Printable Version of Topic

Click here to view this topic in its original format

_ The Wikipedia Annex _ The "pro-Israeli" canvassing ring leak (annexed)

Posted by: 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 (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Civilian_casualty_ratio&limit=500&action=history, 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 http://img819.imageshack.us/g/mbz1andthegang.jpg/, 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):
-http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_NoCal100 aka Isarig, long term editor turned prolific puppetmaster
-http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Breein1007
-http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User%3AMbz1
-http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Shuki
-http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?limit=50&tagFilter=&title=Special%3AContributions&contribs=user&target=Stellarkid&namespace=&tagfilter=&year=&month=-1 aka Djudem/Concheet from the 2008 CAMERA group, the other great puppetmaster
-http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?limit=50&tagFilter=&title=Special%3AContributions&contribs=user&target=Jiujitsuguy&namespace=&tagfilter=&year=&month=-1
-http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?limit=50&tagFilter=&title=Special%3AContributions&contribs=user&target=brewcrewer&namespace=&tagfilter=&year=&month=-1
-http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/%D7%91%D7%A8%D7%95%D7%A7%D7%95%D7%9C%D7%99
-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 http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/829/mbz1broccoli.jpg/ with this http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:Did_you_know&diff=prev&oldid=403730222 and http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/862/nocalmbz1.jpg/ sources provided by the banned puppet master http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Egypt&diff=403799548&oldid=403797933 never before involved on the page, continuing the argument for the sockpuppet).
Oh, and Mbz1 http://pastebin.com/eiGsjKSR.

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.


Posted by: It's the blimp, Frank

Good post. Given the corruption at Wikipedia, Name and Shame is probably the best we can do.

Posted by: thekohser

QUOTE(It's the blimp, Frank @ Thu 12th May 2011, 2:05pm) *

Good post.


I was thinking just the opposite. I am left with little more clue about what the author is trying to convey than if he had just shown me a "wordle" graphic of the words he had typed.

Posted by: gomi

QUOTE(thekohser @ Thu 12th May 2011, 1:06pm) *
QUOTE(It's the blimp, Frank @ Thu 12th May 2011, 2:05pm) *
Good post.
I was thinking just the opposite. I am left with little more clue about what the author is trying to convey than if he had just shown me a "wordle" graphic of the words he had typed.

Well, while we might have hoped for more specific explication in the post here, the emails linked to are pretty damning, if sadly predictable -- yet another group using an email list to game the (insanely constructed and horribly broken) Wikipedia system. In this case, they were doing so in the promotion of a particular pro-Israeli point of view, but we can be sure there are similar lists, better hidden, for many other partisan causes.

Posted by: powercorrupts

Look at the http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category:Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_Runtshit&from=R sockfarm, now on over 1,300 - and all to hound one guy called Rance. That comes for being a Jew with the guts to be seriously critical - it's not always that easy for them, and WP of course is pretty much designed to always favour the bad guy. Being inherently abuse-friendly was the obvious 'challenge' facing Wikipedia from the outset, but far from doing much to counter it, Wikimedia essentially denies it is really the case. And yet it is full of systems that favour natural abusers.

Zionists behave badly because bad behaviour is central to their ideal.

Also there is http://encyclopediadramatica.ch/The_Wikipedia_Jews Is it me, or is ED new and improved?

Posted by: radek

QUOTE(gomi @ Thu 12th May 2011, 3:34pm) *

QUOTE(thekohser @ Thu 12th May 2011, 1:06pm) *
QUOTE(It's the blimp, Frank @ Thu 12th May 2011, 2:05pm) *
Good post.
I was thinking just the opposite. I am left with little more clue about what the author is trying to convey than if he had just shown me a "wordle" graphic of the words he had typed.

Well, while we might have hoped for more specific explication in the post here, the emails linked to are pretty damning, if sadly predictable -- yet another group using an email list to game the (insanely constructed and horribly broken) Wikipedia system. In this case, they were doing so in the promotion of a particular pro-Israeli point of view, but we can be sure there are similar lists, better hidden, for many other partisan causes.


I'm not going to read this, because reading other people's private emails without their permission is a shitty thing to do, no matter what is allegedly in them (barring some serious things that have potential impact on RL of folks) and however they were obtained. Can someone specifically indicate though - with paraphrasing - what these "big crimes" they are supposed to be guilty off actually were? I mean, aside from sitting around and bitching about Wikipedia and Wikipedia editors together which is what I'm guessing this mostly consists of. I'm also going to venture a guess that the reason ArbCom's not doing anything about it is because the whole thing is not as nefarious as it is being made out to be.

And yeah, this whole practice of running around the internet and stealing people's private emails just to score some points in these ideological battles is a far worse, ethically speaking, phenomenon, then these goofy little lists themselves.

(of course I would say all this, right? On the other hand, I wouldn't be surprised if presently I was the only Wikipedia editor left NOT on some secret mailing list)

Posted by: Tarc

QUOTE(powercorrupts @ Thu 12th May 2011, 5:02pm) *
Also there is http://encyclopediadramatica.ch/The_Wikipedia_Jews Is it me, or is ED new and improved?


Thankfully it was preserved before becoming an icanhascheezburger wannabe. That reminds me that I need to create a new account at some point, too.

As for the latest, one can only hope that some admins with balls will pick this up and actually do something. The CAMERA affair was cracked at AN/I,not from waiting for ArbCom to get off its ass.

