The Wikipedia Review: A forum for discussion and criticism of Wikipedia
Wikipedia Review Op-Ed Pages

Welcome, Guest! ( Log In | Register )

4 Pages V < 1 2 3 4 >  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
> The "pro-Israeli" canvassing ring leak (annexed), The failure of WP enforcement
gomi
post Wed 1st June 2011, 6:35pm
Post #41


Member
********

Group: Members
Posts: 3,022
Joined: Fri 17th Nov 2006, 6:38pm
Member No.: 565



QUOTE(mbz1 @ Wed 1st June 2011, 8:28am) *
This email was examined by a language expert and they concluded it was probably written by sol

laugh.gif Does your expert have "finely honed linguistic skills"? You people (Wikipidiots) crack me up. laugh.gif
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Milton Roe
post Wed 1st June 2011, 7:11pm
Post #42


Known alias of J. Random Troll
*********

Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,209
Joined: Thu 28th Feb 2008, 1:03am
Member No.: 5,156

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(gomi @ Wed 1st June 2011, 11:35am) *

QUOTE(mbz1 @ Wed 1st June 2011, 8:28am) *
This email was examined by a language expert and they concluded it was probably written by sol

laugh.gif Does your expert have "finely honed linguistic skills"? You people (Wikipidiots) crack me up. laugh.gif

I considered writing exactly that, then decided it was too obscure a reference. But you made me smile. smile.gif
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
gomi
post Wed 1st June 2011, 8:08pm
Post #43


Member
********

Group: Members
Posts: 3,022
Joined: Fri 17th Nov 2006, 6:38pm
Member No.: 565



For the curious, here is the original reference. It's from 2006 -- we're getting a little long in the tooth!
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Milton Roe
post Wed 1st June 2011, 9:08pm
Post #44


Known alias of J. Random Troll
*********

Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,209
Joined: Thu 28th Feb 2008, 1:03am
Member No.: 5,156

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(gomi @ Wed 1st June 2011, 1:08pm) *

For the curious, here is the original reference. It's from 2006 -- we're getting a little long in the tooth!

These days you're long in the tooth if you use or understand the phrase "long in the tooth." unsure.gif
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
AGK
post Wed 1st June 2011, 9:40pm
Post #45


New Member
*

Group: Contributors
Posts: 24
Joined: Sat 5th Apr 2008, 3:36pm
From: U.K.
Member No.: 5,613

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(Sololol @ Wed 1st June 2011, 3:56am) *

This AGK fellow seems to mean well but he's a little too chummy with one camp to inspire any confidence.

Chummy? Ha! I handed out two sanctions and some other blocks before that, and now editors from both factions want to see me hang.
QUOTE(Sololol @ Wed 1st June 2011, 3:56am) *

SD might not be a problem, but it's tough to tell

He is - but so are many others. The whole I/P area is a mess.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Sololol
post Wed 1st June 2011, 10:54pm
Post #46


Bell the Cat
***

Group: Contributors
Posts: 193
Joined: Sun 10th Apr 2011, 6:32am
Member No.: 50,538

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(AGK @ Wed 1st June 2011, 5:40pm) *

QUOTE(Sololol @ Wed 1st June 2011, 3:56am) *

This AGK fellow seems to mean well but he's a little too chummy with one camp to inspire any confidence.

Chummy? Ha! I handed out two sanctions and some other blocks before that, and now editors from both factions want to see me hang.

Hullo there, AGK! You've tackled a tough area where Arbcom fears to tread and that is commendable. May you collect many wiki-skulls for your tzompantli! But it takes a long time to get a feel for the place and you've already served two stunning victories to Mbz1's side. All of the complaining editors are very much aware (well, most of them, I think) that she's part of a sock-puppet/canvassing group (her personal charms have won her no friends). Topic banning SD on the prompting of his long-time sockpuppet nemesis, Drork, also doesn't help. So yes, everyone is going to look at you like you're walking a pet crocodile through a daycare playground. Have a taste of the other ring members' work. What do you know, here's another member promoting the canvassing attempt sponsored by the other member (it used to give his name as the contact). What happened? He was let off. Not a good track record for admins in the area.
QUOTE(Sololol @ Wed 1st June 2011, 3:56am) *

SD might not be a problem, but it's tough to tell

QUOTE(AGK @ Wed 1st June 2011, 5:40pm) *

He is - but so are many others.

