sit here and shoot the messengers all day, but we're doing ourselves a disservice when we don't tackle problems right away, because sooner or later we'll have to deal with it. Remember the Gary Weiss issue? In spite of strenuous attempts over two years to cover that up, it eventually came out and has helped destroy the reputations of several formerly prominent administrators. I think these kind of situations should be avoided if we can help it. Cla68 (talk) 06:24, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't try to include extra paragraphs to Global warming beyond what is there. Stating that not all scientists agree is trivial, see scientific method. Attempting to leverage some number of scientists in dissent in the face of overwhelming consensus into a need for fully balancing text is neither scientific nor Wikipedic.

It's not particularly reasonable to compare the situations though. It's rather a stretch to imagine a nefarious cabal of scientists, ordinary citizens, environmentalists and Wikipedians forming a plot to influence the world's thinking to - umm, save it from disaster? destroy it's economy for no reason at all?

Global warming does not present itself as needing a particular plot, whereas here we're presented with fairly compelling evidence of a specific plot, with coaching to neutralize the opposition through provocative edits and install sleepers into positions of power. That's plausible from either side of the fraught P-I mess, it's much less reasonable to suggest that global warming on Wikipedia is an organized plot to seize - what? Franamax (talk) 09:02, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

It's a plot by filthy glacier-loving commies! okedem (talk) 09:25, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

In my personal life I'm a crazy left wing atheist liberal, and when I look at controversial articles they always include my personal POV. When someone tries to add RS's with differing viewpoints, they are reverted. That's the current state of WP. Has anyone ever proposed or figured out what to do? When I can see that my own viewpoint, which I guarantee you is the right one, is overrepresented, we have a problem. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 09:52, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, is that satire? Argumentum ad absurdum? If you are serious, then the answer is effortlessly simple: lend your knowledge of what is right, and your superior knowledge of the contradictions that total rightness brings (in the face of reality) and construct a balanced view. If you are sure you are right and you still see wrongness, reach out and fix it. Franamax (talk) 12:22, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

This seems to be an effort to leverage this discussion to address an unrelated issue, and throwing in Gary Weiss' name does nothing to combat that impression. Yes, "some" scientists don't believe in anthropogenic global warming. "Some" scientists don't believe that HIV causes AIDS. "Some" scientists think secondhand smoke is harmless. The problem arises when "some" editors feel that these views should be represented with undue prominence. A failure to uncritically highlight these minoritarian views is inevitably ascribed to biased left-wing censorship rather than, say, fundamental Wikipedia policy. In any case, surely you see a difference between the Israeli-Palestinian situation, which is a geopolitical conflict, and anthropogenic global warming, where an easily verifiable scientific consensus exists with notable but limited scientific dissent? MastCell ^Talk 18:18, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I think you're missing the point. It's not the topic that's important, but the abuse of the wiki in this way, i.e. organizing groups and trying to gain adminship in order to push POV. There's evidence of cabalism in all of these examples- global warming, Gary Weiss, Israel history. Cla68 (talk) 06:18, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

And in ref to global warming, the organized group is? The United Nations? That's one heckuva cabal. And the stealthy gaining of adminship? Organized zealots of cooltheplanet.org? Franamax (talk) 06:28, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Gilead Ini=Gni (talk · contribs)

Isn't Gilead Ini Gni (talk · contribs)? 67.71.63.149 (talk) 23:56, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Relevant evidence. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 00:01, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Ah, thanks for that link. I hadn't been aware of the previous COI investigation. This makes it pretty much obvious, I think. Judging on the COI case in conjunction with the Israpedia files, I think we can safely treat Gni the same as Zeq. Propose indef topic ban. Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:41, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Should be no reasonable doubt who Gilead Ini is, after looking at that evidence.Giovanni33 (talk) 06:02, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

More witches! - Merzbow (talk) 06:41, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Good catch. -- ChrisO (talk) 06:43, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I earlier removed my initial speculation on that editor's identity since at the time there was concern about outing an editor.Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 19:13, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

We start extending this to blanket bans of any user we think "tainted" by association with Zeq and I will personally elevate this to ArbCom. - Merzbow (talk) 07:33, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Do that if you must. But this is not about being "associated with Zeq", it's about being part (and in "gilead"'s case, main initiator) of an organised attempt to undermine Wikipedia. Also, the COI report linked to above demonstrates beyond any doubt that "gilead"'s editing has already resulted in massive, actual disruption on Wikipedia, so this is not just a hypothetical case about "mights" and "woulds" and the off-wiki world. Political campaigning, organised meatpuppetry, organised preparation for massive votestacking campaigns etc. I find it plain obvious that all this is bannable, where's the problem? Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:39, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Arbcom might be a good place after a good list is compiled of all those who we think are part of this "army." Maybe create different categories based on the evidence and let arbcom decide which ones meet the burden of proof? Personally I think we are smart enough and come to agreement without Arbcom's intervention. Its not too complicated.:)Giovanni33 (talk) 07:41, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Community ban proposal

I note that in the discussion linked above, Gni displayed a pattern of evasiveness and outright deceit that is disturbingly similar to how Zeq behaved. He was challenged several times about whether he was editing on behalf of CAMERA, whether he was Gilead Ini and whether he knew about the e-mail from CAMERA soliciting meatpuppets. Here's how he responded:

• I strongly deny that I have been editing on behalf of CAMERA. Additionally, if I had edited a couple times from a computer with an IP address listed as CAMERA, this in no way proves a conflict of interest.

• As a regular contributor to the CAMERA article and someone who has edited from CAMERA's offices, do you know anything about the e-mail from Gilead Ini? --68.253.50.109 (talk) 05:03, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

On the first question, my privacy takes precedence. There are many many reasons why this could have happened that don't equate to a COI. On the second issue, no, I don't know anything about that email.

If Gni is Gilead Ini, as seems more than likely, this was a straightforward falsehood. Gni was clearly acting on behalf of CAMERA (the e-mail he sent was headed "CAMERA Seeks 10 Volunteers to Submit Info to Wikipedia"). He very clearly had a massive conflict of interest, but denied this despite being fully aware of it. He was clearly lying when he said he didn't know anything about the email, since he was the one who sent it. His conduct is, I think, even more reprehensible than Zeq since the leaked e-mails show that he wasn't simply soliciting meatpuppetry but was actively organising, directing and leading it. We would literally not be having this discussion in the first place if it wasn't for Gni's actions.

I believe we need to send a strong message to other single-issue campaigners that this sort of thing is not acceptable. Given the seriousness of what has happened, I think this calls for more than just a topic ban. I therefore propose an indefinite community ban of Gni and request the endorsement of other editors below. -- ChrisO (talk) 07:51, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

• I agree, and have blocked Gni indefinitely and added {{banned}} to the userpage. Good catch. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 08:40, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
  • I have also banned Dajudem (talk · contribs) from all articles relating to the Arab-Israeli confict for a year. His ranting above shows that he just does not get WP:NOT#BATTLEGROUND. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 08:55, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Support both bans. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me)(public computer) 11:25, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Oppose on both. I knew nothing about this until the wikilobby tag was placed on the Rachel Corrie article, and I've never heard of Camera. So, if you edit from work, and you're editing the article on your company, thus you are editing on behalf of your company? I don't buy it. As for Dajudem, I would hesitate to characterize his/her comments as "ranting." Gni isn't allowed to defend himself here because he is banned, so he is screwed, and Dajudem, for defending him/herself, is accused of ranting. I guess if they float, they're guilty. I think the "justice" being meted out is too hasty and ill-considered, and there should be considerably more input from the involved parties, especially Gni. At the end of the day, the bans may be justified, but the sun hasn't set yet. Or shouldn't have.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:33, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Support both bans. Honestly. Wikipedia is not for 'countering bias' or 'neutralising bias', nor is it a club to bring your friends into to form, "an army". Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 15:05, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Support To protect neutrality. We don't need a nationalist, xenophobic bunch infiltrating our ranks under a plan to troll and manipulate encyclopedia content. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 15:13, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Support He's still editing this stuff? I warned him about this over a month ago, seems he didn't take it. MBisanz ^talk 16:18, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Support ban. Break the rules, you lose. Bearian (talk) 20:46, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Evidence?

Is this zaq guy really banned because he wouldn't deny being the author of the contents of an off wiki email presented here in a screen dump? MickMacNee (talk) 02:55, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Nope he was banned for 1 week after that info came out and he wouldn't deny that it was his email in the screen dump along with other evidence such as writing style and articles edited. We now know for a fact the email address is his so hes banned for a year. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 03:05, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Ah right, at the bottom of 'No, no'. And to clarify, he appears to have been banned for a year before the email address confirmation, on the basis of not denying writing the emails, editing certain articles and writing style (I can't see where that was presented, or if it's even credible). Subsequently, and seriously ironically given the way this played out, this email address confirmation comes from an un-named 'reliable source'. The question is, for what purpose is this source anonymous, and has anyone verified it, seeing as it is being claimed by the blocking admin. This all might be correct, but people seriously need to start formatting these proceedings correctly, and properly summarize events, and present the facts clearly and openly. MickMacNee (talk) 03:28, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd advise you to ask the admin who blocked him for a year for details of his reasons, the anonymity is not absolute its restricted to admins only (that is about 15,000 people) and i'm not one, but it will have been given to protect the informent. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 03:36, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

(to Hypno) Actually, that might be a good point. Perhaps we need a block template, much like our image description templates, with lines to be filled out by the blocking admin (such as date, rationale, evidence, links to discussion, blocking admin, etc). That would help prevent people from having to go find the AN/ANI thread to find out the evidence behind why someone was blocked. It adds bureacracy, but makes things more clear and orderly. Cla68 (talk) 03:39, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Thats a good idea, try suggesting it at the village pump. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 03:42, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

This is a total mess, he's additionally apparently accused of sockpuppetry in the ban notice [35] before the email confirm, yet I see none of that above either, nor a link to a case, unless again, he is being convicted of socking by virtue of not answering the question. And I realy object to 'not answering a question' being claimed as grounds for a block. Its shocking that this mess of a thread is being offered as the only public justification for a year long ban. MickMacNee (talk) 03:47, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

FYI anyone thinking I'm blind, I just added these headings [36] after my comments here. MickMacNee (talk) 03:57, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

There's a lot more to the underlying dispute here than I think you may realize. This may seem excessive to you but if so I suggest you read the ArbCom cases regarding this conflict. EconomicsGuy (talk) 08:50, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Nobody should have to read the arbcom to decide for themselves this hasn't been a witch hunt, rather than accept the seemingly duck defence being given. The banning admin has said nothing more about this reliable source, nor pointed out the sock puppetry referred to in the ban notification, and has instead carried on and started banning others now. Some of the languague being used here by the very admins applying bans looks to be extremely POV. MickMacNee (talk) 12:30, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

As opposed to people throwing words like holocaust and witch hunt at users which is not POV at all. If the editors accused had answered ANY question asked of them rather than just insulting other editors i might give a damn, but keep insulting me and i won't. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 14:03, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Who insulted you? And is there an obligation to answer questions on outside-wiki activities when asked by an admin or face a ban? In other words, for whatever it is worth, I think MickMacNee has a valid point.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:14, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

"Who insulted you?" Not you or MickMacNee, as for an obligation to answer it goes to good faith, but given the accusations have been proven against Zeq it does not really matter anymore. Remember editing wikipedia is not a Human Right, you can be stopped from editing for any reason given that no other admin will unblock. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 14:38, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Even if an admin wanted to unblock, these restrictions are still being imposed due to the ArbCom ruling than allows uninvolved admins to do this. That ruling followed at least two attempts by ArbCom to be very very patient with these people. Even after that they try to pull a stunt like this. Good blocks and bans and good to see that AGF can't be gamed this badly after all. There is still hope. EconomicsGuy (talk) 14:46, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Looking at original emails from CAMERA

I was just looking at the original letter from CAMERA in the link aboveand fail to see the problem here. The opening letter from CAMERA says

Wikipedia, the hugely popular online encyclopedia site, can be edited by anyone. The idea behind Wikipedia is that if thousands of well-meaning and informed volunteers collaborate on an online encyclopedia, the result would be more accurate, up-to-date and inclusive than any print encyclopedia could possibly be. The bad news is this allows anti-Israel "editors" to introduce all kinds of bias and error into the many Israel-related articles, even the entry on CAMERA. The good news is, individual volunteers can work as "editors" to ensure that these articles are free of bias and error, and include necessary facts and context. Assuring accuracy and impartiality in Wikipedia is extremely important.

So the members of this group joined in order to be accurate, free of error and impartiality! That doesn't sound like undermining of wiki to me. The second letter goes on to say : "We know that your time is valuable, and very much appreciate your willingness to spend some of it in the quest for fairness and accuracy on Wikipedia." Oh the sin that one would look for fairness and accuracy on Wiki! Ban anyone who joined!

They go on to say: "It's very important to avoid framing our arguments in terms of the Mideast conflict, but rather to frame them in terms of Wikipedia's guidelines. In terms of wiki guidelines. Very subversive that !

A veteran Wikipedia editor on this list [apparently the detectives on wiki have decided that it is zeg or zag, and he is banned for a year for that-- Juanita] has suggested that, after setting up your account, avoid editing Israel-related articles for a short period of time; or in the very least, try to edit articles unrelated to Israel more than articles related to Israel. This isn't a bad idea, not only to avoid the appearance of being one-topic editors, but also because it would be easier to practice editing, and to learn about Wikipedia, far from the Mideast hornet's nest. You might practice by visiting and editing articles about other topics that interest you.