QUOTE(radek @ Thu 12th May 2011, 5:14pm) *

Can someone specifically indicate though - with paraphrasing - what these "big crimes" they are supposed to be guilty off actually were?


Mbz1 creates puff-piece articles of pro-Israeli propaganda, submits them to the "Did You Know?" forum, then solicits wiki-buddies to go there and vote in favor of adding said articles to the front page. She even provides the complete "here's what you need to cut n paste" line for a positive vote. They believe all that oppose them at DYK are antisemites and look for ways to undermine their opinions.

Posted by: Sololol

QUOTE(thekohser @ Thu 12th May 2011, 4:06pm) *

QUOTE(It's the blimp, Frank @ Thu 12th May 2011, 2:05pm) *

Good post.


I was thinking just the opposite. I am left with little more clue about what the author is trying to convey than if he had just shown me a "wordle" graphic of the words he had typed.

It was more to just get it out there. People familiar with the topic area and the editors will understand it, people unfamiliar with it probably won't but I'll explain what I can to specific queries.

Basically, there's a group of hyper-aggressive Kahanist types in the Israel-Palestine editing area. Suspicions were raised: are they a canvassing group? Yes. A holdover from the first CAMERA group? Partially. They go for the generic POV-pushing group tactics of using sockpuppets to guard their editors, harass opposition, vote-stack, etc. What you're looking at is the group of unbanned editors communicating with the puppetmasters/canvassing. Some of it's trivial and some of it looks insta-ban worthy.

The group doesn't really matter, it's the lack of response when it came to light. It also raises the question of how the topic area got so bad that otherwise reasonable people (I assume) decided to start a group devoted to trolling a website. And kept at it for years.

Posted by: Sololol

QUOTE(radek @ Thu 12th May 2011, 5:14pm) *

And yeah, this whole practice of running around the internet and stealing people's private emails just to score some points in these ideological battles is a far worse, ethically speaking, phenomenon, then these goofy little lists themselves.

(of course I would say all this, right? On the other hand, I wouldn't be surprised if presently I was the only Wikipedia editor left NOT on some secret mailing list)

Reverse the problem: if you were given them and knew the group was wasting hundreds of volunteer hours, what would you do? What if they spent most of their efforts pushing quasi-racist material to the frontpage of Wikipedia? What if the people who are supposed to deal with these things never even bothered to respond? I quit. I've no points to score. This isn't "revenge": there will be no fall out for the group, we already know this. Even if there were they'd just come back as socks; admins don't have the tools to deal with long-term, organized POV-pushing.
I can't tell you if they were a leak from a group member (less ethically challenged maybe?) or a hack. Mbz1 claims she was hacked but she's also claimed they were faked and is essentially a serial liar.

If they were obtained by hacking it raises the question of just how crazy people will go towards achieving their ends. You don't have a very kind community if people are willing to break laws to get at each other. This is actually an excellent warning that your community has slid out of control.

As to how nefarious it is, I don't think there's anything nefarious about canvassing groups, just immature and obnoxious. There's more evidence you won't see but that's the nature of the beast.

Posted by: radek

QUOTE

Reverse the problem: if you had them and knew the group was wasting hundreds of volunteer hours, what would you do? What if they spent most of their efforts pushing quasi-racist material to the frontpage of Wikipedia? What if the people who are supposed to deal with these things never even bothered to respond?


At most send it to ArbCom and let them deal with it. If they do nothing, respect that, rather than putting it up on a public forum.
(at best this is a bit like dealing with enemy traitors - you might use them, but you almost never respect them)

QUOTE
If they were obtained by hacking it raises the question of just how crazy people will go towards achieving their ends. You don't have a very kind community if people are willing to break laws to get at each other.


Well, I most certainly agree with that.

Posted by: Milton Roe

QUOTE(Sololol @ Thu 12th May 2011, 2:26pm) *

Basically, there's a group of hyper-aggressive Kahanist types in the Israel-Palestine editing area. Suspicions were raised: are they a canvassing group? Yes. A holdover from the first CAMERA group? Partially. They go for the generic POV-pushing group tactics of using sockpuppets to guard their editors, harass opposition, vote-stack, etc. What you're looking at is the group of unbanned editors communicating with the puppetmasters/canvassing. Some of it's trivial and some of it looks insta-ban worthy.

The group doesn't really matter, it's the lack of response when it came to light. It also raises the question of how the topic area got so bad that otherwise reasonable people (I assume) decided to start a group devoted to trolling a website. And kept at it for years.

I think yoiu know the answer to that. They played the antisemitism card so well that nobody could really do much about it. If you claimed a bunch of Jews plus sympathizers were controlling various areas of Wikipedia to push a Zionist POV, plus protect each other's leftist backs, you got labeled a skinhead. That was your price for noticing the obvious.

ED is gone, but a lot of the "Wikipedia Jews" article there was written in 2006, and supportive evidence over the years as it came in. Some bits are left. See if you recognize any of it.

http://www.godlikeproductions.com/forum1/message1458947/pg1

QUOTE
The Wikipedia Jews (TOW✡), led by Scheißjüdin‎, are an existential reality of Wikipedia. They don't like being called The Wikipedia Jews. They don't want to admit that they're Wikipedia Jews. Some of them aren't Jews. Yet they are Wikipedia Jews. As poster jackwelsh from The Wikipedia Review eloquently put it:

“What should their clique be called, if not the "Wikipedia Jews"?„

This is a cabal whose existence Wikipedia doesn't want to admit. Their own cabal page contains no mention of them[1]. The Wikipedia Jews are basically abusive people, the kind of people who feel like reverting all your edits in your face and then blocking you. In essence, they're bureaucratic fucks, fucking up the Web with Wikipedia garbage that gets copied by spam scrapers all around the Web with their Web fuckery, thanks to the idiotic Stallmanesque so-called "copyleft" license they use, a license with Jimbo Wales's "child in Africa" in mind, an imbecilic excuse to fuck up the Web and IRC all day long with spam, spam and even more spam.