In happier times I'd agree with you but SD fills a very specific niche in the wiki-biome; making sure the Golan Heights is reflected as Syrian despite Drork and friends years of pushing to put it in Israel. Of course, only Israel recognizes GH as in Israel; under international law you can't annex territory like that and everyone else refuses to recognize it. I'd be A-OK with Israel having the Golan Heights and everyone letting them have it (it's not legal but it happens all the time -this is with various human rights caveats in re. to the Syrian population) but that hasn't happened and won't. If you portray it as Israeli then the conflict with Syria looks inexplicable. Same thing with East Jerusalem (or all of Jerusalem, that's very sticky) and that was always my dog in the fight, the "pro-Israeli" crowd trying to simplify a very complicated and morally ambiguous topic in which both sides are victim and aggressor by turn.(Was Begin a great Prime Minister or a terrorist? actually both, etc.) Hence I have trouble saying SD should be topic banned if he is essentially correct.

This post has been edited by Sololol: Thu 2nd June 2011, 1:22am
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Wikifan
post Thu 2nd June 2011, 3:07am
Post #47


Member
***

Group: Contributors
Posts: 204
Joined: Sat 28th Aug 2010, 2:58pm
Member No.: 26,203

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(Sololol @ Wed 1st June 2011, 10:54pm) *

QUOTE(AGK @ Wed 1st June 2011, 5:40pm) *

QUOTE(Sololol @ Wed 1st June 2011, 3:56am) *

This AGK fellow seems to mean well but he's a little too chummy with one camp to inspire any confidence.

Chummy? Ha! I handed out two sanctions and some other blocks before that, and now editors from both factions want to see me hang.

Hullo there, AGK! You've tackled a tough area where Arbcom fears to tread and that is commendable. May you collect many wiki-skulls for your tzompantli! But it takes a long time to get a feel for the place and you've already served two stunning victories to Mbz1's side. All of the complaining editors are very much aware (well, most of them, I think) that she's part of a sock-puppet/canvassing group (her personal charms have won her no friends). Topic banning SD on the prompting of his long-time sockpuppet nemesis, Drork, also doesn't help. So yes, everyone is going to look at you like you're walking a pet crocodile through a daycare playground. Have a taste of the other ring members' work. What do you know, here's another member promoting the canvassing attempt sponsored by the other member (it used to give his name as the contact). What happened? He was let off. Not a good track record for admins in the area.
QUOTE(Sololol @ Wed 1st June 2011, 3:56am) *

SD might not be a problem, but it's tough to tell

QUOTE(AGK @ Wed 1st June 2011, 5:40pm) *

He is - but so are many others.

In happier times I'd agree with you but SD fills a very specific niche in the wiki-biome; making sure the Golan Heights is reflected as Syrian despite Drork and friends years of pushing to put it in Israel. Of course, only Israel recognizes GH as in Israel; under international law you can't annex territory like that and everyone else refuses to recognize it. I'd be A-OK with Israel having the Golan Heights and everyone letting them have it (it's not legal but it happens all the time -this is with various human rights caveats in re. to the Syrian population) but that hasn't happened and won't. If you portray it as Israeli then the conflict with Syria looks inexplicable. Same thing with East Jerusalem (or all of Jerusalem, that's very sticky) and that was always my dog in the fight, the "pro-Israeli" crowd trying to simplify a very complicated and morally ambiguous topic in which both sides are victim and aggressor by turn.(Was Begin a great Prime Minister or a terrorist? actually both, etc.) Hence I have trouble saying SD should be topic banned if he is essentially correct.


if only editors would be this honest on wikipedia.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
mbz1
post Thu 2nd June 2011, 3:41am
Post #48


Senior Member
****

Group: Contributors
Posts: 461
Joined: Tue 24th Aug 2010, 10:50pm
Member No.: 25,791



QUOTE(AGK @ Wed 1st June 2011, 9:40pm) *

QUOTE(Sololol @ Wed 1st June 2011, 3:56am) *

This AGK fellow seems to mean well but he's a little too chummy with one camp to inspire any confidence.