Very stealthy that! And of course we are all criminals for this and should all be banned! Neat spin. Juanita (talk) 05:00, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

The initial "CAMERA alert" is mostly okay, that's not the serious problem here. The problem is what comes next, in the following emails, like:

"In the issue of Israeli-palestine articles there is now additional restrictions that can be placed by an administrator AS LONG AS HE IS AN "uninvolved administrator". One or more of you who want to take this route should stay away from any Israel realted articles for month until they interact in a positive way with 100 wikipedia editors who would be used later to vote you as an administrator." (by Isra guy, p.6)

Operating with stealth and deceit, so you can pretend to be "uninvolved". This is what's wrong. Same for the "voters" encouraged to make 100 insignificant edits, so they can be called upon in a time of need. okedem (talk) 07:24, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

That was one person's comment, not the original spirit of the group. There were calls to ban everyone in the group because of this. It is unfair to ban everyone in the group for what another member said. Furthermore the interpretation as sinister is plain wrong. Juanita (talk) 14:36, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

And what about the coaching on how to get other editors banned by selective (and ostensibly fair) editing of hot-button articles? Pick the hot ones to get the opposition taken out, while others build up their creds on the sidelines? Isn't that just a little stealthy? Franamax (talk) 07:32, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Kinda like what the EI has quite successfully done in getting Zeq banned? They must be hugging themselves!--Wehwalt (talk) 15:00, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

In banning me, (and I have been banned) it demonstrates that editors can get others banned without those persons having to edit anything at all! I have been banned for my membership in the group and because apparently and because I presumably don't "get" the fact that wiki is not a battlefield! (Yet the Electronic Intifada group has been allowed to disrupt wiki-- they have just got a major coup). One of the editors on this page called supporters of Israel "terrorists" and criminal. Did this editor get to vote for my topic ban? I have never been accused of disruptive edits in the 3+ years I have made occasional edits on wiki. Now I have to defend my membership in outside private groups and am held to standards of others' private emails and my POV silenced. Juanita (talk) 14:51, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

"I have been banned for my membership in the group and because apparently and because I presumably don't "get" the fact that wiki is not a battlefield!"YES

"Yet the Electronic Intifada group has been allowed to disrupt wiki"NO they helped wikipedia by bringing to our attention a conspiracy to harm wikipedia.

"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.

"Did this editor get to vote for my topic ban?"YES but i doubt my vote was the swing vote, i believe topic bans are the best way to deal with POV warriors like you Dajudem. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 15:03, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Pushing that LIE? IF it hasn't been edited out it is still up there for all to see.Juanita (talk)

"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)

Right. Edited for clarity. And I am the one supposedly that doesn't get the fact that wiki isn't a battlefield! Juanita (talk) 15:28, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

And still you do not address any of the points raised, a piece of advice all you have got now is a IvP topic ban, walk away now. I don't want you thrown of wikipedia, keep insulting me and lieing about me and i'll actually work to achive that objective (without a conspiracy to help me). ^{(Hypnosadist)} 15:31, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh and read --> WP:AGF. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 15:33, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

You're calling me a liar and telling me to assume good faith? I do assume good faith, but you have done nothing but attack me since this thing began. You have certainly not assumed good faith on my part. After a while assumption gives way to reality.Juanita (talk) 06:37, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

If your goal at Wikipedia is to push your POV - particularly as part of a concerted effort with other like-minded individuals - then silence might well be a good outcome. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:56, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

That is your interpretation. I have denied it. I think the interpretation of CAMERA's involvement with this is total spin. Individual members of a group are not responsible for what others in a group may say. This concept seems to be over your heads.Juanita (talk) 15:28, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

So you would leave a member of Hamas or Nambla alone with your kids because they are not responsible for what others in a group may say? ^{(Hypnosadist)} 15:38, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

your POV talking. CAMERA is not Hamas or Nambla except to someone who is so biased that they can't tell the difference, like yourself apparently. Just another attack from you.Juanita (talk) 06:42, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Just pointing out that you do "collectively punish" people you don't like because of their group. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 07:00, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

It's a matter of loyalty. You can't be loyal to two groups when one of them is proposing, with your foreknowledge, to manipulate the other. You were under no obligation to alert Wikipedia. You were, as a Wikipedian, under an ethical obligation to notify those in the other group who proposed this incursion that it was improper, and personally put you in an intractable conflict-of-interest.Nishidani (talk) 15:02, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

No it isn't a matter of loyalty. Of course on can be loyal to 2 groups at once. Just as one can be loyal to the Democratic Party and to the U.S, government. The Democratic Party (as with the GOP) attempts to 'manipulate' the government ie to put its views to the test. It is NOT improper, nor a conflict of interest. The original CAMERA letter clearly stated that they intended to work within the wiki guidelines and not to undermine it. If wiki is set up the way it is and works, there is nothing improper that was said or done. If something improper was said or done on wiki, then the person who said or did something improper should be punished. I did nothing or said nothing improper. If you have to go out hunting outside wiki and ban people because you 'think' they participated in something somewhere else....well I just have to go back to my Big Brother, collective punishment, lack of privacy argument. It is ethically bankrupt. Juanita (talk) 19:44, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

You can be loyal to two groups if their interests are not in conflict. If they are in conflict, you have divided loyalties. It is commonplace, the stuff of many classic novels and much history. A political party is not in conflict with the institutions of the government it aspires to win election to. You cannot be a Democrat and a secret card-holding Republican (or vice-versa) at the same time (well you can, but then Mr Lieberman got outed). That, tellingly, is the analogy you miss. That you use the word 'manipulate' to describe how parties rule when in government only tells me that in your worldview, all parties, political or otherwise, 'manipulate', there is no such thing as truth, and who manipulates best, wins, might is right. I can see much more than this in your argument, which, while profoundly cynical in its ultrarealism about information, incongruously, elsewhere (as above, and below) is garlanded with remarks about 'neutrality' 'truth' and 'falsehood'. I suggest you do a course in elementary philosophic logic. It might help. All this said without prejudice to your claims to redress in the appropriate forum. Good luck, Nishidani (talk) 20:05, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

There is no conflict of interest between wiki and CAMERA, that is, between the truth and wanting to get the truth out. Check your dictionary for the word "manipulation" and see if you are not spinning the word. There is nothing inherently wrong with manipulation. I suggest a course in elementary English language. Of course I mean that only in the most respectful way. Juanita (talk) 06:49, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

FTW Nishidani. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 15:06, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) It ought to be understood that CAMERA simply doesn't have a normal, sane conception of what's "neutral" or "unbiased" when it comes to Israel. These are people who accuse Israel's leading newspaper of being run by antisemites. They would see POV-pushing as "neutrality" and "correcting bias." <eleland/talkedits> 07:48, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

CAMERA has its POV, but its detractors have yet to find any falsehoods that it has perpetrated. And if you are referring to Ha'aretz, considing Ha'aretz "Israel's leading newspaper" is in itself a POV, much like considering NYT's the U.S.'s "leading newspaper."Juanita (talk) 15:14, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Lending its offices, support and auspices to a group intent on undermining another source of information with which it competes constitutes the 'perpetration' of a falsehood. Not perhaps in terms of the material to be shuffled into wiki, but in terms of the technique of deception used to secure that information in wiki. Even Blind Freddy and his canine cobber can see that. It stands out like the proverbial pooch's nuts.Nishidani (talk) 15:23, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

"a group intent on undermining another source of information with which it competes" is just plain false, and is your personal POV. It is just wrong. CAMERA doesn't compete with wiki. It only wants it to be accurate. Check CAMERA out yourself and see if you can find actual errors in the information they present. Read the original letter again. Suggesting that people edit other things of interest first so that they don't get discouraged by the fray and passions of the Israel/Palestinian conflict is a very good idea for beginning editors. Look what has happened to me. I was quietly & occasionally editing until suddenly I was thrown into the middle of this fray and now am banned. It might be interesting to see if there is a pattern to the bannings. Juanita (talk) 19:53, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay. MY POV is false, and your's is correct/true/authentic. So there is no point in arguing. I recognize the style. Good evening.Nishidani (talk) 20:05, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia ethos

Hi,
I don't think the way this "matter" is discussed here complies with wikipedia ethos. We are not a tribunal but we are the editors of a free encyclopaedia. We have elected some of us to take care of such issues. I think what they are accused of is "grave enough" so that an ArbCom should discuss this. The way all this is discussed here make me think of some sort of "public lynching", which is extremally disappointing.
More, we should be given more time to think about all this and also think about how potentially avoiding such "stealth" campaigns in the future.
Ceedjee (talk) 06:32, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Banning people for merely what they say off-wiki, with no evidence of them having DONE anything against-policy on wiki (aside from being guilty of poor editing - sorry Zeq), is, dare I say, a heap of McCarthyite bullshit. It encourages witch hunts. I'm sure we all remember the infamous Rama's Arrow case, in which Rama indef'd three users in good standing because of some emails that could have been interpreted as off-wiki collaboration.

The potential for gross misuse of this technique is breathtaking. Let's say I'm a participant in an edit war between people who hate Wheaties and people who love Wheaties. Let's say I hate Wheaties and want to get User A, who loves Wheaties, banned. I create a double-agent account, with email enabled, that claims to love Wheaties. I then befriend user A over email, and steer a thread of conversation into something that could be interpreted as meatpuppetry. Assemble the Un-Wiki Activities Committee via ANI, and voila, a ban is born. - Merzbow (talk) 06:55, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

True, potential for abuse exists and we must be careful to weight the evidence and make sound judgments accordingly. I believe that is what is being done here. No action has been taken lightly without good, solid evidence, including admission by perpetrators themselves. They are not even claiming innocent, simply, claiming ignorance that it constitutes anything wrong (which means major denial and blinders). For the record I oppose "witch hunts" unless there are real witches, and in this case there is! We found a few, and there are 47 to go!Giovanni33 (talk) 07:12, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't aware that Zeq has admitted any coordinated actions on Wikipedia on his part, or even the attempt to do such... - Merzbow (talk) 07:31, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I think he just refused to answer, but then it was discovered that not just his name, not just his writing style, not just his edits, but also his e-mail address matched. That seems to be rather solid evidence when taken in sum. And, I don't believe he denies it, either.Giovanni33 (talk) 07:34, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Giovanni33, your comment simply shows that you don't understand the idea of a "witch hunt". Witch hunters always think there are real witches.

Merzbow, the issue here is meatpuppets. Wikipedia policy prohibits this. It's pretty obvious that this was happening in this case. Much care should be taken in identifying the individuals involved - but there really can't be any question that this is happening. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:37, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, that is not always true. Sure, there are "true believers" but witch hunts are organized for political motives and involves manipulation, deception, and fabrication of an "enemy" that is targeted for prosecution; the goal is not "truth"---that is why its characterized by very little regard to actual guilt or innocence. This why I say this is not such a thing in any way. We are carefully looking at the evidence and acting accordingly, in a reasonable manner. There is no panic, hysteria, or mob mentality here. Logical deduction coupled with factual evidence prevail. The problem is not "invented" or fabricated. Its real. Hence no "witch hunt."Giovanni33 (talk) 07:52, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

No, many witch-hunts are performed by people who really believe they are acting for the common good. When someone can actually claim: "I think the fact that the suggested renaming came up three days after the e-mails were exchanged is pretty damning evidence that he's on the list" (User:Number_57, justifying User:Future Perfect at Sunrise's accusation that User:Screen stalker is the infamous Gilead - see section "New evidence surfaces") - we should be worried. Pretending such a coincidence is evidence for anything is one of the prime characteristics of a witch-hunt. okedem (talk) 08:02, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you should try reading my comments a bit more thoroughly before replying to them - I didn't say that he is the infamous Gilead. What I said was "I think the fact that the suggested renaming came up three days after the e-mails were exchanged is pretty damning evidence that he's on the list". And I think being on the list is enough to merit sanctions. пﮟოьεԻ 57 08:15, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I said you were justifying Fut. Perf.'s accusation, not making it yourself. And if you call that "pretty damning evidence that he's on the list", you have a very strange idea of what "damning evidence" is (coincidental correlations aren't that). The result of these accusation will be that people will fear editing these article, even with the utmost care, as Screen stalker did, lest such charges be brought against them. okedem (talk) 08:20, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Do you really think the timing of the e-mail and then the suggestion for a move 3 days later is a coincidence? пﮟოьεԻ 57 08:27, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

For lack of any evidence to the contrary - yes, I do. If you want to look for correlations, you'll find them, regardless of actual cause and effect. Especially when considering a single case, and not even a possible pattern. As Screen Stalker acted in an exemplary fashion in this matter, this accusation is a serious insult, that he does not deserve. okedem (talk) 08:31, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

So we have wild accusations of a giant conspirrrracy against Wikidom, and the only evidence so-far of any misbehavior on the encyclopedia itself is something to do with an article renaming? Please. Are we so clueless as to pretend we are in grave danger because an alleged email to an alleged circle of neer-do-wells possibly turned up some days before somebody proposed an article be renamed? Pre-crime, indeed... - Merzbow (talk) 08:53, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Tend to agree with Merzbow. Literally, the email simply seeks to get people who are presumably sympathetic to CAMERA's point of view to become WP editors and administrators. There is no suggestion that there will be someone acting as puppet master. Maybe that was the intent, maybe it wasn't, we don't know. I don't see that it fits the actual definition of meatpuppet that I see on the pages. I suggest that had this come in any context but the Arab Israeli conflict, it would not be being dealt with the same way. What if it was say, a noted biochemist complaining that crap is being posted in the subject articles and urging people to become editors to keep the information accurate and neutral? Or a band web site complaining about emo kids editing its article and asking members of the street team to get involved in WP and keep an eye on the article? I think people need to put out the torches, put down the spears, and walk quietly back to the village.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:42, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Read the emails Wehwalt, there is laid out a plan to get people to Admin through rigged votes and then those admins to abuse their powers to push Camera's agenda. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 05:55, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I must say that I do not understand why there is not AGF with regard to my edit. I have contributed to this article many times before, especially recently.

This really is on a fast slippery slope to a full-fledged witch hunt. I actually got this message from Hypnosadist:

Should you be part of this group i have some advice for you, admit it and show that you understand why many wikipedians are very pissed off at this and accept a topic ban on IvP articles.

Are we basically re-enacting The Crucible? Not that I don't like John Proctor or anything, but I don't want to share his fate. If we take this analogy maybe a little too far, would Zeq be Giles? Don't get me wrong: I do understand why editors are angry at isra-wiki. But being upset is no reason to find scapegoats. On a broader note, I think this wikicrisis is an interesting case study. It shows us how fast people are willing to let go of privacy, well-established rights, and, frankly, common sense. This reminds me exactly of the kind of stuff that happened to American Muslims after September 11th. Do you know how shameful it is to be required to register yourself because you are Muslim? To have people assume you are a terrorist because of your accent and your skin color?