Among the most famous Wikipedia Jews are Scheißjüdin‎, Jewjig, Isarig, L'Aquatique, Humus sapiens, Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg, Zeq and Mantanmoreland, who also has his own TOW article. SlimVirgin is a disgruntled PETA fan who is obsessed with Jews (even though she is a shiksa!) and the terrorist bombing of Pan Am Flight 103. Jayjg is the most famous Zionist on Wikipedia. Humus and Moshe are the henchmen to SlimVirgin and Jayjg's Joker- and Riddler-type evil genius. Whenever the leaders need help, the henchmen magically appear along with others. It is a complete and vicious lie that the actions of this posse are coordinated by email, irc or instant messaging.

There is, in fact, an unconscious mindlink bonding SlimVirgin, Jayjg and all their cohorts. When one feels pain, the others feel pain. When one feels "damn it, I wish I've already reverted that bastard three times", the others feel the pain and lend a reverting hand. Even with their contradictory views of Jewry, these users act in tandem to fuck up the Web and spread their view that Jews are the most important stuff on the planet, ignoring the fact that not everyone's a Wikipedia Jew. Mantanmoreland AKA Gary Weiss is a minor journalist who had a major meltdown when his article came up for deletion.


All of this is not really about Jewishness, of course. It has no connection to Jewishness per se, except as it exemplifies the propensity of one group to here advance its own agenda, by playing the "persecuted minority card" far longer than it has any realistic justification for. If it weren't for that, nobody would give a damn. Or perhaps only real skinheads would, if there really are any who can actually read (much less help write an encyclopedia).

And I think we all have some kind of feeling for how bad this can get. If there was some kind of Irish Catholic cabal on Wikipedia controlling all the articles on Northern Ireland, supporting each other's RfA's, and blocking identified Irish Protestants or anybody in the outgroup, just for the hell of it, I think we'd have problem with that. Or the reverse. In fact, we've actually seen some of this on the "Troubles" wars on WP, and nobody had much patience for it. But the Israel/Palastine thing makes it all look a hiccup by comparison.

It's time WP quit putting up with all this. The stuff with SlimVirgin, Mantanmoreland, Baxter/Poet, and many of the great WikiWars have all had a huge subtext of Jew vs. Not-a-Jew. And even Jew vs. Not-Politically-Correct-Jew. Personally, I'm pretty sick of it. If you can't leave your ethnicity at the door when editing politics articles, you should probably topic-ban yourself. And if some other editor's ethnicity makes a difference in whether you support their RfAs and blocks against other editors, you're just as racist as you accuse your enemies of being. Go away! I wish you'd go march in a political protest someplace, and stay away from Wikipedia.

Posted by: Sololol

QUOTE(radek @ Thu 12th May 2011, 5:40pm) *
QUOTE
Reverse the problem: if you had them and knew the group was wasting hundreds of volunteer hours, what would you do? What if they spent most of their efforts pushing quasi-racist material to the frontpage of Wikipedia? What if the people who are supposed to deal with these things never even bothered to respond?
At most send it to ArbCom and let them deal with it. If they do nothing, respect that, rather than putting it up on a public forum.
(at best this is a bit like dealing with enemy traitors - you might use them, but you almost never respect them)

That would be all well and good if we'd gotten a response along the lines of "We see what you are saying and we disagree." Or even "We are concerned about how this was obtained and would like to see the original email." Or even "We don't care. Piss off." As far as I know, there was no response.
At all.

Perhaps they should warn editors that there are political groups carrying along there various petty conflicts on Wiki, or warn people that someone is hacking into email accounts. Or that editing Wikipedia could confront you with difficult moral dilemmas you'd not expected to have drop into your inbox. I'm not here because this is fun.

Posted by: Cla68

Sololol, thank you for posting this. I've encountered a couple of those editors and the experience was not very pleasant. If the emails are real, then they probably should be invited to find a new hobby.

Posted by: SB_Johnny

Not meaning to dopeslap people who weren't expecting one, but wasn't there a rather public effort in Israel about recruiting editors to promote a "Zionist, Neutral Point of View"?

It seems to me that it would be more surprising to find that there wasn't a mailing list. Birds of a feather tend to have those nowadays. tongue.gif rolleyes.gif

Posted by: Malik Shabazz

QUOTE(powercorrupts @ Thu 12th May 2011, 5:02pm) *

Zionists behave badly because bad behaviour is central to their ideal.

You're tarring a very large and diverse group of people with that brush. ermm.gif

Posted by: Cla68

QUOTE(Malik Shabazz @ Fri 13th May 2011, 4:25am) *

QUOTE(powercorrupts @ Thu 12th May 2011, 5:02pm) *

Zionists behave badly because bad behaviour is central to their ideal.

You're tarring a very large and diverse group of people with that brush. ermm.gif


Yes, it has been said in this forum, and I think it's true, that most Israelis or Jewish people would be embarrassed by the way editors like those mentioned at the top of this thread behave in Wikipedia.