Chummy? Ha! I handed out two sanctions and some other blocks before that, and now editors from both factions want to see me hang.
QUOTE(Sololol @ Wed 1st June 2011, 3:56am) *

SD might not be a problem, but it's tough to tell

He is - but so are many others. The whole I/P area is a mess.

AGK, I am not sure you have read the whole topic, but because your opinion matters I'd like to tell you:

I have never used a sock account, and I never will.
I have never edited on behalf of banned users, just the opposite I was talking to admins offline , and online trying to bring those users back.

This post has been edited by mbz1: Thu 2nd June 2011, 3:43am
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Tarc
post Thu 2nd June 2011, 7:20pm
Post #49


Fat Cat
******

Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,124
Joined: Fri 7th Mar 2008, 3:38am
Member No.: 5,309

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(mbz1 @ Wed 1st June 2011, 11:41pm) *
I have never edited on behalf of banned users, just the opposite I was talking to admins offline , and online trying to bring those users back.


Trying to get miserable little shits like Isarig a second chance, while you know full well they are actively socking, is pretty two-faced even for you Mila.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Zoloft
post Fri 3rd June 2011, 12:35am
Post #50


May we all find solace in our dreams.
******

Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,332
Joined: Fri 15th Jan 2010, 11:08pm
From: Erewhon
Member No.: 16,621



How to solve the I/P issue:

"Today the Wikimedia Foundation has come to a decision on content: we have hired a group of historians from six universities in three countries to rewrite the Wikipedia articles pertaining to Israel and Palestine. Pending changes will be applied to these articles and any other new articles in this subject will be overseen by this group. All changes by editors will be reviewed before application.

A universal topic ban to all previous editors in this field is now in force. The Wikimedia Foundation thanks those editors for their tireless contributions. The road to victory shall be paved with the bones of our opponents."
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Sololol
post Fri 3rd June 2011, 12:42am
Post #51


Bell the Cat
***

Group: Contributors
Posts: 193
Joined: Sun 10th Apr 2011, 6:32am
Member No.: 50,538

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(mbz1 @ Wed 1st June 2011, 11:41pm) *
I have never edited on behalf of banned users, just the opposite I was talking to admins offline , and online trying to bring those users back.


Please refer to the first page of this thread. Actually I'll recap for you:
1. Image one of you conferring with a banned user. Image two.
2. You entering a discussion you'd never been in before right after Nocal's latest sock was blocked. to start arguing against Nableezy using the sources provided in the email.
3. You admitting you are doing this to Demiurge1000.

This is one of the many reasons I have trouble taking anything you say as true; in spite of overwhelming evidence to the contrary you continue to lie.
There are many good pro-Israeli editors already operating on site with in guidelines. You are not one of them. Please try to convince your gang to stop, your actions do nothing but create drama and headaches.