It seems to me that every time one of these crises comes up, people overreact to it entirely. Years later, the next generation condemns them for it: the Salem witch trials, the Holocaust (was just a response to Jewish "aggression"), Japanese internment, McCarthyism, post-9/11 Islamophobia. I guess we never learn. Screen stalker (talk) 13:17, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I offered you some advice feel free not to follow it. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 13:48, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I tend to agree, though I think you are being dramatic a couple of places there. I understand why they are upset too, it sounds like Israwiki is going to send in the marching morons to march in lockstep, be admins, and turn wikipedia into something it shouldn't be. But that is not what it says; it is simply what people assume the intention was. I personally believe that if anyone put in the time, effort, and commitment it requires to become an admin, then they will be a part of the wiki culture, even if it is in spite of themselves, and won't be willing to go along with the conspiracy. But I don't think that was what was intended. I think it was "We need more people sympathetic to our point of view to become editors and administrators." But right now, we seem to be willing to hand out bans on suspicion of receiving an email.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:27, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I've been around Israel-related articles for long enough to see that POV pushing is absolutely rampant and very very damaging to the project. I can think of only two WP:Israel editors who edit conflict-related articles and actually stick to NPOV. Now we have a chance to seriously clamp down on editors who are attempting to pervert wikiprocesses for their own person POV. Being on the list, and not exposing it (as even if it wasn't clear that it was a POV pushing plan when they joined, it must have become so once Zeq's e-mails started circulating) to the community once they realised what it was, is complicity to POV pushing IMO. пﮟოьεԻ 57 13:35, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Then why not propose a ban on all but one of the WP:Israel editors, as well as the other POV pushers? Surely POV pushing is worse than complicity to POV pushing.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:38, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I have done several times, and even produced a great whack of evidence at a recent RfAr, but unfortunately other admins didn't seem interested... пﮟოьεԻ 57 13:40, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

The emails also strongly allude to the Allegations of Israeli apartheid article, which was some nasty, dirty business by one side of the editing camp to get that deleted by making all the other Allegations of... articles, and a very nasty Arbcom. I'd never heard of this Camera group before, but based on this they're a classic troll organization like this Wikipedia Review or Encyclopedia Dramatica as far as we're concerned: disruptive troublemakers. We don't need organized camps from one religion coming in and astroturfing. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 13:29, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

No, we need intelligent people who realise when they're being used by either side of a POV. MickMacNee (talk) 13:45, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

And can do a simple thing like record a list of sanctions without including their own POV terms. MickMacNee (talk) 13:47, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

This whole thing is bullshit

Your so-called "POV-pushers" are encouraging people to make good edits and be legitimate? Having a POV doesn't make you a bad editor. Pushing that POV does. But just because you hold a certain set of beliefs doesn't mean you can't discuss them rationally. Ziggy Sawdust 07:15, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Of course, everyone has a POV, and we can still work for accurate and NPOV representation. That's not the issue. Please see my comment above, in the section titled "Looking at original emails from CAMERA". okedem (talk) 07:26, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree that is not the issue either, but it is part of the picture, and looking at their edits I see a clear case of SPA Pov pushing.Giovanni33 (talk) 07:36, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Ziggy, is encouraging people to come here and edit tendentiously in a manner to try to get opposing editors sanctioned "good" and "legitimate"? Is encouraging people to act nice, stay away from I-P articles, then try to become and admin for the purposes of approaching I-P articles as an"uninvolved admin "good" and "legitimate" ? Zeq and the other meatpuppets aren't being tossed out on their backsides because of their point of view; they are being tossed for their actions. Tarc (talk) 13:38, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

The Nature of Evidence

Wikipedia editors and administrators should take a lesson on how these POV pushers think about evidence. When presented with evidence in the form of email exchanges, they hysterically claim it is fabricated, inconclusive or part of a conspiracy to smear them. They keep exclaiming that there is no evidence, "where's the evidence?" The evidence is in PDFs of email. It's not a photograph of Zeq, Gni, or Dajudem typing the emails from a smoky room, but the community apparently finds this evidence generally credible. Whenever these editors are cornered on anything, they simply change the subject. This is simply a game for them.

"Evidence" is the heart of this problem, though. The allegation is that these editors wanted to insert bad, shallow, and non-evidence into otherwise highly credible and well-researched articles. If they can't deal with this very pertinent evidence about their own deeds, how can Wikipedia readers trust them with evidence on the scholarly issues they want to address? Bangpound (talk) 12:43, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

The ridiculous point being made here is that people can't spot the addition of "bad, shallow, and non-evidence into otherwise highly credible and well-researched articles" a mile off. Even spotting 'uninvolved sleeper admins' wouldn't be that hard given a long enough audit trail, and no change on wikipedia is irreversible. The way this issue has been treated has been a laughable display of panic and witchhunting over common sense and just cause, and I sincerely doubt anyone's actions here has actually deterred anyone who wants to conduct this covert campaign, and has probably tipped the waverers into their arms aswell. I highly doubt anyone could even pull something like this of anyway, not to any significant degree, the idea is just laughable if you apply common sense and not hysteria. MickMacNee (talk) 12:53, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

How many Hasbara Fellows have been identified, if it's so easy to spot this sort of stuff? 66.82.9.85 (talk) 13:34, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

The problem is not so much the poor material that they wished to insert into articles. As a community, we are able to deal with behaviour like this. It's tedious, but manageable. But the correspondence also shows that they were attempting to build up an "army" (their term) of deceptive infiltrators in order to take part in deletion votes, appoint admins, and gang up to entrap other editors who they wanted to remove from Wikipedia. This is not merely bad faith; it was a deliberate conspiracy -- and I use the term intentionally -- to subvert Wikipedia. That is the behaviour which we cannot tolerate, and which has to be countered without compromise. RolandR (talk) 12:56, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Conspiracy is a serious charge, requiring a high degree of evidence. That presented here against zeq has been poorly presented and discussed, per my above posts, and doesn't square with the lofty stance you describe above. The steam roller is in full swing, without any evidence that the 'army' has managed anything yet. You might think that stops people, I think it will clearly have the reverse effect, and only harden them, and make them more skilfull. And this whole 'leak' business was a blatant conspiracy as well, wiki is dancing to the tune of external forces here whichever way you look at it. MickMacNee (talk) 13:08, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

But instead of countering it, you spend the time bickering over who to ban, for how long.

I can't believe I have to say this again, but here goes - fine, this operation was exposed. Anyone running a similar operation, with a bit of cunning (not using an open mailing list, for instance), will not be caught. Anyone, including government agencies, corporations, and pressure groups of all sorts, can run such operations (with varying degree of success).

Now, I know discussing bans makes everyone feel productive, but it really isn't. It's not deterring anyone, and it's helplessly naive.

Think about how to prevent damage from such operations, taking their existence for granted. Now, I have to say I'm not well versed in the dynamics of votes and adminships here (most of my activity is in the Hebrew Wiki), but I'm sure steps can be taken to lower the risk, and I'm sure you, as experienced admins, can think of some.

Here's one for you - don't just let any "uninvolved admin" close a vote (like an AfD) - why not try to randomize this duty? Every vote will be assigned a random active admin to supervise and determine consensus. Any other system would also serve to prevent such "sleeper admins" from determining outcomes. okedem (talk) 13:18, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

(ec) These guys are not the first to try this, and won't be the last. "Panic"? No. Of course, their grandiose plans about grooming a whole army of sleeper admins is pretty unrealistic. It tells us more about their self-delusive mindset than about the real danger to the project. But still, the amount of actual on-wiki disruption such teams create can be enormous. This one was only just starting up, so we didn't yet see what they would have been up to. I've seen other such groups when they were in full swing, and believe me, it was not pretty. Most of the time, it boils down to coordinated hunting and harassing of opposing editors, and it's here were such groups can actually be very very effective, and very very disruptive. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:12, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment 1: only person using the word "army" is zeqzeq2. Is there any "army" mention by anyone else that I've missed?

Comment 2: Fut.Perf., I can't recall you taking a Hardline approach earlier this year to Harassment/Disruption by people who have participated in this "coordinated hunting and harassing of opposing editors" activity you mention.

Comment 3: Whoever zeqzeq2 is, he should certainly be topic banned but I find it concerning that involved, non neutral admins are taking the liberty to "endorse" this ban suggestion.

Comment 4: I'm still followed by a number of editors who are trying to bully me off articles and Eleland still continues his user directed commentaries... Not that a person who replaces CAMERA links with electronicintifada.net is anything to worry about.

Cordially, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 13:28, 23 April 2008 (UTC) clarify Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 13:34, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

#1, why does that matter who used what word? If certain person's actions show that they are planning to act or are already acting in an "army"-like manner, then that should be sufficient. #2, it looks like you lost that case and received a warning. Why beat a dead horse again? #3 If you feel a topic ban is warranted, then perhaps you can add your support above. To balance off the "involved, non neutral admins". #4. I would hope/expect that as a result of all this, CAMERA is barred from use in any article as a reliable source. Perhaps even blacklisted outright if need be. Tarc (talk) 13:53, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Tarc,

1. Can I quote you in the future about the "army"-like manner when I raise a claim against some of the "uninvolved" people participating on this thread?
2. It would seem that you are justifying 'non neutral' editors making administrative decisions for the community (Yes, you and I are among them), that is EXTREMELY disconcerting.
3. My comment above was obviously not referred to you, but rather to neutral admins who might review the thread and find actual logic in it, such as Fut.Perf. taking a hardliner approach in one instance (this one) and rejecting evidence while threatening the person presenting it in another. (See Comment 2 above)

p.s. I'm sure he appreciates you taking a bullet for him.

Cordially, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 14:41, 23 April 2008 (UTC) clarify. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 14:44, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

As a sanction against CAMERA, or because its material fails WP:RS? If the former, I question whether that is the way to build an encyclopedia; if the latter, it's not good enough anyway.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:59, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

When a company, otherwise known for the quality of its products, is found to have rigged a market, it normally suffers sanctions. When a company deliberately employs deception, stealth and tampering to change the quality of one of its competitor's products, the penalties imposed can often drive it to the wall. CAMERA provides information, as does Wiki. CAMERA tried to infiltrate Wiki's production and distribution line in order to retail its own product under a Wiki label. This is a metaphor, and with metaphors, there are no legal sanctions. But the proposal to define CAMERA as an Unreliable Source for Wikipedia would constitute at least an exemplary admonition to it, and any other lobby, that any endeavour to interfere with the free market play of ideas (Justice Wendell Holmes 1919), any cartelisation of information, especially one conducted in secret, by cabal, will be met with by strong retalitatory sanctions of a symbolic kind. Nishidani (talk) 14:42, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

In launching this attack on wikipedia Camera has shown its Bias (given that it wasn't obvious), its claerly an extremeist source. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 14:27, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

See Comment 1 above. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 14:29, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

To me, using "clearly" is no substitute for reasoning. So now a website which has nothing to do with wikipedia is per se extremist because of proposed actions regarding wikipedia! I would suggest that Camera be considered an unreliable source insofar as the materials are about wikipedia; any materials about the I-P conflict to be judged on their own merits.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:32, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) I think the most damning fact about all of this comes in the second set of e-mails which EI released. When I first heard Zeq expounding on his admin-infiltration plan, it wasn't clear that this thinking represented the strategy of the CAMERA clique as a whole. However, in the 3/25 Gilead Ini e-mail, he has clearly incorporated Zeq's thinking into his directions to the whole group. Granted, I would like to have the full archive of these list discussions, to make sure everything is in context. But it's clear that, whil Ini spoke with more polish and subtelty, he basically endorsed Zeq's "army" strategy. <eleland/talkedits> 15:02, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Very much so, and this was a major consideration in my proposal above to ban Gni. -- ChrisO (talk) 15:10, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I have acquired what I believe to be an almost complete mbox archive of the Isra-pedia group. I am going to run mhonarc on it later today and post a link to the archive, so it can be browsed by thread. There are 137 messages in the archive. Thanks for your patience. Bangpound (talk) 15:35, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

The Arbitration Committee may have extreme interest in this, but it would be best for the community to investigate so that this has maximum transparency. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 15:40, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Please do nothing that would amount to outing real-world identities. We are not interested in those, and I'd have to ban you too if you did. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:39, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Linking to an offsite archive wouldn't be this, though. No more than linking to a Yahoo or Google group, or Wikien-l. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 15:40, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Using an off-wiki site to out identities from correspondence that was supposed to be private, designed for use on Wikipedia? Very much so. I'd immediately indef-block him. He should at least remove real names, identifiable e-mail addresses and stuff, or just mail it to the Arbcom. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:44, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

...then why are we linking all over to the already leaked emails that listed Gilead, Judith and Zeq, but not the rest? Lawrence Cohen § t/e 15:46, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Arb com should deal with this in private. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 15:48, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Certainly not; the information is not good-faith communications by Wikipedia editors; its concerted attacks and trolling. If someone's "good name" gets tarnished by taking part in this, be they admin or editor or Arbiter or ex-Arbiter, tough. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 15:51, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

To L.C.: Well, with the stuff EI already published, the cat is out of the bag, we can't change that. I'd feel more at ease if they had removed some identifying stuff from that too, but it's not our decision. But if a Wikipedia editor does it again now, with possibly more material implicating more people, that's a different matter. I'm all for using the material as much as we can for linking Wikipedia accounts to mailing list accounts, but everything that goes beyond that, into real-life identies, ought to be protected. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:53, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with FP, even those who attack wikipedia do need their real life identities protecting as the IvP conflict produces a lot of BadPeopleTM. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 16:05, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

The full uncensored exchange will no doubt provide for some interesting reading. Based on the second set of links provided by Eleland, I do have some concerns regarding the involvement of User:Screen stalker and User:Judadem. I left a message at Screen stalker's talk page regarding whether or not he uses the email [email protected], since someone using that email suggested that he would re-open a renaming debate at 2006 Lebanon war on 9 April, and Screen stalker did just that on April 13. Judadem supported the renaming, alongside the now-sanctioned User:Gni, and the newness of his account and his involvement on another page flagged by the project, Deir Yassin massacre, seem indicative of his involvement. Note that I am not advocating blocks or bans for these users, since I am wary of using material published outside Wikipedia to take action against users in this domain. Also, they may simply morph into new forms. Perhaps it would be best to simply warn them of the I-P arb comm case, stress the importance of NPOV and simply note that meat-puppetry and tag-team editing are not allowed. More eyes checking in of all the pages cited and the users implicated may be the best way to go. Tiamut^talk 15:54, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Since part of the strategy the emails discussed was the entrapment of existing editors, perceived by the group to have a pro-Palestinian agenda, it would be particularly useful to know whether the full correspondence discussed this in any detail, and whether they discussed, or attempted to establish, the real identities of editors they opposed. RolandR (talk) 15:59, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, given the McCarthyite orientation of CAMERA, and the well-documented cyber-harassment campaigns against anti-Zionist activists in the past ([37] [38]) the possibility is pretty worrisome. I, for one, have taken no particular measures to protect my IRL identity, and this account can be traced to my real name without a huge effort. I know you're already targeted by a crazy, Roland. <eleland/talkedits> 16:05, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, I know that Zeq has been involved in "outing" at least three different Wikipedia editors/admins who have different opinions from his own. Details here. Regards, Huldra (talk) 17:01, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Review of e-mails

Let me suggest a compromise. Bangpound, please send your link to myself, Future Perfect and Moreschi so that we can review the e-mails. The three of us are administrators with long experience of nationalist conflicts and nearly nine years' worth of editing experience between us. We can keep confidential any personally identifying information in the e-mails, but all three of us are empowered to act on any findings that we make. It would have the further advantage of avoiding any witch-hunting in this rather heated discussion. -- ChrisO (talk) 16:15, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Some people might be more comfortable if that went to Arbcom right away, but if somebody should send me such material, of course I promise I'll keep it confidential, along these lines. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:32, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I will not post the email archives then. I need to review everyone's positions and the rules before I decide what I should do. Bangpound (talk) 16:39, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I have sent the full archive to ChrisO, Future Perfect and Moreschi as advised by FT2. I will wait for their feedback before taking action to send it to ArbCom or release the messages to the rest of the world. It only seems right that personal information be scrubbed before letting everyone have a look. Bangpound (talk) 19:32, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I understand the concerns behind this desire to have evidence about CAMERA reviewed as in camera evidence (irony of ironies), but a principle is at stake here. I don't suppose anyone cares about specific names and email addresses, but the hoi polloi who have to edit in this very difficult area should not be deprived of the actual content, as opposed to the names of those who are responsible for the ideas. While I am perfectly happy, for one, to delegate the details about who said what to a bureaucracy, the idea that I be deprived of the chance of reviewing what was said, on purely bureaucratic discretionary grounds, is repugnant, esp. since that is all background hands-on editors will need in the future if they are to read the flow of edits from possibly contaminated sources accurately. Surely Bangpound can edit out the email names and handles, and just give us the pure data? To keep this reserved only plays into the 'paranoid' strain of many, leading to false conjectures, and endless nagging suspicions ungrounded in the factual record, if it is withheld. Nishidani (talk) 16:55, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I was asked to comment here as a member of the Arbitration Committee, specifically about the emails.