Posted by: powercorrupts

QUOTE(Cla68 @ Fri 13th May 2011, 5:31am) *

QUOTE(Malik Shabazz @ Fri 13th May 2011, 4:25am) *

QUOTE(powercorrupts @ Thu 12th May 2011, 5:02pm) *

Zionists behave badly because bad behaviour is central to their ideal.

You're tarring a very large and diverse group of people with that brush. ermm.gif


Yes, it has been said in this forum, and I think it's true, that most Israelis or Jewish people would be embarrassed by the way editors like those mentioned at the top of this thread behave in Wikipedia.


Cla68 (and Malik too) - this is really important.

In the context of my comment (and you should really look at nothing else when refering to it) - can you see that you yourself are effectively equating 'Jewish people' with 'Zionists' here yourself?

That's how easy it is to do - in just two steps, and even though my comment is up there to see. The Wikipedia lot could run rings around you Cla68 - making all kinds of people (and articles) appear potentially 'anti-Semitic'. WP Zionists in 'good standing' like Slim Virgin and David Shankbone are alwasy there to confuse the distinctions too.

I never even said that every Zionist behaved badly - the conclusive point I made was that the ideal of Zionism leads to unethical behaviour. But don't forget that many Jews, such as people like Rance - and most Israeli presidents too in that officially-secular country - are not religious people at all. Why should they be? It is a effectively a culture too, and a very strong one.

So Jewish people should not in any way be automatically labelled as Zionists.

The treatment of Palestinians is enough for me to critice Zionism, but it is not the only way to do so: but the Palestinian's plight was enough for my above comment. IMO, modern Israel was a defensive war-like nation from its creation in 1947 onwards, and will always have to be until it radically changes, eventually back into one pluralistic nation, like it used to be for centuries..

Yes, as it happens, I would also go as far as to say the whole idea of Zionism is a 'bad' one, as no ethnic group (and Jewishness is a strong hybrid of religion, culture and ethnicity) should in my opinion have a divine right to religiously own any area of our planet at the written exclusion of others. Whether the idea of 'retuning home' involves believing that God himself will create a new Israel, or that it can be taken as a spoil of war.

But I can only ultimately speak for myself, as can any person - Jewish people included.

Posted by: carbuncle

QUOTE(SB_Johnny @ Thu 12th May 2011, 11:42pm) *

Not meaning to dopeslap people who weren't expecting one, but wasn't there a rather public effort in Israel about recruiting editors to promote a "Zionist, Neutral Point of View"?

It seems to me that it would be more surprising to find that there wasn't a mailing list. Birds of a feather tend to have those nowadays. tongue.gif rolleyes.gif

It would be surprising indeed, since the state of Israel has quite an organized (and not at all secret) PR campaign. (Does the name http://www.thejc.com/news/world-special-reports/meet-david-saranga-man-whose-campaigns-are-rebranding-israel ring a bell?) And there is no shortage of "citizen journalist"-typehttp://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_context=2&x_outlet=118&x_article=1485. I have no doubt that the same goes for the opposing viewpoint, although I suspect that the pro-Israel faction has the advantage as far as cohesiveness, funding, and organization is concerned. Anyone who wanders into that mess thinking WP is an encyclopedia anyone can edit is in for a shock.


Posted by: Kelly Martin

Rinse, launder, repeat.

While the details are, perhaps, vaguely interesting, this is just a recurrence of the standard Wikitheme. The problem with this particular issue is that anyone who suggests that this sort of thing is in any way problematic runs the risk of being called an anti-Semite, which is right up there with being called a child sex fiend. So smart people just don't talk about it: the price isn't worth the benefit.

Posted by: Herschelkrustofsky

QUOTE(powercorrupts @ Fri 13th May 2011, 2:13am) *

QUOTE(Cla68 @ Fri 13th May 2011, 5:31am) *

QUOTE(Malik Shabazz @ Fri 13th May 2011, 4:25am) *

QUOTE(powercorrupts @ Thu 12th May 2011, 5:02pm) *

Zionists behave badly because bad behaviour is central to their ideal.

You're tarring a very large and diverse group of people with that brush. ermm.gif


Yes, it has been said in this forum, and I think it's true, that most Israelis or Jewish people would be embarrassed by the way editors like those mentioned at the top of this thread behave in Wikipedia.


Cla68 (and Malik too) - this is really important.

In the context of my comment (and you should really look at nothing else when refering to it) - can you see that you yourself are effectively equating 'Jewish people' with 'Zionists' here yourself?


This controversy is further complicated by the fact that there is diversity among the Zionists themselves. Some of the leaders of Labor Zionism were genuine intellectuals, and were not committed to some sort of racist Lebensraum policy toward the Palestinians. The followers of Ze'ev Jabotinsky on the other hand, the so-called Revisionist Zionism, were simply fascists.

Posted by: Malik Shabazz

QUOTE(powercorrupts @ Fri 13th May 2011, 5:13am) *

QUOTE(Cla68 @ Fri 13th May 2011, 5:31am) *

QUOTE(Malik Shabazz @ Fri 13th May 2011, 4:25am) *

QUOTE(powercorrupts @ Thu 12th May 2011, 5:02pm) *

Zionists behave badly because bad behaviour is central to their ideal.

You're tarring a very large and diverse group of people with that brush. ermm.gif


Yes, it has been said in this forum, and I think it's true, that most Israelis or Jewish people would be embarrassed by the way editors like those mentioned at the top of this thread behave in Wikipedia.


Cla68 (and Malik too) - this is really important.