In other news, I'm sure you'll be happy to note that your old friend Nableezy was blocked by NuclearWarfare for outing in this post. NW can't seem to point out the actual outing when grilled by various other admins on the topic and I'm likewise stumped. But congratulations! Soon you guys will have no opposition when you move "Arab people" into Category:Terrorism or whatever it is you are aiming for.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Tarc
post Fri 3rd June 2011, 12:48am
Post #52


Fat Cat
******

Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,124
Joined: Fri 7th Mar 2008, 3:38am
Member No.: 5,309

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(Zoloft @ Thu 2nd June 2011, 8:35pm) *

How to solve the I/P issue:


Turn everything between Damascus and Cairo into glass?
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
victim of censorship
post Fri 3rd June 2011, 2:54am
Post #53


Not all thugs are Wikipediots, but all Wikipediots are thugs.
******

Group: Contributors
Posts: 1,166
Joined: Tue 6th Jan 2009, 8:33am
From: The SOCK HOP
Member No.: 9,640



QUOTE(Zoloft @ Thu 2nd June 2011, 7:35pm) *

How to solve the I/P issue:

"Today the Wikimedia Foundation has come to a decision on content: we have hired a group of historians from six universities in three countries to rewrite the Wikipedia articles pertaining to Israel and Palestine. Pending changes will be applied to these articles and any other new articles in this subject will be overseen by this group. All changes by editors will be reviewed before application.

A universal topic ban to all previous editors in this field is now in force. The Wikimedia Foundation thanks those editors for their tireless contributions. The road to victory shall be paved with the bones of our opponents."


Another chunk of protection removed from sec230... The time of suits is almost here for wiki
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
The Adversary
post Fri 3rd June 2011, 6:00am
Post #54


CT (Check Troll)
*****

Group: Regulars
Posts: 801
Joined: Sat 20th May 2006, 12:09am
Member No.: 194



QUOTE(Sololol @ Fri 3rd June 2011, 12:42am) *


In other news, I'm sure you'll be happy to note that your old friend Nableezy was blocked by NuclearWarfare for outing in this post. NW can't seem to point out the actual outing when grilled by various other admins on the topic and I'm likewise stumped. But congratulations!

Some people (read: one notorious sock, +"wikifriends"), must be laughing their heads of at NW; he swallowed the bait.

It is the new game in town; "now I´m out, now I´m not".

Mbz1 is also learning this game, one moment claiming "I am editing under my real name", next screaming for oversighters for being outed.
Poor little thing.

Ok.
And I´m a little bit pregnant. But don´t you dare to call me pregnant, you nasty you!! I´m not fully pregnant, so if you call me pregnant you are lying shits.
Understood?!!!
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
mbz1
post Fri 3rd June 2011, 5:00pm
Post #55


Senior Member
****

Group: Contributors
Posts: 461
Joined: Tue 24th Aug 2010, 10:50pm
Member No.: 25,791



QUOTE(Sololol @ Fri 3rd June 2011, 12:42am) *



In other news, I'm sure you'll be happy to note that your old friend Nableezy was blocked by NuclearWarfare for outing in this post. NW can't seem to point out the actual outing when grilled by various other admins on the topic and I'm likewise stumped. But congratulations! Soon you guys will have no opposition when you move "Arab people" into Category:Terrorism or whatever it is you are aiming for.


Ah poor, sol, I hate to take away one more of your toys, I mean your allegations of me demonizing Nab with a help of a banned editor. laugh.gif Here I am arguing with HJ that Nableezy block was unwarranted, and here I am expressing my gratitude for Nab's unblocking It was on December 6,2010. There were more instances of me defending Nab, but I have more interesting things to do than trying to prove something to people as you and and tarc are.

This post has been edited by mbz1: Fri 3rd June 2011, 6:22pm
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
The Joy
post Fri 3rd June 2011, 8:40pm
Post #56


I am a millipede! I am amazing!
********

Group: Members
Posts: 3,839
Joined: Sat 17th Feb 2007, 2:25am
From: The Moon
Member No.: 982



QUOTE(Zoloft @ Thu 2nd June 2011, 8:35pm) *

How to solve the I/P issue:

"Today the Wikimedia Foundation has come to a decision on content: we have hired a group of historians from six universities in three countries to rewrite the Wikipedia articles pertaining to Israel and Palestine. Pending changes will be applied to these articles and any other new articles in this subject will be overseen by this group. All changes by editors will be reviewed before application.