In normal circumstances we can deal with warring on articles, by means of usual editor and administrator attention. It's not always easy, but it's actually very hard to do something like that when the community knows about it. We take great respect of people's real-life identity and personal information, even serious vandals and banned users who leave we will remove some material from the wiki. Our usual solution for most problems is usually to seek more (or more experienced) eyeballs to help. (If there are possibly privacy-sensitive issues then ArbCom is usually best to ask.)

In this case though, the allegation is of a large scale and insidious conspiracy. The evidence for that needs to be examined, but we still don't need to publicize personal information to do so (or if unavoidable we can look at how to minimize any of it). Even though it might help us to have all the perosnal information published, we still try to avoid it or minimize it, according to our site privacy policy. Obviously ArbCom, who deal with privacy related issues all the time, will want to see a copy privately (please email any individual arbitrator), and you have three admins who I can confirm are fair choices for the task here, if you prefer as well. Your material will get a fair review and it will be taken seriously. I think that's what counts.

What I'd do if I were you, is ask those people - either the three adminsitrators who have volunteered, or ArbCom - to review it, and give their advice on a fair balance of information and privacy, or advice on what parts should be publicized (a sample, all of it, some bits redacted or summarized, etc). That way other users know it was done honestly and without bias too, and you have aimed at doing what's right. The rest will be handled at Arbitration (if accepted), otherwise ask if you need to.

If you need to ask anything my talk page is here.

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 17:07, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Minimum: articles and usernames please

At an absolute minimum, we need public knowledge of what articles have been targeted, and (after the material has been submitted to both the AC and non-AC admins) the usernames involved, if known, so that they can be addressed at the RFAR if it's accepted. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 17:13, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

the archive

The archive is in the hands of admins User:Moreschi, User:ChrisO, User:Future Perfect at Sunrise. I will leave it with them to exercise their judgment using the evidence to do what's best for Wikipedia. If they feel the need to reproduce the material for greater scrutiny, they will need to be responsible for scrubbing personal details. For the record, the mbox file I shared has 137 messages with full mail headers, including domain key signatures and received headers. The mbox archive includes those messages already published. I have nothing else to add to this discussion, so I'm stepping away. Bangpound (talk) 21:45, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd suggest sending the entire archive, unedited, in the raw form in which it was collected, to Wikileaks. This is exactly what they're there for. --John Nagle (talk) 22:00, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

That's not going to happen. Sorry. Most of it is quite banal anyway. Bangpound (talk) 01:06, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

RFAR filed

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)

Unless any of the parties sanctioned wish to challenge their sanction, what's the dispute? --John Nagle (talk) 16:29, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

The AC also does clarifications, and at least two people here have indicated they would RFAR if sanctions were filed. There's also the question of sanctions based on off-Wiki evidence. Read my statement, there are four key questions there that the AC is perfectly suited to address (assuming they don't wimp out of it, or to quote Fred: WIMPY WIMPY). Lawrence Cohen § t/e 16:32, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

The necessity for further sanctions against yet other accounts, to be determined on the basis of that potentially sensitive e-mail material? Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:33, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Maybe, maybe not. What if we find that an admin or two were key players in this? Note that the mails mention Allegations of Israeli apartheid, a major warzone involving multiple admins. This is why I filed. NPOV is under constant attack and we need to draw a line in the sand: this far, no further. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 16:36, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Though the evidence looks strong, and two of those sanctioned appear to confirm that the EI emails are indeed copies of a real conversation in which they were involved, one mulling the idea of ringing in new editors to stack votes and alter the neutrality of administrative procedures, the severity of the penalties, and the gravity of the problem posed, justifies a re-examination in more formal proceedings, where they may defend themselves, and the decisions be reviewed. The principle is a democracy defends itself, when its principles are subverted, or appear to be under stealthy challenge, by formal measures that guarantee the rights of its ostensible or imputed subverters. Wiki should not follow recent trends in politics, but stick stubbornly to the old, almost forgotten liberal tradition. I disagree with Avruch's analysis below, but I concur in his judgement that review is sensible, and recourse by those now suspended enabled. Nishidani (talk) 16:39, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

It looks like this effort was nipped in the bud, before the CAMERA effort really got going. I haven't seen any new editors doing anything much on any of the Israel-related articles on my watch list. As one arbitrator has noted, "no diffs, no case". We need to watch for unusual group editing behavior in future, but for now, we can probably relax for a while and do other things. (If you're bored, help out with RC patrol; it's way behind.) --John Nagle (talk) 05:07, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, then, you wouldn't, would you, under Camera's proposal? The whole idea was to build up edits in non I-P conflict related articles and then be "uninvolved" editors/admins . . . I don't think the proposal was anything other than blowing off steam, but be afraid, be very afraid: they already walk among us (loud, dramatic music).--Wehwalt (talk) 05:12, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Sanctions list

• Gni (talk · contribs) indefinitely banned; user is listed above Gilead Ini, leader of subversive/troll organization from CAMERA.
• Zeq (talk · contribs) banned 1 year by Moreschi, indefinite ban from Arab-Israeli conflict topics.
• Dajudem (talk · contribs) banned 1 year from Arab-Israeli conflict topics.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Lawrence Cohen (talk • contribs)

I'll say again that I think the meager efforts of amateur sleuths above to connect editors to e-mail addresses, and to ban individuals because of an unproven association with an activist group like CAMERA, is disturbing and problematic. I'm as interested as anyone in keeping the Israel-Palestinian conflict articles neutral, but banning editors from one POV based on the "outing" efforts of an outside group and editors from the other POV doesn't seem to be the way to go about it. I'm sure that the efforts above represent a sincere and zealous effort to protect Wikipedia, but I think it is being done the wrong way. I invite anyone sanctioned on this page (now and as the hunt for perpetrators proceeds) to appeal their restrictions to the Arbitration Committee. Avruch ^T 15:39, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Given one admin above has just said he would indef-ban anyone who posted leaked emails, when everyone is already linking all over to leaked mails that outed at least three editors, I think we're about 2 hours from RFAR now. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 15:48, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I share Avruch's mind (as written before).

This is nobody's role but an ArbCom's to take care of this.

Ceedjee (talk) 16:03, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure but if I am not mistaken it has already been arbitrated (and rejected). I missed getting my 2cents in, but if anyone is interested I tried to do so at my talk section Juanita (talk) 05:43, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps some scrutiny should be given to people on the other side of the Israel-Palestine conflict who have been banned recently after coordinated hectoring from people on the CAMERA-conspiracy side. I mean, as long as we're worried about editors from just one side of a POV conflict having been banned ... Tegwarrior (talk) 19:46, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Are you saying that I was involved in coordinated hectoring? I think not! Of course I still got the boot, thanks very much. I am a victim of collective punishment apparently. Hey, but don't 'worry' about me. Worry about those on your side of the issue, eh? Juanita (talk) 05:43, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

"I am a victim of collective punishment apparently" Keep it up and you will get the boot, you've been given the small restriction of a topic ban, hence why you can post here. You can still edit over 95% of english wikipedia, get over you persecution complex and either edit the encyclopedia or leave, I don't care which. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 05:50, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Everybody should keep cool.

What happens is that editors have apparently not behaved properly (and apparences are really against them and what can be read is not anecdotical!). But they are in front of a "public lynching" where it is not possible to hear their point of view on these issues and some of them have already been executed in the street after a short debate. The other issue is that it arose outside wp and they were caught before they could proceed in wp. The last point is that they were denounced by a group that do not behave a better way concerning wp's pillar's principles in real life (I refer to EI website)

I would prefer an ArbCom ask for a infine ban rather than some here decide of 1 year or more ban. Additionnaly, I would add nobody had the power to ban undefinitely Gni (former ArbCom gave powers of ban limited to 1 year).

I also think there are too many involved people who conducted the debates here above. That is not sane at all !

I would finaly point out that I am myself extremelly involved given the only articles where I contribute are those targeted by these alleged(?) stealth group and that I quarrelled much with eg Zeq very much but what happens on these articles and here too is WP:BATTLEGROUND from my point of view.

Ceedjee (talk) 06:38, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Edit warring over template

By analogy to Template:Notpropaganda I created Template:WikiLobby and added it to articles specifically discussed in the e-mails as targets. It's now being edit-warred over on the basis of being a "conspiracy theory." Thoughts? <eleland/talkedits> 17:06, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

If you can produce evidence that the "lobbying campaign" that was allegedly discussed actually produced any edits on-Wiki, then the mass article tagging might be useful. Otherwise, it's just inflaming the panic. - Merzbow (talk) 18:08, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

How is alerting other editors to the fact that these pages were listed by a Wikilobbying effort as targets of their campaign, "inflaming the panic"? Awareness of the background of that campaign and extra eyes are exactly what we need to protect those pages from future disruption. Tiamut^talk 18:15, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

And please note that the main point of that template is to DISCOURAGE people from bringing the "CAMERA LOBBY ZOMG!" conversations to individual article talk pages. It advises, "all editors are reminded that assuming good faith is an important policy. If you suspect that a fellow editor has been directed by this campaign, please remember that this is page is for discussing changes to the article, and not an appropriate place to air such suspicions." <eleland/talkedits> 20:35, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

That template seems ok to me. Who has been trying to remove it from articles? Cla68 (talk) 07:37, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Mainly GHcool, with edit summaries of "removed conspiracy mongering" and "rv - WP:PROVEIT". We also have a TfD nomination by MickMacNee, so yea, there's been an effort made to squash it. Tarc (talk) 11:31, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Does this discussion at ANI have anything to do with this?

Just came across this on the main ANI page, which looks like it involves the same circle of articles. Can someone clarify/confirm this? Thanks, D.M.N. (talk) 18:53, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

On a slightly unrelated note some sites have picked this up. I find this incredibly long article very interesting in this campaign. D.M.N. (talk) 19:17, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

minimal degree of rationality

1. We at Wikipedia are not going to solve the problems in the region. We are going to provide verifiable information from a NPOV perspective. To do this, we must incorporate the views of those who have a very strong perspective, 2. This can best be done by editors who are neutral in their own views, but knowledgeable about the subject. There are certainly thousands of people at WP who are neutral in their own views, but I doubt that many of them are interested in editing in the subject. So we need to work with with those editors who can be reasonably observant of the conventions we have for making a NPOV article. 3. This can best be maintained by people who care primarily for the principles of Wikipedia, but not about the subject, and are willing to help maintain standards of objectivity. I think we have these. 4. Tendentious editing on widely watched articles can be dealt with by existing methods, even when it comes from an organized pressure group. Such groups exist on this and other subjects, and we need to deal with them. We can deal with them best by paying attention to what they edit. The need to remove puppets is a way to simplify this, but not the basic method. 5. Attempts to subvert the Wikipedia process is much harder to deal with, especially if sophisticated. They also pose much more of a threat to the project. Admins are not necessarily neutral on all topics, nor do they always act neutrally. We can best deal with this by a greater sensitivity to non-neutral behavior, and a clear understanding that repeated admin involvement in articles of personal editing interest, or a continuing effort to maintain a particular point of view by administrative actions, will lead to desysop. 6. The possibility of sleeper or puppet admins is a real one, and this group will not have been the first people to recognize it. We need to consider ways of preventing it. To me, the obvious way is real or verifiable names, either open or disclosed to a suitable group. People who feel that they cannot safely do this can confine themselves to editing. DGG (talk) 20:46, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

There's one simple, practical interim solution. On very difficult articles, ask both 'sides' to write their versions ('pro-Israel'/'pro-Palestine') according to the strictest standards of Wiki neutrality (i.e. oblige each side to do full justice to the other side's claims, but competitively). I think it would train a lot of POV-warriors out of bad habits, avoid useless edit-warring because each would have their 'own' page provisionally, and editors on one side would have to control the baser instincts of those among them who keep trying to egg the pud unilaterally. Once two versions were done, mediation, choice between the two, or conflation. Whatever the result, it would stop an enormous mother lode of factitious and absurd nitpicking, and the urge to achieve FA status between two competing groups would strongly curb the vices that infest the area. This could be done, I think, very rapidly, to consensus-level on an article like the otherwise much-travailled Mohammad Amin al-Husayni article, since what has held up work there is only Zeq's conviction that Husayni was a Nazi before he'd ever heard of Hitler, whereas virtually all concur, he became one two decades later Nishidani (talk) 21:12, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Note that such a method of resolving content disputes demands that involved editors should somehow identify with one of two "sides" on an issue, which I think is not at all desirable, as it polarizes opposing views even further. Hopefully it's possible to be knowledgeable about such contentious topics without sitting on one side or the other. Bikasuishin (talk) 21:31, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

As a practical matter, I suspect that this affair has really upset the balance. And as far as I see, there are going to be long term effects. Editors who are on the Israeli "side" are going to be accused of being Camera babies, especially if they come on board after today. And they may well be. I fail to see that the three bans handed out really solve anything. A lot of pixels and vitriol have been expended over this. As a practical matter, Camera actually did nothing to harm WP (if it was that easy to bring in editors and admin, you'd expect more concerted efforts, say by cults and Scientology). WP has been harmed, but the wounds are self inflicted. There is a definite rise in contentiousness and incivility, and I think it will continue.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:54, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

"Editors who are on the Israeli "side" are going to be accused of being Camera babies, especially if they come on board after today." Yep, quite probably actually, but thats Camera's fault not ours.

