The "pro-Israeli" canvassing ring leak (annexed), The failure of WP enforcement Options

[Sololol]

I'd have preferred this all to have been dealt with quietly, sparing any embarrassment, but that didn't happen. I can't remain silent so here we are.*
There may be a more a viscous section of Wikipedia than I-P area but I've no idea what it is. Veterans will acknowledge that it's a bloodthirsty zone filled with endless bickering over tiny details, constant sockpuppet harassment and general nastiness (it's also a great place to explore the finer points of sophistry). The specter of a pro-Israeli emailing list has been raised numerous times but no one could offer more than circumstantial evidence. Until now.

This may come as no surprise to our jaded audience but it's a great surprise to those fresh-faced young editors who bought the party line of "There is no cabal!", namely me. My hope was that Wikipedia's enforcement mavens would take over once they were made aware of the situation. That was a few months ago. I'd received these files from an anonymous email address after running afoul of the puppet masters (here, Jan/Feb-ish). While I can't verify how they were obtained (leak/hack/etc.) I can verify their authenticity. Real names and contact info not otherwise available have been blanked so you'll have to take my word for it (or someone else's as they don't seem to be a huge secret).

We (myself, two editors not involved in the topic area, a retired CU and two other folks) researched the group and sent our findings to Arbcom, to no avail.

The files in question, the only thing remotely interesting in this post.
The members, most of whom will come as no surprise to familiar editors (this is not exhaustive, it covers most of the editors in the emails released here but not all of them in the files nor, I suspect, all of them involved):
-Nocal100: aka Isarig, long term editor turned prolific puppetmaster
-breein1007
-Mbz1
-Shuki
-Stellarkid aka Djudem/Concheet from the 2008 CAMERA group, the other great puppetmaster
-Jiujitsuguy
-brewcrewer
-Broccoli
-a peripheral glimpse of Jayjg who, despite his reputation, acts quite honorably
So that's one CAMERA fellow, one of the original CAMERA members, and one who even made his own canvassing group (a fourth member is peripherally involved in another group that made headlines for a similar tactic). Hmmm.

HOW IS YOU KNOW THEY ARE REAL?!
The email addresses match according to various editors who've had contact with them. The on-wiki activity matches (compare this file with this edit and look at these sources provided by the banned puppet master inserted by an editor never before involved on the page, continuing the argument for the sockpuppet).
Oh, and Mbz1 admitted it.

YOU ARE BREAKING TEH LAW/INVADIN MAH PRIVACIES!
No dice, champ. I was neither the initial obtainer nor revealer. Talk to my lawyer.

Why bother bringing this up if no one will do anything to stop it?
Because people deserve to know what they face before investing their time. If you edit in a contentious place be aware that these groups exist and weigh the possibility of wasted, frustrating hours versus doing something else. The group itself isn't too surprising. The interesting bit is Wikipedia's complete failure to shut it down after notification of its existence or at least get rid of the most culpable offenders. If you want to, say, create an encyclopedia you'd do well to get rid of a toxic ring of ultra-nationalist sock puppeteers. So let this be a warning to you, oh newbie editors. The trail points to group operating in the same manner since about 2009 and it's all been reported before. Mbz1 and Broccoli cooperating on DYK? Brewcrewer working with NoCal socks? All were reported and dismissed. There's plenty of other hints at collusion which I'll leave you to dredge up yourself, it's all anti-Arab/Likudnik content, DYK pumping (best way to get visibility for pet causes) and sockpuppet harassment. There's more material but I've rambled long enough for an initial post.

TL/DR: Whiny new guy realizes there are cabals, is shocked by WP's failure to take even token preventive actions.

*In order to save time and focus on the topic, I hereby plead nolo contendere to anything remotely plausible I'm accused of doing (short of anything illegal) including whatever I was banned for, renounce my right to appeal, and accept our Lord Jimbo as my savior. This should be not be mistaken as the truth, just a time saving measure.

[Zoloft]

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."

[The Joy]

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.

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

(IMG:http://i17.photobucket.com/albums/b81/stansdds/Obama/SMITHCLONES.jpg)

[Sololol]

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.

[The Joy]

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.