In the context of my comment (and you should really look at nothing else when refering to it) - can you see that you yourself are effectively equating 'Jewish people' with 'Zionists' here yourself?

Can you show me where I even hinted at the notion that Jews and Zionists were one and the same?

Being a Jew, and having grown up in a Zionist family, I can assure you I understand the math.

Posted by: powercorrupts

QUOTE(Malik Shabazz @ Fri 13th May 2011, 5:55pm) *

QUOTE(powercorrupts @ Fri 13th May 2011, 5:13am) *

QUOTE(Cla68 @ Fri 13th May 2011, 5:31am) *

QUOTE(Malik Shabazz @ Fri 13th May 2011, 4:25am) *

QUOTE(powercorrupts @ Thu 12th May 2011, 5:02pm) *

Zionists behave badly because bad behaviour is central to their ideal.

You're tarring a very large and diverse group of people with that brush. ermm.gif


Yes, it has been said in this forum, and I think it's true, that most Israelis or Jewish people would be embarrassed by the way editors like those mentioned at the top of this thread behave in Wikipedia.


Cla68 (and Malik too) - this is really important.

In the context of my comment (and you should really look at nothing else when refering to it) - can you see that you yourself are effectively equating 'Jewish people' with 'Zionists' here yourself?

Can you show me where I even hinted at the notion that Jews and Zionists were one and the same?


Whether you meant it or not, the way you expressed it could easily be read that way. Look at the way Cla68 developed it the way he did: he read your "large and diverse group of people", and talked about "most Israelis or Jewish people". Your "large" and his "most" actually somewhat contradict each other, and the verdict is pretty much out on where 'most' Jews feel about all this, let's be honest. As I say, it's not all that easy of Jewish people to stand up. Neither of you mentioned 'Zionism' directly, which leaves a vacuum the kind of which others take up and fill.

I just don't think terse comments help in these matters. Especially when there are cases where there does happen to be a risk of being accused of anti-semitism, as so many people out there are ready to equate the two in terms of reading anti-Jewishness into someone's comment or edit.


Posted by: powercorrupts

When will Wikimedia learn that 'articles' like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poison_affair_of_Palestinian_schoolgirls have no place on Wikipedia? It's getting full of these type of peices, essays, whatever you call them. It's periodical or newspaper stuff, with all the tabloid issues at worst. I wonder if there is even any kind of way to estimate the amount of them.

Posted by: mbz1

QUOTE(gomi @ Thu 12th May 2011, 8:34pm) *

QUOTE(thekohser @ Thu 12th May 2011, 1:06pm) *
QUOTE(It's the blimp, Frank @ Thu 12th May 2011, 2:05pm) *
Good post.
I was thinking just the opposite. I am left with little more clue about what the author is trying to convey than if he had just shown me a "wordle" graphic of the words he had typed.

Well, while we might have hoped for more specific explication in the post here, the emails linked to are pretty damning, if sadly predictable -- yet another group using an email list to game the (insanely constructed and horribly broken) Wikipedia system. In this case, they were doing so in the promotion of a particular pro-Israeli point of view, but we can be sure there are similar lists, better hidden, for many other partisan causes.

These emails seem damning only to idiots who believe they are real, but they are not.
They were written for the hacker to act on them.

I knew about the hacker at the very moment it happened, I knew it was editing wikipedia.
I wanted to give the idiot some material to act on, but instead it found a useful idiot sol,
who did, and I am still not sure who is the hacker although I believe it is factsontheground, or how I call it liesontheground .

I knew that criminal's IP. When nothing happened in a few days, I emailed Avi, I sent him a copy of report my email account produced, Avi http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/67.202.67.86. He could confirm my words!

Now about specifics. I know it is hard for brainless anti-Semites as tarc is to understand anything,
but maybe others could turn their brains on.
Let's for example take my alleged proxy-editing for nocal.
First of all why in the word I needed to proxy edit for this editor, if they could make as many socks as they want?
Second of all, if I edited for that user, where my other edits made for them? Why I proxy edited for them only when that stupid hacker hacked my account?
Third of all see
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ALar&action=historysubmit&diff=347933269&oldid=347901566 I am asking Lar to help to bring Nocal back to editing. Why in the world would I have disclosed publicly I know nocal and exchange emails with them, if I wanted to proxy-edit for the user?

I have never proxy-edited for nocal. I have never proxy-edit for anybody.

But let's say my emails are real. Isn't this sickening that some are saying on this forum that I and other "Zionists" have done something wrong, while at the same time engaging in a dirty business to discuss other people private emails? Who are you to judge me? For example you, gomi, administrator, why did not you removed the links to hacked emails,if you believe they are real? It is indecent to discuss other people stolen emails, isn't it,gomi?
All that garbage is disgusting, but in the end it is even more funny. Thanks for the laugh!

Posted by: lilburne

QUOTE
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=backtrolling, I knew it was editing wikipedia.
I wanted to give the idiot some material to act on, but instead it found a useful idiot sol,
who did, and I am still not sure who is the hacker although I believe it is factsontheground, or how I call it liesontheground .


Posted by: mbz1

Oh, and BTW I emailed to imageshack, and in a few minutes all garbage (the hacked emails) were removed. So at least somebody exercised the decency that is missing on wikipediareview!

Posted by: Sololol

QUOTE(lilburne @ Sat 28th May 2011, 10:18am) *

QUOTE
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=backtrolling, I knew it was editing wikipedia.
I wanted to give the idiot some material to act on, but instead it found a useful idiot sol,
who did, and I am still not sure who is the hacker although I believe it is factsontheground, or how I call it liesontheground .