"Camera actually did nothing to harm WP" So you have checked EVERY edit of EVERY editor on the mailing list even the ones who have not had their names released.

"if it was that easy to bring in editors and admin, you'd expect more concerted efforts, say by cults and Scientology" Do you remember the Pro-pedophile attack two years back? ^{(Hypnosadist)} 05:41, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

"So you have checked EVERY edit of EVERY editor on the mailing list even the ones who have not had their names released" - well gee, last time I checked, it was common practice for those doing the accusing to be the ones to actually, you know, present evidence. So once again, where's the beef? - Merzbow (talk) 05:58, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

"So once again, where's the beef?" Read the emails its all there. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 06:13, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Bikasuishin's point. Though I'm usually considered "Pro-Israeli" when editing these articles, I've gotten into serious arguments with real Pro-Israeli users, and have reverted POV edits from both sides countless times. I have no wish to join up with a bunch of POV-pushers from either side.

Besides, on really contentious articles (like Israel), there are so many disputes, that if you go with this route, you'll always have two versions, and never one complete article - it'll be fractured over every single word. I do think that with some hard work, we can achieve NPOV articles on this issue, and Israel and Jerusalem are good examples to this - they're now FA. okedem (talk) 08:20, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Okedem. Though I have no trouble admitting I am editing these articles vigorously to ensure that the Palestinian perspective gets its due, I have no problem with 'pro-Israeli' editors generally. I have many skirmishes with POV-warriors who deny indeed that this 'other' exists as a substantial and legitimate identity warranting equal treatment. I have not infrequently sided with one or two strongly pro-Zionist editors against a pro-Palestinian editor, when the former's call was technically proper. But there is a very extensive problem relating to perspectives. The Palestinians have little coherent literature on their identity in non-Semitic languages, Jewish tradition, thank 'God', is extraordinarily rich in dozens of languages. So squabbles tend to relate to a clash between a deep sense of political injustice, as opposed to intense feelings grounded in a profound mytho-historical culture. In articles, the latter comes to arguments with deep literate convictions, the former often with only recently documented grievances, and this often escapes those editing on the area. One example. You say the Jerusalem article is close to NPOV. Well, it is a good article from a Jewish perspective. There is very little in it about how Christians or Moslems dwelt in, dreamed of, and constructed the city. It is impossible for outsiders to touch it I gather. I myself have no intention of doing so. I am convinced that from an Israeli perspective it would look impeccably fair. From my pagan perspective it looks, as does the article on Hebron, like a pronouncedly Judaeocentric narrative, and there are very good reasons, not based on malevolent tilting of evidence or conscious editorial bias, to account for this. But omitting a decent section on the 'judaification' policy of the last several decades, the bulldozing of the Maghrebi quarter, and now the settler archeology assault (see David Shulman's campaign) in Arab quarters, to erase the non-Jewish character of the city, are examples of the problem. The article reflects precisely this judaisation of the city's history, which was intensely 'Jewish' in crucial moments, but at the same time had a very variegated sequence of mixed cultures (many of which, though incorporated in the 'Jewish' fold now, were not 'Jewish in the sense we understand that word now). An historical remark like the following:'Jerusalem has been the holiest city in Judaism and the spiritual center of the Jewish people since the 10th century BCE.' is well documented in books that are howevfer wholly irrelevant to the actual archeological debates now current. That a 'Jewish people' in the 10th.century existed in the sense that they began to exist under rabbinical reform authority after the Exile, that Jerusalem was the centre for all Jews, and not the centre for the Judean, as opposed to the northern kingdom, population, etc., is highly improbable. This is a collectivist mythic narrative, invented in modern times (Hobsbawm and Ranger on 'Invented Traditions' 1983) laid out to promote a vision of immemorial and exclusive ownership of the kind now existing but which, historically, was far more complex. I only note this in passing to show how difficult fundamental issues are. A good many editors observe such defects, and refrain from trying to balance them because precious sentiments and symbols of a nation are seen to be at stake, and thus one narrative prevails. Regards Nishidani (talk) 09:06, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

From my familiarity of the article, I don't think your characterization is accurate. The first part of your comments relates to the history section - which actually does detail the different inhabitants of the city, throughout the ages, though it does dwell more on the Jewish times. This, at least to me, makes sense - Jerusalem was the center of Jewish culture for a long time. Jews have been praying towards Jerusalem for millennia - this is not some recently invented claim, these are the facts of Judaism.

I can't really comment on all the issues you mentioned - I'm not that knowledgeable. Though with respect to archeological issues - we also don't mention the havoc the Waqf is wrecking with its digging near the temple mount, destroying countless artifacts, many of which relate to the Jewish periods of the city.

I don't agree with your claim: "It is impossible for outsiders to touch it I gather". There have been many changes in the article based on talk page discussions. The user who edited it most, and did the most work to get it to FA status isn't on either side of this "rift", but is objective. If you'd like to make suggestions on how to improve the article, text to add, etc - go ahead.

Do note, that if the article seems focused around Israeli issues - that is because the city is an Israeli city, for some 41 years now (with the West for 60 years). Jerusalem has also had a Jewish majority since somewhere in the 19th century, so this definitely sets some of the tone.

I can't say I'm completely pleased with the article. I'd like to have a section discussing the "Unification" of the city, or failure of it. The large differences between the east and the west, and mention of the policy that led to so many areas being annexed to Jerusalem, increasing its size way beyond the previous East Jerusalem limits. I do think the current article does a good job presenting the subject, even if it's not perfect or complete, keeping in mind the need to keep the article at readable length, and the nature and structure of articles about cities in general. okedem (talk) 09:44, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

If I may offer my own two cent$.....
It seems to me that the most insidious aspect of this entire controversy is that it just about completely undermines the Assume Good Faith Doctrine. Even the most upstanding administrator is going to be hard pressed to ignore that little voice in the back of his/her head that wonders whether or not about an editor that seems to be towing the C.A.M.E.R.A. line is in fact a bona fide member of C.A.M.E.R.A.
Just sayin'.
NBahn (talk) 08:35, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, here is where this can somtimes get a bit slightly over-the-top. the problem is not people from CAMERA editing here; it is people coming here with a hidden agenda. this is still a collaborative encylopedia. so anyone is free to come here and offfer input. when they do, they will be subject to the same constraints, standards, and criticisms which the rest of us are. so I think, to answer your point, WP:AGF still stands, on those grounds. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 00:55, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:WikiLobby

Template:WikiLobby has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — MickMacNee (talk) 23:17, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Driving "POV-pushers" further underground?

There's a liberal maxim that "the cure for bigoted speech isn't censorship, but more speech" and that banning bigoted speech just makes it harder to tell who the bigots are, because it drives them underground. In contrast, if bigots discuss their bigoted views publicly, you can tell who the bigots are, avoid them if you want to, rebut their arguments if you want to, and maybe convince them that they're wrong.

This case seems almost calculated to create a sense of persecution on the part of those who have been banned and censured. We clearly have a case of a known group organizing off-wiki with some interest in advocating a particular point of view in the encyclopedia. To a first approximation, that sounds pretty bad. But is it really useful to ban the small number of blatantly obvious participants?

It seems bizarre to believe that this particular group is the only such group organizing to push a particular viewpoint. I would expect that there are many, and that most of them are not associated with a formally-named organization nor are they as trivially recognizable. Most of them are just groups of friends who share common views -- affinity groups, if you like.

Trying to deal with such groups as if they are misbehaving individuals who can be trivially shut up by banning them just doesn't seem like a very sensible idea. If these are calculated, systematic, deliberate offenders, they will be able to come back sneakily with infiltrators and sock puppets. But if they are just concerned individuals trying to make sure that the views and information that they have are well represented in the project, this reaction will alienate them and make them assume that the project is biased against them.

You have a bunch of people who are interested in contributing to the project, but you have some doubts about their motives. You could either (a) let them in and keep an eye on them, or (b) declare them to be "enemies" and thereby convince them that Wikipedia is their enemy, thus inspiring sneakiness and subversive behavior, or (c) do something different. In neither case can you get rid of them; they will remain interested in Wikipedia either way; the difference is the nature of the interactions between them and other people both on and off the project. --FOo (talk) 04:52, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

On the liberal maxim, why are so many legislative bodies put under pressure to pass formal legal sanctions against antisemitic speech and acts? See this from Elie Wiesel. I share your scruples, but contextually, this kind of defense looks like attention to liberal principles of tolerance for the occasion. CAMERA would no doubt share Wiesel's idea, but in endeavouring to subvert this encyclopedia, screams 'free speech'. There is no consistency of principle.Nishidani (talk) 14:22, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

It actually isn't. I'd rather have them where we can see them, under a spotlight with every edit subject to scrutiny, then out there in the darkness doing God knows what, with no spotlight and no scrutiny. Does anyone really think Zeq won't come back under a new name with a fake IP address? Perhaps one that was already prepared in case he lost the ArbCom case and has had a reasonable history of edits? And now he knows that people will be looking at writing style an certain spellign mistakes (that was intentional, by the way). Good luck. And if this is a serious proposal, well, then, the three bans did nothing to stop it. Probably encouraged them. What are you going to do if Camera sends another email to its list saying what has happened and urging people to go forward with a "F U, Wikipedia. Is this the worst you can do?--Wehwalt (talk) 05:01, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Criminals will always commit crimes so why have police and jails in our countries? ^{(Hypnosadist)} 05:35, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

"Is this the worst you can do?" Yes at the moment, but if you know me you'll know that i would set the lawyers on them like a pack of wild dogs if they tried it again. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 05:44, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

People trying to influence Wikipedia aren't "criminals", and neither moral panic nor just-plain-ordinary panic is going to help here. --FOo (talk) 06:04, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

FOo that was a reframe, if we took Wehwalts attitude to people who didn't follow the rules our countries say we should, then this world would be anarchy. I get fed up with people saying we should not enforce our rules because it might not stop every rule-breaker. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 06:12, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Unlike a country, Wikipedia doesn't have the choice of killing or locking up its "enemies" -- it must either (a) make friends of them, (b) convince them to bugger off, or (c) find an arbitrarily large supply of editors with nothing better to do than play whack-a-mole. --FOo (talk) 06:47, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, AND? ^{(Hypnosadist)} 06:57, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi everyone. just wanted to add a comment or two, to weigh in with my own two cents. I agree with those saying that what's needed to preserve Wikipedia is not broad over-arching sanctions to exclude certain people, but simply more of what we already do; routine attention to detail, and fairness.

The issue of sleeper admins is a little more disturbing, but as you can see it never actually came to pass. And I take it we're all assuming, as I do, that this has never been done in the past by anyone else? In other words, that admins as of now are overall trustworthy? That's my belief; so maybe it is harder to game the system than anyone might think.

Perhaps some minor reforms or adjustments might be needed to the admin system, just in a procedural sense, just to preserve the tone and appearance of utter impartiality. perhaps the idea of randomly designating uninvolved admins for particular issues might be useful.

I have not commented directly up to now, because I wasn't sure I had that much to add here. however, all this talk about the dangers of people somehow sneaking in through pseudonyms concerns me. it seems there is some concern about how some editors might utilize alternate means to make edits. I understand the concerns, but this makes it sound like we are utterly without any protections here. the protections are what they have always been; the weight of the community concern and consensus, towards fairness, balance and objectivity. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 13:57, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

"The issue of sleeper admins is a little more disturbing, but as you can see it never actually came to pass." With all due respect, how do we know that it won't come to pass? The tactics proposed in those CAMERA emails were perfectly sound, and with its resources CAMERA is STILL perfectly capable of executing such a strategy.
--NBahn (talk) 18:20, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I see no reason to assume some people associated with CAMERA are the first ever smart enough to think of the idea of sleeper administrators. They are, instead, the first people dumb enough to get caught at planning it.DGG (talk) 22:42, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

They might also be described as unlucky: they were apparently infiltrated by someone from EI. Which points to another angle that has been suggested above but might get lost: we can speak of a "plot" by CAMERA, but we can also speak of a different sort of "plot" by EI. It's not hard to imagine that people from EI and the like might want to take advantage of CAMERA's setback here (well-deserved as that setback is). Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:49, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Call me biased, but right now I prefer to think the best of Electronic Intifada and the worst of CAMERA. If and when EI gets caught in a compromising situation, THEN I'll reconsider my bias. Until then, as far as I'm concerned, anyone who chooses to associate with CAMERA is suspect and anyone associated with EI gets a free pass to gloat over CAMERA. Those CAMERA people are royal jerks (and that's the the most charitable expression that I can think of).
--NBahn (talk) 23:31, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I think with that comment I can't see how anyone could fail not to call you biased. You support the keeping of the lobbying template, and you don't see why it goes against AGF, no wonder. MickMacNee (talk) 23:47, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

It does not violate AGF, it simply informs others that a notable partisan organization organized a meatpuppet attack on this project. Tarc (talk) 00:10, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

The harmless 'informing' aspect as you paint it serves no purpose I can see but to create suspicion and divide the community, there is no other practical use for it. I have asked for one at the Tfd from the people who think that it has some practical use to people wishing to defend the templated articles and keep them NPOV, absolutely none has been forthcoming. Instead, the keep votes have come from the openly and self admittedly biased editors above. MickMacNee (talk) 00:28, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

"[I]t serves no purpose I can see but to create suspicion and divide the community...."
My dear MickMacNee,
I respectfully submit that the suspicion that you speak of has already been created by CAMERA and its partisans (whom I firmly believe have no intention of abiding by the rules of Wikipedia). Furthermore, I submit that the community was long ago divided by Zeq and his colleagues; EI merely made everyone aware of it[I realize that a number of Wikipedians in good standing are decidedly uncomfortable with the fact that people's email addresses were exposed without their permission. I understand and respect their discomfort, but such discomfort notwithstanding, I am of the firm belief that what EI did was as justified as it was necessary.]. I submit that when one group of people in good faith creates a series of rules with a certain outcome in mind and another group of people act in concert to subvert that desired outcome while pretending to enforce the rules to obtain that aforementioned outcome, then that second group is acting in bad faith and must be ostracized for the sake of the first group's ideals. I submit that in order to do this we must be forthright about our biases. Pretending that they don't exist -- as you seem to be advocating[At least, insofar as I understand you.] -- can only lead to a debilitating hypocrisy as everyone tries to pretend that they are without bias. Everyone, I submit, is biased to one degree or another and what matters not is the fact that someone is biased, but rather that someone be honest to everyone about it and work to not let their behavior be affected by it.
MickMacNee, is there anything in the above that you disagree with?
--NBahn (talk) 02:19, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