A universal topic ban to all previous editors in this field is now in force. The Wikimedia Foundation thanks those editors for their tireless contributions. The road to victory shall be paved with the bones of our opponents."


Alas, academics can be just as bad. One of the problems of Wikipedia is the idea there is a singular, universal truth that can easily be explained in a short encyclopedia article. The whole I/P conflict has a myriad of diverse viewpoints from numerous scholars. A synthesis of the I/P conflict that everyone can agree on is highly unlikely, even when academics are collegial and willing to hear out each other's views. Academia tries to find answers to problems, but academia is more of a conversation and exchange of ideas and information between scholars in the search for truth. They may not agree with each other's theses and interpretations of facts, but real academics can have passionate yet respectable conversations with one other in an attempt to find those answers. Unfortunately, not all academics behave professionally. One of my history professors talked about some British scholars getting into a fistfight during a debate once.

Wikipedians can say "We just state the facts!" Well, why those facts? Why are you sourcing this fellow and not this fellow? Why do you say that singer Jolly Elf is anti-Semitic for calling Ariel Sharon a "poopyhead?" Do you not understand the context of Jolly's statement and why he made that statement? Jolly stated that "Ariel Sharon is a poopyhead" for not agreeing to campaign finance reform, not he hates the Jews. "The Joy, you are a Palestinian POV pusher! Jolly Elf has said many bad thing about Israeli politicians! Read what he said! He must be anti-Semitic!" Oy, vey! I couldn't work in that environment. I would go mad.

It doesn't help that Wikipedia's civility and no personal attacks policies make "academics" on the fringe equal to those of the mainstream. Knowing the Foundation, it would choose the crazy ones to take over and not the mainstream sane ones.

QUOTE(victim of censorship @ Thu 2nd June 2011, 10:54pm) *

Another chunk of protection removed from sec230... The time of suits is almost here for wiki


Image
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Sololol
post Sat 4th June 2011, 5:18pm
Post #57


Bell the Cat
***

Group: Contributors
Posts: 193
Joined: Sun 10th Apr 2011, 6:32am
Member No.: 50,538

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(The Joy @ Fri 3rd June 2011, 4:40pm) *

Alas, academics can be just as bad. One of the problems of Wikipedia is the idea there is a singular, universal truth that can easily be explained in a short encyclopedia article. The whole I/P conflict has a myriad of diverse viewpoints from numerous scholars. A synthesis of the I/P conflict that everyone can agree on is highly unlikely, even when academics are collegial and willing to hear out each other's views. Academia tries to find answers to problems, but academia is more of a conversation and exchange of ideas and information between scholars in the search for truth. They may not agree with each other's theses and interpretations of facts, but real academics can have passionate yet respectable conversations with one other in an attempt to find those answers. Unfortunately, not all academics behave professionally. One of my history professors talked about some British scholars getting into a fistfight during a debate once.


This is one of the many fascinating aspects of the conflict, how its politicization resists all attempts at neutral interpretation, disrupting the regular flow of academic discourse even in relatively unrelated fields. In 2001 a peer-approved study in Human Immunology was suppressed post-publication, recipients of paper copies were asked to rip it out and throw it away. The problem? It found genetic similarities between Palestinians and Middle-Eastern Jews. Why it would be controversial that two groups of people living in the same area have genetic links is beyond me. That's an extreme example but the political creation of knowledge creeps into every issue and makes it nigh impossible to figure out a fair treatment of the topic. If the academic community has problems with it there's little wonder WP fails at it. Zoloft's suggestion might just be the best bet for WP but you'd need to pick your academics very carefully as a few academics are part of the I-P editing problem (here's looking at you, Runtshit). My hope is that someone finally recognizes this as a massive problem area that demands concentrated cooperation on the part of bureaucracy to implement drastic, long-term changes.
That or they could start enforcing the rules. Either one.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
The Joy
post Sat 4th June 2011, 8:10pm
Post #58