This is my favorite version of the story so far, "I knew what was happening and let it happen anyways." The other ones are "http://pastebin.com/eiGsjKSR and I was just playing along with Nocal to try and catch him", preceded by "shttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:PhilKnight&diff=413617608&oldid=413608297. The fourth version was that the whole thing was faked (made here on the forums, somewhere). If credibility is in question, never change your story.

Now we have http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:AGK&diff=prev&oldid=431305595 on the theme: preempting any disciplinary action by claiming the (currently unknown) evidence is from yet another hacking and is therefore the "fruit of a poison tree". Bravo.

Mbz1, if you really were hacked at either point I'd suggest changing your security habits.
-I believe your original claim was something about a phishing attempt by a supposed computer security company wishing to scan your email account for viruses? Never give out any passwords, credit card or bank account numbers to anyone, ever. Especially if the story is patently ridiculous (see above). This includes friends: their computer could be compromised.
-Never click on suspicious links. Even if you don't get some kind of malware they can still harvest information (I think that was one of Wordbombs old tricks for seeing IPs).
-Get multiple spybot/rootkit/anti-virus programs, update them, run them often. Redundant protection seems paranoid but different programs work better on certain kinds of malware. HiJackthis is also worth getting.

Even if one of your stories is true and I disapprove of how the information was obtained, I'll take old Maimonides advice and accept the truth regardless of the source; there's an ill-mannered group of Likudnik canvassers working on WP and I'll waste no more time dealing with them. I'd recommend others do likewise.

Posted by: Milton Roe

QUOTE(Sololol @ Sat 28th May 2011, 11:20am) *

Even if one of your stories is true and I disapprove of how the information was obtained, I'll take old Maimonides advice and accept the truth regardless of the source; there's an ill-mannered group of Likudnik canvassers working on WP and I'll waste no more time dealing with them. I'd recommend others do likewise.

These guys need a special cybercafé for doing this sort of thing. And it needs a name. I'm thinking maybe Net 'n' Yahoos. It could be a big thing in New York City, maybe like that coffee nook in Barnes & Noble, but should be some kind of deli maybe, for when they've had enough already with the Chinese takeout, and know to switch to pastrami.

Posted by: mbz1

QUOTE(Sololol @ Sat 28th May 2011, 6:20pm) *

QUOTE(lilburne @ Sat 28th May 2011, 10:18am) *

QUOTE
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=backtrolling, I knew it was editing wikipedia.
I wanted to give the idiot some material to act on, but instead it found a useful idiot sol,
who did, and I am still not sure who is the hacker although I believe it is factsontheground, or how I call it liesontheground .


This is my favorite version of the story so far, "I knew what was happening and let it happen anyways." The other ones are "http://pastebin.com/eiGsjKSR and I was just playing along with Nocal to try and catch him", preceded by "shttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:PhilKnight&diff=413617608&oldid=413608297. The fourth version was that the whole thing was faked (made here on the forums, somewhere). If credibility is in question, never change your story.

Now we have http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:AGK&diff=prev&oldid=431305595 on the theme: preempting any disciplinary action by claiming the (currently unknown) evidence is from yet another hacking and is therefore the "fruit of a poison tree". Bravo.

Mbz1, if you really were hacked at either point I'd suggest changing your security habits.
-I believe your original claim was something about a phishing attempt by a supposed computer security company wishing to scan your email account for viruses? Never give out any passwords, credit card or bank account numbers to anyone, ever. Especially if the story is patently ridiculous (see above). This includes friends: their computer could be compromised.
-Never click on suspicious links. Even if you don't get some kind of malware they can still harvest information (I think that was one of Wordbombs old tricks for seeing IPs).
-Get multiple spybot/rootkit/anti-virus programs, update them, run them often. Redundant protection seems paranoid but different programs work better on certain kinds of malware. HiJackthis is also worth getting.

Even if one of your stories is true and I disapprove of how the information was obtained, I'll take old Maimonides advice and accept the truth regardless of the source; there's an ill-mannered group of Likudnik canvassers working on WP and I'll waste no more time dealing with them. I'd recommend others do likewise.


What is the point to lie? I have never said about "security company". How could I have say something like this, if I knew it was hacker.

Yes I did believe it was Nableezy because the hacker's IP was located in Chicago, and in the beginning I did not know it was an open proxy. I found that piece of information only after my email exchange with Avi.

I have always said that I believe some emails were written by the hacker.
I have always said emails written by me were fake to make the hacker to act on them.
I did not want to say it in a open because I still had a hope the hacker itself will act on them, but I did email this bit of information to PhillNight a long time ago, before you started harassing me with those emails. So as you could see my story has never changed.

Please do not disturb the blessed memory of Maimonides!

And about these emails, here's my advise to you: get over them, and if you cannot get over them on your own, here's what could help:
1. Print them out.
2. Use a 4-5 Enemas on yourself.
3. Go to bathroom and use the printed out emails to clean yourself.

If this threatment would not help, I am not sure what would. hrmph.gif

Posted by: Sololol

QUOTE(mbz1 @ Sat 28th May 2011, 4:25pm) *



And about these emails, here's my advise to you: get over them, and if you cannot get over them on your own, here's what could help:
1. Print them out.
2. Use a 4-5 Enemas on yourself.
3. Go to bathroom and use the printed out emails to clean yourself.