As I understand it, you are advocating your violations of NPOV such as this edit [39] because you are openly biased, and there should be enough openly biased people on wikipedia to counter you, unless they are found out by trying to organise their bias off wiki, then they can be banished and you can edit in peace. NPOV realy isn't that hard a concept to grasp for people who actually understand what the words bias and neutral mean in terms of editting wikipedia. It is very easy to act neutrally while being biased, if your main aim is not to break NPOV. MickMacNee (talk) 15:15, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

God, judging by Hynosadist's howling edits, you'd think that CAMERA had proposed to kill a cow in India or wear a Yankees jersey at Fenway Park or something else serious. I'm not an admin, but I read that the purpose of blocks is to protect WP. That must be news to a lot of the people on this page, who are demanding longer and longer blocks for anyone even suspected of association with CAMERA, and the reasons stated amount to punishment. God forbid that anyone should even think of desecrating this sactuary of neutrality and impersonal editing.- And how about this? With a little massaging, the CAMERA emails could have been phrased in a way that might cause some to gnash their teeth, but would be perfectly proper. Get involved in WP, it is where more and more people are getting their info, help see that the info in IP conflict related articles is accurate and well sourced, even more valuable, become an admin, and you can do even more to see that the articles have a NPOV. Actually, that is kinda what they said. A little phrasing changing, make it sound less agenda driven, and no one could object with any basis. And as for Nbahn's comments, I am sure that EI's motives were as pure as the driven show, and they acted for the good of Wikipedia. Oh yeah, that is right, they are supposed to act for the good of their own organization. Guess they did, that and their agenda, as set forth in their name!--Wehwalt (talk) 11:51, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

This kind of oblique defamation of EI is unfair and wrong. If anyone has evidence that EI or its staff participates in the Wikipedia community with a hidden agenda to push POV as fact or that EI and its staff violates the rules, principles and traditions of this community, I urge them to present this evidence right away. Without evidence, those editors who continue to assert that EI plays a harmful in the Wikipedia community are engaging in a smear campaign. Bangpound (talk) 12:38, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

The naivety being bandied around here is astounding. Do you actually think through this expose the motives of EI were the upholding of the standards of Wikipedia? What rubbish. If that was their true goal, a confidential communication to the foundation would have sufficed, who would have considered the evidence, banned the users and put in the required monitoring, without the complete POV mess of this ridiculous page. MickMacNee (talk) 17:53, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Wehwalt, I find you comments to be rather disingenuous. There is no amount if "massaging" that could be done to make the plan of trapping editors into conflicts, targeting specific articles for agenda-pushing, or laying out plans to stack AfD votes or to create sleeper administrators. And the slagging of EI is just beyond pathetic, really. Don't shoot the messenger.

Also, may I submit to the masses here the fact that the majority of us have not seen the full archive of the Isra-pedia mailing list in question yet? Really, what has been revealed so far is just the proverbial tip of the iceberg. Tarc (talk) 13:06, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

With a little bit of "massaging", the Nixon tapes could have shown a commitment to furthering rather than obstructing justice. But it seems CAMERA is mainly interested in massaging Wikipedia. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 17:34, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Note that signature name "Juanita" is user "Dajudem"

Note that the signature name "Juanita", appearing above, is deceptive; it's actually the signature of Dajudem (talk · contribs). Per WP:SIG, "While not an absolute requirement, it is common practice for a signature to resemble to some degree the username it represents." This affects searches of pages. Has this user used any other signatures? --John Nagle (talk) 17:43, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Man what a witchhunt this is. Why don't you ask me if you have a concern? The answer is NO, though I have occasionally edited without signing in. I am sorry I am not a professional editor here and missed the sig 'common practice' stuff. Isn't there also a rule about throwing out all rules or something like that? I am really depressed with this stuff. It is shocking what is happening here, exposing people's private emails to the world, spun out to look bad. You people are just assuming the worst about everybody and are simply persecuting me and others either because this is how you get your jollies or because we don't share your POV. I find it very distressing. Juanita (talk) 19:57, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh, come on, it's not like you can expect anyone to look at your contributions to see that you have used the same signature since 2005 when they've found another great reason to string you up. — Preceding comment signed as by 210.54.233.57 (talk · contribs) actually added by John Nevard (talk · contribs)

Agreed. Jeez. The lynch mob mentality here. It's pretty sickening.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:37, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Reporting of this incident on Wikipedia

I'd like some opinions on whether or not this ANI thread, or this whole incident, is documentable in the CAMERA and Electronic Intifada articles. I quote their current status [40][41] :

CAMERA sub section "CAMERA and Wikipedia":

In an April 2008 article on the pro-Palestinian news site Electronic Intifada, e-mails between CAMERA members were published, detailing the group's plan to cooperate with prominent Wikipedia editors in establishing a Zionist narrative surrounding Israel and the Middle East, with particular discussion on the Deir Yassin Massacre and in validating anti-Islam polemics. A Wikipedia user supposedly advises the group that "One or more of you who want to take this route should stay away from any Israel realted [sic] articles for one month until they interact in a positive way with 100 wikipedia editors who would be used later to vote you as an administrator." [36] (the 36 is an inline reference is to the EI site)

Electronic Intefada sub section "Expose of CAMERA's Subversion Campaign":

On the 21 April 2008 Electronic Intifada published emails purporting to show that CAMERA was engaged in a concerted campaign to subvert Wikipedia's standards so that biased information could be placed in a number of Israel/Palestine articles. This publication of (private) emails caused an uproar within the Wikipedia community and as of this writing has resulted in three people being banned and blocked. (The italicised sentence is actually one long wikilink to this page.)

So my question is, where do we stand on including this material on grounds of NPOV, RS, using wikipedia as a reference, and notability in light of no 3rd party sources or even interest?

MickMacNee (talk) 00:16, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

EI is a good enough source to be used in these articles as long as its phrased "EI says", when Camera comments its voice should be added and when better quality RS's appear then we should use those in preference to EI. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 00:32, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Hypnosadist, is EI not credible because they're Palestinian? I'm dying to know the answer to the question of why CAMERA has inherently more credibility than EI. Bangpound (talk) 02:38, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I view both EI and Camera as the same, both are only in existance to push one POV, when a better source comes along like the BBC we should allways use that better source. Can we tone down the snide accusations please. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 02:49, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't mean to be snide. I'm genuinely trying to understand your perspective here. Above you said "EI is good enough source to be used ... as long as it's phrased 'EI says.' When Camera comments, its voice should be added. When better quality RS appear, we should use those in preference to EI." When you say that Camera's "voice should be added," do you mean a "he said" and "she said" description of EI and CAMERA's opinions? What if EI reports verifiable facts? What if CAMERA's facts are already disproven (for instance the garbage about Palestinian children's textbooks, the most over-studied elementary pedagogy on earth)? FWIW, I think the current sections on both articles are inappropriate, poorly written and not very notable. Bangpound (talk) 03:11, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

"do you mean a "he said" and "she said" description of EI and CAMERA's opinions?" Yes, editors will have to talk about a specific facts but we are not in the "TruthTM" buisiness but the Verifability buisiness. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 03:35, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't know what the TruthTM business is. The way many Wikipedia editors treat EI relative to other supposedly more reliable sources is the equivalent of how people see Wikipedia relative to Britannica. There's a prejudice that Wikipedia is inherently biased because it doesn't ship in leather bound volumes. But that same prejudice against EI comes from a neglect to actually review the facts of EI's coverage. Can any organization that's associated with this conflict have good standards? On what basis can you equate Camera and EI? Should the BBC be dropped as a RS for British mandate topics because the U.K. was the colonial power at the time? Bangpound (talk) 03:56, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

the way we have avoided this kind of edit war between Israeli and Palestinians' concerns/editors is by using the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and reputable organizations. I'm not saying I'm discounting CAMERA or EI. I'm saying I'm uncomfortable with this discussion here, if it involves figuring out which group is better. the best way to resolve this is by discussing each group separately, on its own, in the context of specific editing issues which may arise in specific articles. this discussion is too generalized, and will probably never reach a resolution. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 12:07, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

The Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs is a reliable source?! If this is the case, the whole Wikipedia project should be abandoned. The Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs is the propaganda arm of a party in the conflict. I didn't raise the comparison between EI and CAMERA. This equivalence is something that seems stuck in the minds of some editors, so that does need to be addressed. Bangpound (talk) 12:12, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

When the topic is a conflict, it's often helpful to report views and beliefs of official parties to the conflict. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 12:14, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm talking about the use of reliable sources for facts. Obviously any person or organization is a reliable source for its POV. We're talking about facts. The Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs is an organization that promotes GIYUS, an internet lobbying tool. Surely that diminishes their credibility straight away. Bangpound (talk) 12:19, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

In reporting this conflict, grievances of Palestinians need to be heard, in regards to things like settlements, closures, curfews, etc. The best sources for that are often Palestinian political agencies and community organizations. Similarly, the best sources for describing legitimate Israeli concerns and grievances are the official and community agencies of Israelis. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 12:42, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate and agree with your perspective, but POV is not where this discussion originated. The discussion originated with EI's news reportage of the emailed documents from the Isra-pedia mailing list. The source is a straight up news story with some factual background about CAMERA and other media's published views about CAMERA. It quotes extensively from the documents, which have been given the credence of this community. So why isn't EI a RS on this specific issue? EI is not a party to this (Wikipedia-based) conflict. This conflict is between CAMERA, some editors and Wikipedia. Isn't it? Bangpound (talk) 12:46, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

[unindent] Here is a comment which I just posted at WP:RFAR. One thing needs to be noted here. It appears to me that there is and was no conspiracy here by CAMERA. If there were, would they have assembled it by sending a mass email to their members, asking for volunteers, instead of gathering a few of trusted activists to do this? This has all the hallmarks of the ideas and initiative of one person, to do a pet project which went mosntrously awry. So all this talk of a CAMERA conspiracy seems extremely skewed. By the way, additionally, if this were a conspiracy, it would not have begun with a single editor editing the CAMERA entry from a CAMERA IP address, as it did. it would have begun with a whole group immediately. so this to me seems like one volunteer's brainchild and project, which went hugely awry. [end of quote]

BAsically, there is not much evidence of how much CAMERA officially did this. Has EI checked sources? Have they done all the work of objective reporting? If not, then what they say needs to be taken with a grain of salt. they certainly will not have tracked down additional sources, as the Washington Post presumably a professional journalists might have done, to find out how deep this actually went. Most newspapers are able to find a few more sources willing to talk, to get the story straight. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 13:00, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

EI never used the word conspiracy. That arose from the discussions on Wikipedia. CAMERA sent out the invitation on their own mailing list. A senior staff person (Gilead Ini) organized the private mailing list Isra-pedia and also shut it down after the story broke on EI. EI has presented documents on CAMERA letterhead with the name Gilead Ini and his title and role with CAMERA as the signature. Neither CAMERA (which is not slow to respond to what it views as Palestinian propaganda) nor those Wikipedia editors directly implicated have denied the authenticity of these documents.

Arguably EI has been very careful in its reporting and uncovering hard evidence. I am not sure how you can hold up mainstream media, whether it is the Washington Post or the New York Times, as the gold standard. You may remember that it was they who relying on anonymous sources convinced large numbers of people that Iraq possessed nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. EI has presented more evidence in this case than NYT or WP presented about Iraq's weapons or about Wen Ho Lee. What you seem to be saying is that certain brand names should always be given the benefit of the doubt and others should never be given the benefit of the doubt regardless of the actual facts and record.

Did you even read the article on EI? Bangpound (talk) 13:15, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

It was not my intent to make any assertion about the Wash. Post itself. I have changed my comment, above. I will read the rest of your answer and think about it, and then hopefully respond usefully. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 13:23, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Reporting of this incident off Wikipedia

El Mundo has just published an article about the problem. I guess that means there is 3rd party interest now. Bangpound (talk) 04:52, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Fairness_and_Accuracy_in_Reporting also noted it in their Media Views. Bangpound (talk) 04:54, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

• And Israelenews offers some sound advice: "If You Don`t Want to Be Labelled a Cabal, Don`t Act Like One"
• This Italians site has also picked up the story ("zeq" is becoming famous..) Huldra (talk) 13:33, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

A key point being, the user 'zeq' was only linked to the mailing list (still not confirmed as an authentic anonymous source by any impartial admins above) by wikipedia, not EI. So, in light of the changes to articles above, are the media reporting on EI, or wikipedia? MickMacNee (talk) 13:51, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Give it a few more days. This needs to be picked up by some reporter who will call up CAMERA and ask hard questions. Then we'll have a reliable source. --John Nagle (talk) 14:54, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

If this gets out to the huge mainstream media, e.g. BBC, Yahoo, MSNBC, then somebody may go along creating an actual Wikipedia article on this campaign. D.M.N. (talk) 14:58, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes Nagle, but picked up from where? From EI or from here? Am I the only one who sees the reverse logic here? MickMacNee (talk) 15:07, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I have a blog post - Wikipedia as Google-Weapon. Give the story a few days, I suspect more coverage will be forthcoming. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 05:12, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Analogy for reflection

A good many people here don't show much awareness of the politics of information, or the standard way political groups work the world over. The McCarthyite/Salem witches metaphor prevails in defence. There is another trope, with a positive shade to it, called 'whistleblowing', that might equally be used. What seems to be missed is the discredit news of this operation, however well intended (the truth, facts to trounce distortions, bias), will bring upon our collective work in here. Wiki as a useful indeed often reliable source for articles on all aspects of the Middle East will, as a result of CAMERA's activities, now hang under a cloud of suspicion. Years of effort by both 'sides', often producing balanced articles, can now be canned, or read paranoiacally. I offer the following analogy, which I use fully aware that like all analogies, the points never imbricate. But the work of a great and honourable man (no indication of how good he was will emerge from the Wiki page on him, which devotes a good deal of space branding him as an antisemite, self-hating Jew, with a gift for lying) and he himself, suffered greatly from a similar, politically motivated stacking technique decades ago.