I am a millipede! I am amazing!
********

Group: Members
Posts: 3,839
Joined: Sat 17th Feb 2007, 2:25am
From: The Moon
Member No.: 982



QUOTE(Sololol @ Sat 4th June 2011, 1:18pm) *

QUOTE(The Joy @ Fri 3rd June 2011, 4:40pm) *

Alas, academics can be just as bad. One of the problems of Wikipedia is the idea there is a singular, universal truth that can easily be explained in a short encyclopedia article. The whole I/P conflict has a myriad of diverse viewpoints from numerous scholars. A synthesis of the I/P conflict that everyone can agree on is highly unlikely, even when academics are collegial and willing to hear out each other's views. Academia tries to find answers to problems, but academia is more of a conversation and exchange of ideas and information between scholars in the search for truth. They may not agree with each other's theses and interpretations of facts, but real academics can have passionate yet respectable conversations with one other in an attempt to find those answers. Unfortunately, not all academics behave professionally. One of my history professors talked about some British scholars getting into a fistfight during a debate once.


This is one of the many fascinating aspects of the conflict, how its politicization resists all attempts at neutral interpretation, disrupting the regular flow of academic discourse even in relatively unrelated fields. In 2001 a peer-approved study in Human Immunology was suppressed post-publication, recipients of paper copies were asked to rip it out and throw it away. The problem? It found genetic similarities between Palestinians and Middle-Eastern Jews. Why it would be controversial that two groups of people living in the same area have genetic links is beyond me. That's an extreme example but the political creation of knowledge creeps into every issue and makes it nigh impossible to figure out a fair treatment of the topic. If the academic community has problems with it there's little wonder WP fails at it. Zoloft's suggestion might just be the best bet for WP but you'd need to pick your academics very carefully as a few academics are part of the I-P editing problem (here's looking at you, Runtshit). My hope is that someone finally recognizes this as a massive problem area that demands concentrated cooperation on the part of bureaucracy to implement drastic, long-term changes.
That or they could start enforcing the rules. Either one.


One of the more perplexing problems I see on Wikipedia and pretty any discussion of Israel is that any negative criticism of Israel means that the critic is "anti-Semitic" and hates Jews. That really poisons the chalice and squashes any attempt at collegial discussion. One of my favorite historians, Richard Marius (T-H-L-K-D) was ostracized and railroaded for criticizing Israel's Shin Bet's activities. I can't believe a college professor would accuse a fellow academic of hating Jews solely on a personal criticism of Israel's actions. It's a wide stretch to say that negative commenting on Israel's foreign or domestic policies is somehow calling for a new "Final Solution" to be imposed. And yet, it's a fallacy used all the time and it really does not help Israel at all for its supporters to continue using that strategy. Hopefully, Wikipedia Administrators would put a stop to that behavior, but some of the more prominent administrators (like Jayjg) are very much pro-Israel and may let it slide. By action or inaction, administrators can support either side and make it even worse.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
mbz1
post Sun 5th June 2011, 1:55am
Post #59


Senior Member
****

Group: Contributors
Posts: 461
Joined: Tue 24th Aug 2010, 10:50pm
Member No.: 25,791



QUOTE(The Joy @ Sat 4th June 2011, 10:38pm) *


(Note: any further debates about this and not the I/P Wikipedia dispute should be moved to the Politics subforum or Tarpit. Good gravy, I'm so incensed by this that maybe Tarc is right and all of the Middle East/Western Asia should be turned to glass. hrmph.gif )


tarc said all of the Middle East/Western Asia should be turned to glass, really?

Solution for Middle East peace is much simpler tongue.gif

This post has been edited by mbz1: Sun 5th June 2011, 1:55am
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
asad112
post Sun 5th June 2011, 7:47am
Post #60


Neophyte


Group: Contributors
Posts: 7
Joined: Thu 2nd Jun 2011, 2:09pm
Member No.: 56,361

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



And in other news...
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

4 Pages V < 1 2 3 4 >
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 

-   Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 22nd 11 17, 10:13pm