If this threatment would not help, I am not sure what would. hrmph.gif

I'm going to be generous and assume that you are somewhere in the 1st to 2nd grade, an age at which your words might be considered humorous or perhaps witty. The alternative is too depressing. If I wanted to see people old enough to be my grandparents behaving badly I'd friend Berlusconi on facebook.

I'm sure you can explain how none of this is your fault and give whichever schlameel sympathetic enough to listen a Nixon-esque breakdown of how none of this is your fault and how your multiple stories all make sense because you were referring to one section when you said this and another when you said that and the third bit was out of context and you are being hacked on a regular basis by Hamas and and ....

Don't care. None of your stories make sense and I'm not interested in convincing you that you're guilty of things we both know damn well are true.
QUOTE(mbz1 @ Sat 28th May 2011, 4:25pm) *


Please do not disturb the blessed memory of Maimonides!

I've edited out my moment of incivility but this is just too much. Referring to Maimonides is not disturbing his memory. Paying hollow tribute to his name while ignoring his words is. Have a modicum of self-respect and avoid crude smears. If you can't understand why your words are offensive, I pity your blindness. Actually I pity you regardless.
QUOTE(Milton Roe @ Sat 28th May 2011, 2:51pm) *

Net 'n' Yahoos.

There's a fortune waiting for someone in this.

Posted by: Silver seren

It's not like the listed users have not been known to be a part of such a group for years now as it is. I mean, this really shouldn't be news to anyone who is even vaguely aware of the I/P area.

The main reasons, in my opinion, why nothing has been done about the group are 1) No one who is uninvolved really wants to have to deal with anything in the I/P area, we've all heard the horror stories, 2) Arbcom is ditto for point 1 and because they will never do anything in regards to a group of users working together unless you have irrefutable evidence and shove it at them, and 3) a good number of the people in said group are pretty high up in the Wikipedia hierarchy and, as we all know, once you become on the god-like level of number of edits and admin abilities, you are practically untouchable.

Unless you can get perfect evidence about the cabal, nothing will ever be done. I'm still surprised anything was ever done with the CAMERA group, that was a miracle in and of itself, though I guess that came out because a bunch of admins got together to stop the group and Arbcom was forced to do something about it.

Posted by: Milton Roe

QUOTE(Silver seren @ Sat 28th May 2011, 10:54pm) *

Unless you can get perfect evidence about the cabal, nothing will ever be done. I'm still surprised anything was ever done with the CAMERA group, that was a miracle in and of itself, though I guess that came out because a bunch of admins got together to stop the group and Arbcom was forced to do something about it.

They topic-banned a few people, very kid-glovishly. It wasn't at all like the banniation of The Kohser, driven by Jimbo's jealous outrage that somebody might have figured out a way to make more money from WP than Jimbo does (albeit by actually doing some work for it-- but for Jimbo that's not a factor, as he feels he's entitled to make money from WP without having to do anything so lowly as to write a sentence. For that matter, so does Ms. Gardner....)

Say, I'm thinking of becoming a WP ambassador-- what about you? You, too, can interact with educators at a world level. I did that, once. I used to go down to universities and talk to profs, who kept their doors open at certain hours of the day. You could (for example) go down to Caltech and talk to Gell-Mann for as long as he thought you were interesting. Which might be as long as 10 minutes if you yourself were a professional and knew about something he wanted to know about (it took him about that long to pick your brain and discard the husk).

I wonder how long this process takes if you mention Wikipedia first? smile.gif

I was on a scuba live-aboard in the gulf stream not that long ago, and mentioned Wikipedia to the captain and some of the part time oceanographers who make their money in summers guiding scuba tourists. I never failed to get a laugh, by mentioning Wikipedia. So I suppose there's that. It's a great ice-breaker, anyway. unsure.gif

Image

There's a book title there someplace. Around the World Mentioning Wikipedia. Save the Arabic Middle East for last, though. Keep your publisher up with your copy as you go, and designate somebody in your will, to finish it if you don't make it.

Posted by: Sololol

QUOTE(Silver seren @ Sun 29th May 2011, 1:54am) *

It's not like the listed users have not been known to be a part of such a group for years now as it is. I mean, this really shouldn't be news to anyone who is even vaguely aware of the I/P area.

The main reasons, in my opinion, why nothing has been done about the group are 1) No one who is uninvolved really wants to have to deal with anything in the I/P area, we've all heard the horror stories, 2) Arbcom is ditto for point 1 and because they will never do anything in regards to a group of users working together unless you have irrefutable evidence and shove it at them, and 3) a good number of the people in said group are pretty high up in the Wikipedia hierarchy and, as we all know, once you become on the god-like level of number of edits and admin abilities, you are practically untouchable.

Unless you can get perfect evidence about the cabal, nothing will ever be done. I'm still surprised anything was ever done with the CAMERA group, that was a miracle in and of itself, though I guess that came out because a bunch of admins got together to stop the group and Arbcom was forced to do something about it.