'Shahak's courageous work as a chairman of the Israeli League for Human and Civil Rights deserves special comment - as does the response to it, both in Israel and here. In November 1972, some two hundred people appeared at a meeting of this small civil rights group, insisted on being registered as members, took over the meeting, and forced out the leadership. The Israeli courts, quite properly, declared the results of the meeting null and void (Judge Lovenberg, Nov.26,1972). The Labour Party (Youth Department) then circulated a leaflet headed internal, not to be published, requesting party members to join the league as a 'state duty . . .for the purpose of enabling our party to have a predominant influence in the League, offering to pay membership dues. There was no mention of civil liberties in this call. Judge Lovenberg ruled (8 April, 1973) that the League must accept mass membership organized in this fashion, while reaffirming his earlier ruling. Obviously, no organization can survive such tactics on the part of the dominant political party.

On the basis of these events, the New York-based International League for Human Rights, in a most astonishing decision, suspended the Israeli League. In April 1973, shahak visited the United States. In an interview with the Boston Globe (18 April), he identified himself quite accurately, as chairman of the Israeli League. This interview, dealing with topics rarely discussed here, elicited an abusive response from Harvard Law Professor Alan Dershowitz, who claimed, among other falsehoods, that Shahak 'was overwhelmingly defeated for re-election' as chairman in November 1970 (sic) and that the courts had 'ruled' that the election was legal and that Shahak had been validly defeated (Globe, 29 April, 15 May). The incident illustrates again the lengths to which American Zionists will go in their efforts to silence discussion and discredit politicalopponents. Dershowitz offered no factual evidence at any point. His assertions ardirectly refuted by the court records, which are not, of course, normal reading fare here. Still more interesting was Dershowitz's reaction when the Labour Party tactics were brought to his attention. He wrote that he saw nothing wrong with the Labour Party effort to take over the League(25 May). One can imagine his reaction if the Watergate investigations were to reveal a comparable attempt by the Republican Party to take over the ACLU. Dershowitz had done admirable work in defence of civil rights in the United States, but - typically - all standards disappear when the scene shifts to Israel.' (Noam Chomsky, Peace in the Middle East, Fontana ed.London 1975 p.186)Nishidani (talk) 17:11, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

The mirror image

We've all here on this page heard the suspicion that the other side is quite likely doing pretty much the same anyway. Now, Dajudem has just pointed to some evidence that this is indeed happening: there is a private Google group called "Wiki For Palestine" ([42]). On the face of it, I see no reason to believe that this groups isn't just as bad (or just as harmless) as the Camera one. How are we going to deal with this? Has this been known among editors in the field for longer? Are members of that group known? Is anybody on that group going to do the decent thing and step forward and tell us about it? Or at least let some trustworthy neutral editors have a peek at what they were doing on that list? Enquiring minds may wish to know... Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:11, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Is this Google group spearheaded by a multimillion dollar "501(c)(3) nonprofit" that "non-partisan organization" that "takes no position with regard to American or Israeli political issues or with regard to ultimate solutions to the Arab-Israeli conflict"? One which promises "Your tax-deductible gift will go to work immediately, righting media-wrongs, educating journalists and editors, and expanding our work on college campuses?" I'm not quite sure which "mirror" you're looking into. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 20:21, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I certainly don't approve of a list like that, and it could indeed be causing problems, but it seems a far cry from the CAMERA situation, at least as described on the Yahoo groups page (though who knows what's going on on the list itself). It seems the list has been essentially inoperative since last August, barring three messages in the last week which one could safely assume are about this page. They claim at the outset that they are committed to NPOV which I guess counts for something. I doubt anyone will be able to get onto that list now that it has been identified. The very fact that is has been identified may also serve to essentially put an end to active discussion on the list, though for the most part that seems to have happened. As I said groups like that are no good, but in the absence of further information I'm not sure what we can do about this situation.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 20:27, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

The group only has 3 messages posted in 2008, all this month, all probably about this incident. I'm not a member. I learned about the group from Dajudem. Bangpound (talk) 20:29, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

If they are trying to install sleeper accounts for use in voting! or sleeper admins, I could see the analogy. Is that what you found? I read the link to say they want to be pro-Palestinian while respecting NPOV, which doesn't sound like the same sort of problem. Jd2718 (talk) 22:20, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I remember seeing something about that group a while ago. I might even have signed up (I really truly cannot remember, but thought for the purposes of full disclosure thought that I should mention that possibility. I recall thinking at the time, [about a year ago maybe?], that it was not such a bad idea.) Anyway, I'm so bad at keeping up with my emails, don't recall receiving anything from them and definitely did not read or write any emails to that list. As general rule, I don't exchange emails with other Wiki editors offline, particularly about Wiki related issues. I don't think that behind the scenes organizing is necessary or helpful to the project and prefer to post things on talk pages. I meet my needs to see subjects that are underrepresented gain representation by collaborating with other editors through WikiProjects and via chance encounters and I do my best to be NPOV about it. Just wanted to get on the record before any documents get leaked, (if there indeed are any, and again, I have no idea if there are or even what would they say). But just in case my name is in fact there, this is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but. Thanks. Tiamut^talk 01:23, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

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 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) 20:35, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Obviously that group is inappropriate on its face. However, according to its front page, there are 11 members and there have been exactly three messages in the last eight months. "Isra-pedia" had over fifty members, and produced, what was it, 137 messages in the few weeks they were active? In terms of potential damage to NPOV these can't be compared.

You're using the EI piece as a strawman. Nobody did anything based on the EI piece. We looked at the e-mails. Obviously, EI has an ideological agenda, and chose to interpret the list e-mails in the worst possible light. The e-mails are bad enough without endorsing EI's opinions, which nobody here has. <eleland/talkedits> 20:43, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

It is altogether possible that they are corresponding now by email instead of through the group. You have zero knowledge of what is being said and done by this group, or do you? You are ignoring the fact that these partisans may be the very ones prosecuting the case against us for all we know. Juanita (talk) 00:26, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, yeah, yeah, but I prefer to do my spinnin' throughc CAMERA, so I can write it off mah taxes! Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 20:52, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Just for comparison, isra-pedia was also technically on Google groups, it was initiated by somebody from CAMERA but not actually run by them. And isra-pedia also had only a handful of active members, as we now know (from the files that were sent us). Apart from Zeq and "Gilead", there wasn't really an awful lot of traffic on that one either, as far as we can tell. And Boodles, please keep it matter-of-fact, will you. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:09, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Fut Perf, what could be more matter of fact than pointing out that there is an organization with tax exempt status which is actively engaged in surreptitiously slanting an open access encyclopedia on behalf of a particular government? Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 21:56, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

surrreptitiously slanting is your bias talking. Juanita (talk) 00:26, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Interesting. But with three messages total since September 2007, probably ineffective. Looks like they peaked in August 2006, during which they had 12 messages. --John Nagle (talk) 21:07, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

As I said, you have no idea what is being passed between these private parties who now know each others' email addresses and wiki names. So your point is moot. In fact, unless you are a member how do you know anything about this group except that they are a surreptitious group that is on wiki and is "anti-Zionist" and probably rewriting Israeli history as we speak.Juanita (talk) 00:26, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Show me the EVIDENCE, we had plenty for Israpedia. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 00:33, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Dajudem, I congratulated you earlier today on this find, here, and I also suggested infiltrating them just the way CAMERA was infiltrated. (This was deleted from the arbitration requests page, "not for threaded discussion".) So, fine - and again, well done. But you're hardly in a position to complain, given that you persist in claiming that what CAMERA was up to was perfectly legitimate. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:52, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I do believe that CAMERA was perfectly legitimate and it does not advertise itself as being anti-Palestinian, just pro-Israel. CAMERA talks about getting facts and context correct, not about being anti- anything. It was not CAMERA that used a 'war' analogy but one of the posters. It was Wikipedians for Palestine that used a 'combat' analogy, not an individual in the group. As I have said in the past, I believe we should not be banned because of our membership in outside groups, but on the other hand, how do I know that you are not a member of this group trying to get me banned because you are anti-Zionist? We know there are (at least) 12 editors here who are anti-Zionist by their own words. They could even be administrators for all we know. Don't you see the problem here?Juanita (talk) 00:33, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes you have no evidence. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 00:34, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

What's that got to do with the price of bread. I'm slightly taken aback by the blase attitude taken by those who went postal over the CAMERA thing. The 12 members, if we can verify their WP status, need to be dealt with as were the Camerans.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:25, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Why don't you consider banning wiki editors for what they do on wikipedia instead of what members say in other places to other people?

OK then. 1. Any idea which Wikipedia editors may be in there? 2. Any multimillion dollar tax exempt organizations involved? Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 22:28, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't know boodlest... maybe they are getting their money from the Saudis. Why don't you join up and expose their emails for us so we can find out? I am sure you would pass muster.Juanita (talk) 00:41, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Show me the EVIDENCE, show me this group set out to get around wikipedia policies like Israpedia. The big NPOV notice on the front of the group is helping me AGF but its not enough, i'd quite happily see those proved to be members get a short Topic ban and a good talking to, and those who choose to act like certain israpedia editors and LIE about membership get much longer Topic bans and even blocks. It also depends on the editing histories of the members of wikiforpalestine, if they have been as disruptive as Gni and Zeq then they need long Topic bans. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 23:21, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

As I suggested to Boodlesthecat, why don't you join up and expose their emails for us so we can find out who they are and can give them a good talking to? Obviously your earlier comments about us pro-Israelis demonstrates that you would pass muster to. As a matter of fairness, you should find out who they are and see if they are lying about anything. Juanita (talk) 00:41, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

So that will be "No Mr Hypnosadist i have no evidence" OK just checking. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 01:01, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I think we're getting to the crux of the issue, Hypnosadist and Poodlesthecat have absolutely zero interest in what they can't read in front of their faces and scream about in BOLD CAPITAL LETTERS, hence they are possibly the worst examples of anyone who could judge anything as complex as this issue neutraly. Certainly for both, their obvious POV views are now well documented in the pedia. MickMacNee (talk) 00:52, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes i'm Evil, also the editors of Israpedia were blocked and banned on the evidence, have you got any? ^{(Hypnosadist)} 01:03, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Hypnosadist-- you have not answered my question. Why don't you join the Wikipedians for Palestine for us and let us know if there is any evidence of meatpuppetry going on. Or are you only concerned with pro-Israel meatpuppetry? Or is it sockpuppetry? You could easily get the evidence for wiki if you were honestly neutral. But you aren't, clearly.Juanita (talk) 07:08, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I did not join Israpedia and i won't be joining Wikipedians for Palestine, i'm not neutral i'm EVIL get your D&D right. You got caught trying to game the system, take your punishment like an adult and give it a rest, there a thousands of admins any of whom could have removed the topic ban if they thought it was wrong yet none have, take that as a hint. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 07:24, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Let's not start telling lies here, zeq was banned for a year before any convincing evidence was forthcoming. I wonder what evidence we might find about you if we interrogate you long enough? You talk of 'Israpedia' as if it was even an official organisation, already you are giving truth to the fiction. It's a joke. MickMacNee (talk) 01:07, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Fairly harsh accusations and insinuations you are making here. Need I remind you that you only escaped ArbCom sanctions during the Betacommand case because good faith was assumed and you were assumed to learn from the situation - yet you are again making repeated attacks on established users on several noticeboards and talk pages. EconomicsGuy (talk) 01:27, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

That's not how I remember it finishing, feel free to link me to such a specific statement from the arbcom. If you are that interested in upholding the remedies, I'll be happy to pass you the file of unattended post arbcom2 betacommand violations, as nobody else seems as interested as much as you are so far. MickMacNee (talk) 01:44, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Fine. Not my problem. Read between the lines - you were defended on the workshop because you were new and good faith was assumed. I'm trying to stop you before you get too carried away here but if you insist on continuing this behaviour don't say you weren't warned this time. EconomicsGuy (talk) 01:49, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

This just wont wash I'm afraid. I can give you plenty of recommendations made to betacommand in that workshop that he has subsequently ignored straight away, and this being from betacommand's second arbitration defense. I guarantee if I followed any of his posts taking issue with them like you are with me on this tenuous basis (and with beta, at there were specific actionable workshop proposals) I would be banned for harassment straight away. MickMacNee (talk) 02:18, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

"I wonder what evidence we might find about you if we interrogate you long enough?" Feel free to ask what you want but keep it civil. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 01:41, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

There was much evidence, the failure to answer a simple yes/no question, the common spelling mistakes (this evidence is used in most often in the cases of sockpuppetry) and ofcourse the fact that yes was editiing the articles when it said in the emails. Ofcourse you forget that he was guilty and the email evidence proved it. Now you got any evidence or are you just going to stick to throwing random accusations around. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 01:16, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

"There was much evidence, the failure to answer a simple yes/no question" - I stopped reading here to be honest. Yes, there were several developments and much 'evidence' (i.e. refusal to submit to interrogation), but what you unsurprisingly and conveniently ignore, is the fact the only damming evidence came after you had already rolled out your POV bandwagon with the hysterics and drama and banned users, and this shows exactly why you are just as much of a threat to wikipedia's NPOV as the people you claim to have outed and protected us from. MickMacNee (talk) 01:35, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Your revisionism is unappreciated. And his refusal to deny that it was his email was pretty damning in and of itself, though perhaps he realized he was caught and simply didn't want to dig himself in any deeper. It was known before he was banned that he authored the emails in question, and in the light of all the other shenanigans he was engaged in, the ban was more than warranted. Titanium Dragon (talk) 07:38, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Revisionism? I read this page a few times, please provide the timestamped diffs that support the statement "It was known before he was banned that he authored the emails in question", because, still after all of these readings, I did not see it. Perhaps if a little calm had been exercised, the page would be properly formatted, and people could make sense of some of the decisions and actions that were made, instead of reading the same question being asked 20 times like a schoolyard fight where whoever shouts loudest wins. MickMacNee (talk) 15:02, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

If I still believed that you were arguing in good faith, then I would provide the links to the diffs; however, since I don't, I won't.
--NBahn (talk) 18:37, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

This reply is frankly pathetic, my good faith has nothing to do with it if you were telling the truth, you would simply provide it. But you aren't, so you don't/won't. It is laughable you now invoke AGF in this debate, after such rampant violations beforehand. You don't have the diffs because they don't exist, simple as. You can make excuses all you want, but your response here is unambiguous. 01:58, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

If you find evidence of meatpuppetry, feel free to post it and let us ban them all. Until then, don't whine. Zeq and his fellows from CAMERA deserved their bans and I have absolutely no sympathy whatsoever for people who try to pull stunts like this. This isn't a witch hunt. This is a clear violation of Wikipedia policy. The moment he suggested people become "uninvolved editors" then go and intervene in such disputes was the moment he earned himself a ban from Wikipedia. Titanium Dragon (talk) 05:30, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Incidentally, the word "combat" is NOT a synonym for war in this case, as you claim, but rather a synonym for "oppose". Your lack of comprehension of the English language is your undoing. Titanium Dragon (talk) 07:30, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Let me see, one is apparently actually doing stuff for the last three years, the other has never done any harm to WP. Now which one did you want to ban again? But how could I expect logic from someone who said he is "more than happy" to see someone get fired from a job for making a WP edit he doesn't like.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:40, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Let me see, one has damaged Wikipedia, and attempted to damage Wikipedia (CAMERA), AND we have evidence of their attempts (again, CAMERA), and the other we know nothing about save the name of the group and the front page. HM. Which one is going to be banned? Let's see, maybe the people who we have evidence of wrongdoing for? Shocking, I know, that we'd require evidence of wrongdoing to ban someone... now, if you have evidence of wrongdoing for the others, then perhaps we can talk. But you don't. You just are throwing around accusations because your "side" got caught. And if someone vandalizes Wikipedia for political purposes from their workplace, they deserve to be fired. Titanium Dragon (talk) 23:28, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Edit from US DOJ IP address removing this story from CAMERA article

FYI, please see this WP:AN report. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 21:35, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Has anyone informed the USDOJ? This is almost certainly an inappropriate use of their computing resources, and I'd be more than happy to see someone get fired for doing this sort of thing. Titanium Dragon (talk) 05:27, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

The communications department has been notified --> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Communications_committee/Notifications#US_Department_of_Justice_blocked_for_ongoing_vandalism so its up to them to handle it now. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 06:33, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

You'd want to see someone thrown out of work for making a wikipedia edit you don't like? Now I know there's a loss of perspective here. We're talking about someone's life here. Would you like to be thrown out of work or school for making an edit on Wikipedia? For shame.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:00, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't -want- to be, but it is entirely justified. If I am using worktime and workplace equipment for inappropriate activities, what do you expect? You think you should be allowed to surf for porn from work? This is the same thing. If you're acting in such a way you're getting yourself banned from Wikipedia for four days, you aren't doing anything innocent or worthwhile with their equipment, and unless they have lax restrictions on what you can do, being disciplined or fired is entirely appropriate. Would you be so sympathetic if they were making pro-Palestinian edits? I doubt it. Titanium Dragon (talk) 23:38, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

So you wouldn't "want" to see them fired, but you would be "more than happy" to see them fired. Interesting.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:07, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not a US tax payer but if i was i'd want some-one i'm paying to do their job, to do that and not editing wikipedia (any edits for any none job related reason). ^{(Hypnosadist)} 21:37, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps the US-DOJ see correcting bias in wikipedia, the worlds most popular NPOV website, as a worthwhile use of their time. It is the department of justice after all, perhaps they like a bit of wikidrama in their lunchtime just like everyone else. MickMacNee (talk) 01:48, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

You usually don't get blocked for trying to help out Wikipedia. You do usually get blocked for being a vandal or POV-pusher. Its the Bush DOJ, too, which means their ability to be neutral in the first place is a bit beyond questionable. Titanium Dragon (talk) 01:54, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

The address has a long history of vandalism, as well, if you'd bothered to look. Titanium Dragon (talk) 01:56, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, you've hit the POV nail on the head. Go to the front of the class, trust me, there aren't many other editors there. I have yet to see a single editor in this debat display even a basic understanding of NPOV. MickMacNee (talk) 02:15, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

For all you know, it's in an employee lounge and done by someone on break. Assume good faith. Jeez.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:07, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

• Lets not describe this as an edit by the "US Department of Justice." It could be AG Mukasey himself, but it could just as easily be a janitor, a clerk, someone at the FBI or any one of a hundred various departments and offices, or even a visitor on a public kiosk. Its pretty much guaranteed that whoever it is doesn't have authorization to do it as "The United States Department of Justice." Tone done the hysteria, please. Avruch ^T 03:04, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedians for Palestine, A Fatal Flaw

Wikipedians for Palestine, a palestinian advocacy 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, evidence of a 'systemic reaction' manifesting an inability to deal with controversy. 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) 15:14, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

See tu quoque. Durova^Charge! 16:39, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

It's also interesting that this user signed up on April 9th and has only ever edited article targeted by the Isra-Pedia group. <eleland/talkedits> 22:00, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

This already has been brought up and dismissed. And Eleland is pointing out something "interesting" about your edit history. Clearly your bias has blinded you to the fact that you have not yet provided evidence of wrongdoing on the part of Wikipedians for Palestine. You seem to be using the same tactics the Israelis and Palestinians have been using against each other, blaming each other for everything while refusing to admit that you've done evil yourself. I'm sorry, but until you give us evidence, we aren't going to do anything. We can and in fact DO detect such people; I've seen people who systematically acted in order to bias articles banned previously, and if you do it, we'll be just as happy to ban them as the CAMERA crew. Titanium Dragon (talk) 23:21, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

"Clearly your bias has blinded you to the fact that you have not yet provided evidence of wrongdoing on the part of Wikipedians for Palestine"

i was of the opinion that the participation in agenda driven groups was prima facie evidence of wrong doing and was sufficient unto itself. am i wrong?? was not the pro israel group dealt with not because of what they did but because of the association in an agenda driven group??

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)

The subjective agenda of any push-group matters not one whit. Coordinated campaigns to subvert Wikipedia processes and alter the slant of articles are not welcome here, period. We need good solid evidence before taking action, and each purported campaign should be examined on the merits of relevant evidence pertaining to it alone, not in conjunction with some opposing agenda. Durova^Charge! 01:32, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Evidence matters not a jot. The above have tried and convicted one and all as being members of CAMERA and wiki subversives, never mind the fact that there is as much a link between these (three) users and CAMERA as there is between wikipedia editors and the foundation. They don't care one iota for NPOV, as can be seen by the subsequent edits to CAMERA and Electronic Intifada. MickMacNee (talk) 02:05, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

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)

Don't even pretend you've read this page properly, because if you had, you wouldn't be able to make that statement in all good conscience. MickMacNee (talk) 02:43, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Jesus didn't nail himself to the cross. Sounds like an antisemitic reference to me. Oh maybe you were talking about the Romans? haha. Antisemitism is so POV these days. Juanita (talk) 06:05, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Titanium, advise you to strikethrough. If that wasn't intended maliciously it was very poorly chosen. And if it was intended maliciously it has no place here. Durova^Charge! 06:38, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

No, they were banned because they broke the rules. Meatpuppetry is not allowed, nor is, say, trying to get editors to become admins then having them intervene as "uninvolved admins" in Israeli articles in order to insert pro-Israeli bias. Read and understand Wikipedia policy and this page before you complain. Just being a Jew isn't grounds for banning you. We have many groups on Wikipedia which monitor groups of related articles, and while this group could very well be doing things against Wikipedia policy, we have absolutely no evidence of inappropriate behavior on their part. Do you not understand this concept? I've said it like five times. Until we have evidence of inappropriate behavior (and, heck, knowledge of which editors are involved) we can do -nothing- because there is nothing to be done and no sign that anything needs to be done. If you have evidence of an external campaign in order to manipulate wikipedia, subvert NPOV, ect. GIVE US THE EVIDENCE. If not (and surely you don't, given you haven't posted it) then quit your whining until such time as you do have evidence of wrongdoing. The end. Titanium Dragon (talk) 02:03, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

You show me conclusive proof that this conspiracy ever achieved a significant change to any article, then I might listen to these ridiculous scares that wikipedia is under attack - "ZOMG we have proof". You are as naive as a newborn baby if you think the people wo got caught are the only people who want to manipulate wikipedia to a certain POV. MickMacNee (talk) 02:10, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Look at a list of Zeq's warnings sometime. And of course there are other people who try to manipulate Wikipedia's NPOV to a certain POV instead; that doesn't justify you or your actions. We will ban you all eventually; you'll just have to wait your turn. Titanium Dragon (talk) 02:16, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Well it didn't take you long to tar me with the same brush, your POV and bias is as obvious as it is disgusting. I frankly find it astounding that people like you are even given credence in any NPOV issue. MickMacNee (talk) 02:34, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

If A gets away with breaking a policy and B doesn't, that's no reason to abandon the policy or to abandon efforts toward enforcement. Rather, that's reason to redouble our energies and do our best to uncover all coordinated manipulation, of any stripe. The Wikipedia community needs to make a higher priority of addressing this general class of problem. Durova^Charge! 02:18, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

That's not the point. How do we know that A is not actually the one enforcing the rule against B? It is simply dealt with by banning people based on actual wiki edits and nothing else.Juanita (talk) 06:17, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Funny that the argument used for banning and topic banning Camerans was that they placed their loyalty to their organization ahead of their loyalty to WP. Well, the members of WPfP certainly are placing their loyalty to that organization first. Titanium Dragon is suddenly running to a standard of "actual harm, proved." Funny, though, if that had been the test for Camera, there would be no case, because we have not the slightest evidence they ever made one inappropriate edit. For shame.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:18, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Not me. I got banned because I supposedly do not understand that wikipedia is not a battleground. Here is the direct quote:

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)

Any excuse will do in this witchhunt.Juanita (talk) 06:17, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

If you want to make a case, make an actual separate case, and I assure you I will abide by perfectly fair standards of evidence and consequences. I don't care whether some group's cause is Israel, Palestine, or the health benefits of baked chicken. This subpage exists to discuss CAMERA. And if you want to discuss somebody else, separate that into another page so that rational and organized analysis can take place. Durova^Charge! 04:15, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

In point of fact this is not just to discuss CAMERA but to discuss me and my banning. I am a direct part of this and I am telling you that for all I know all 12 members of this group are involved with this persecution of me and other members of the Israpedia group. After all there are 12 wikipedians here that are proudly anti-Zionist and pro-Palestinian. What a better way of demonstrating your POV than getting those pesky Zionists silenced? The wolves may be guarding the chickencoop. I frankly think they are.Juanita (talk) 06:26, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

"for all I know" Exactly you have no EVIDENCE.

"involved with this persecution of me and other members of the Israpedia group." You've got that the wrong way round, Israpedia wanted to persecute wikipedia editors by rigging votes and getting Sleeper Admins to claim to be uninvolved and rig the outcomes of decisions or apply unwarrented sanctions to editors Israpedia did not like.

Finally if arbcom take up this case they will judge you not just based on the emails but your previous conduct (which i AGF with you when you say it was good) and your conduct now (not so good). Screeming persicution at the top of your lungs and attacking other editors is not likely to get them to believe that you can play nice with others. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 06:44, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

PS if you want to know if i'm a member of Wikipedians for Palestine all you have to do is ask. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 06:53, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

wikiworld has been reduced to gossip mongering with assertions based upon coincidence and not causality. one doesn't need evidence at the high tech lynching of wiki wonderland, one only needs a herd of paranoiacs divested of any real facts. the ignorance of the conceits is astounding! only a fool would accept the concept of neutral povs. especially when swimming in the wiki world of ignorance kept afloat by narcissism. truly remarkable.Davidg (talk) 05:49, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

That's quite enough pontification from someone who has 15 total contributions. Or is this your first account? Durova^Charge! 06:18, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

More is necessarily better? Try responding with substance, instead of insulting newbies. I quite believe I saw a wiki rule about that somewhere. Juanita (talk) 06:35, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

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)

This is starting to get completely out of hand.

Y'know, there's a fine line between being an honest critic/proponent of this entire affair and simply being at the point of utter boorishness. There should be no reason to name names, but there's a handful of users from both sides of the fence that really need to take some deep breaths and think before posting. Just like Jesus and the Argonauts said, its time to get meek. Tarc (talk) 02:30, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

"We will ban you all eventually;" - editor above. Spooky conincidence or unfortunate slip? I am rapidly coming to the conclusion that in this issue, the editors with a true NPOV are few and far between, and this whole episode has been the 'great discovery' for one side, because now everybody can be accused, not just people like zeq, who were accepted as contorversial but well meaning editors with many accepted edits behind them. MickMacNee (talk) 02:40, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

It's already happening. If there is a perceived bias, lo and behold, you are a Camera-an.[43]--Wehwalt (talk) 03:14, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah I know eh! How despicable and paranoid of him to say "From what I read, partisans from the pro-Israeli side have been sent here to influence this article, and I have no doubt that there are partisans from the other side as well." The witch hunt begins!!!1! <eleland/talkedits> 03:18, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Paranoia has no place on wikipedia. This is a basic fact that many of the people jumping on this ANI thread that you started do not realise. MickMacNee (talk) 04:13, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

So who's paranoid? I am truly being persecuted. I have been banned for a year. That's not paranoia. Someone or more is really 'out-to-get-me'. I have done nothing wrong.Juanita (talk) 06:32, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

When was the last time anything constructive happened on this page? I'm all for moving its comments to the AN/I archive and deleting this page as a useless troll magnet. Avruch ^T 03:08, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I second that motion Avruch. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 03:42, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I propose any editor that has posted in this thread be barred from I-P articles for 6 months. Then we might see some NPOV editing. MickMacNee (talk) 04:15, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree that this page should be archived. Titanium Dragon (talk) 04:39, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

what this page has shown are the intellectual shortcomings of mediocrity dressing itself in opinion divorced from facts. it is gossip at best, character assassination at worst by those posturing the reality of a neutral point of view. definitely on the level of the theater of the absurd at its most grotesque. it is beyond doubt that wiki model is uncapable of handling contentious issues. perhaps its future should be 'cut and paste' from sources that can be held responsibleDavidg (talk) 05:59, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

At least we now have a list of people to keep an eye on starting with those who appear out of nowhere to defend a banned editor. EconomicsGuy (talk) 06:34, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Along with a list of those who swarm in to persecute anyone who is pro-Israel. Of course we all don't have your power in wiki. Making it clear that Israpedia's attempt to provide a few editors to provide balance was definitely needed. I will withhold judgment on the administrators until I see what they do with this arbitration. Juanita (talk) 06:44, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

That comment is so summer of 2007. EconomicsGuy (talk) 06:48, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

It is Against Wiki Rules to Post Email Addresses

Posting of personal information

Posting another person's personal information (legal name, date of birth, social security number, home or workplace address, telephone number, email address, or other contact information, regardless of whether or not the information is actually correct) is harassment, unless that editor voluntarily provides or links to such information himself or herself. This is because it places the other person at unjustified and uninvited risk of harm in "the real world" or other media. This applies whether or not the person whose personal information is being revealed is a Wikipedia editor. It also applies in the case of editors who have requested a change in username, but whose old signatures can still be found in archives.

Our sanctimonious editors & banners seem to have had no qualms in violating this wiki policy. I guess we cherrypick the wiki rules we wish to follow? Is that how it works?Juanita (talk) 07:03, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.