Agree on 1 and 3. I can't blame anyone for not wanting to get involved in the I/P area although ignoring it is just going to make it worse. If the enforcers won't deal with a canvassing group/harassing sockmasters then the only logical step is the opposition's adoption of the same tactics. The others will quit or wikicide, realizing it's not worth their time or driven off by a group of editors who now realize (correctly) that they are untouchable.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=431080708#Third_opinion_requested betsythedivine reports a possible NoCal sock which Ohanaunited decides is unjustified, exonerating the editor in question, and subsequently files an ANI calling the SPI an attempted character assassination. Mbz1 weirdly http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:OhanaUnited&diff=430918181&oldid=430895417 later to congratulate Ohana on the acquittal/ANI despite no involvement with the case (beyond having NoCal as a penpal and despising betsythedivine). The meatpuppet Broccoli uses the ANI for some good ole' fashioned mud-slinging, betsy feels she's unjustly being harassed and now the groups run off http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Roscelese&diff=prev&oldid=431518990 who had the temerity to disagree with them. She also http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=431081869 what's going on with NoCal/Mbz1 and company and this will kill anyone's morale; after the files rudely awakened me to what WP's judicial system will ignore I was perfectly happy to set myself up for a ban in the process of walking back the cat and verifying the emails.
As to your second point, I disagree; if this evidence isn't good enough for them then nothing ever will be. It was painstakingly fact-checked to verify authenticity (the tough bit was authenticating some of the email addresses and who owns them, you can't just ask if this is the sikrit contact info for the canvassing group; Yossi hit on the disturbingly clever idea of sending things to the addresses the editors might use on wiki -a simple http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canary_trapif you will- which was overly complicated but worked) and they know all about it.

Posted by: EricBarbour

QUOTE(Sololol @ Sun 29th May 2011, 2:13pm) *
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=431080708#Third_opinion_requested betsythedivine reports a possible NoCal sock which Ohanaunited decides is unjustified, exonerating the editor in question, and subsequently files an ANI calling the SPI an attempted character assassination. Mbz1 weirdly http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:OhanaUnited&diff=430918181&oldid=430895417 later to congratulate Ohana on the acquittal/ANI despite no involvement with the case (beyond having NoCal as a penpal and despising betsythedivine). The meatpuppet Broccoli uses the ANI for some good ole' fashioned mud-slinging, betsy feels she's unjustly being harassed and now the groups run off http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Roscelese&diff=prev&oldid=431518990 who had the temerity to disagree with them. She also http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=431081869 what's going on with NoCal/Mbz1 and company and this will kill anyone's morale; after the files rudely awakened me to what WP's judicial system will ignore I was perfectly happy to set myself up for a ban in the process of walking back the cat and verifying the emails.

a) this looks like a diary entry by a teenage girl, bitching about the other cheerleaders.

b) I really think this thread belongs in the Annex, because it's full of POVers who are trying to "fix" the unrepairable.

Posted by: Elara

Gotta agree, while certainly entertaining, it's descending to clusterfuck levels of drama.

We all know these things exist....and we all know their particular smell. It's nice to see someone pulling back to the curtains to let in some light now and then, but if you get caught up the emotional fallout that such acts always generate you get tarred with some random label.

As far as the POV pushers coming in to give their side of the story, well, I needed a good laugh.

Posted by: Sololol

QUOTE(EricBarbour @ Sun 29th May 2011, 6:03pm) *

QUOTE(Sololol @ Sun 29th May 2011, 2:13pm) *
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=431080708#Third_opinion_requested betsythedivine reports a possible NoCal sock which Ohanaunited decides is unjustified, exonerating the editor in question, and subsequently files an ANI calling the SPI an attempted character assassination. Mbz1 weirdly http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:OhanaUnited&diff=430918181&oldid=430895417 later to congratulate Ohana on the acquittal/ANI despite no involvement with the case (beyond having NoCal as a penpal and despising betsythedivine). The meatpuppet Broccoli uses the ANI for some good ole' fashioned mud-slinging, betsy feels she's unjustly being harassed and now the groups run off http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Roscelese&diff=prev&oldid=431518990 who had the temerity to disagree with them. She also http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=431081869 what's going on with NoCal/Mbz1 and company and this will kill anyone's morale; after the files rudely awakened me to what WP's judicial system will ignore I was perfectly happy to set myself up for a ban in the process of walking back the cat and verifying the emails.

a) this looks like a diary entry by a teenage girl, bitching about the other cheerleaders.

b) I really think this thread belongs in the Annex, because it's full of POVers who are trying to "fix" the unrepairable.

A)Can't argue with that. A little ranting is good for the sin-blackened soul. If I had a point it was along the lines of "This is why letting known POV pushers with 10+ blocks continue operating is bad for your site".
B)Go for it. Although the idea that it's "unrepairable" does seem to imply that someones tried.

C) How curious. Biosketch, a recent reincarnation of an old cabal member, reports that his email http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:AGK&diff=prev&oldid=431583870 Either he's following Mbz1's and playing the victim card or Hamas has been busy. Is account hacking over wiki-drama a common occurrence?

Posted by: Milton Roe

QUOTE(Sololol @ Mon 30th May 2011, 8:04am) *

C) How curious. Biosketch, a recent reincarnation of an old cabal member, reports that his email http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:AGK&diff=prev&oldid=431583870 Either he's following Mbz1's and playing the victim card or Hamas has been busy. Is account hacking over wiki-drama a common occurrence?

Well, ZoshuaZ did it when caught socking. One of Poetlister's socks RachelBrown claimed something like that too (it was so complicated I forget the details, but it all turned out to be bogus, even though believed at the time by some). So yes, it's been tried. Whether it works or not depends on whether or not you have Friends in High Places on WP.

Posted by: Tarc

I love how our old buddy Mila is on a crusade to send her block log down the memory hole. oversighting was denied, so now there's a 1-second block to "explain" the previous ones;

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User%3AMbz1

Posted by: Sololol

QUOTE(Tarc @ Tue 31st May 2011, 11:04pm) *

I love how our old buddy Mila is on a crusade to send her block log down the memory hole. oversighting was denied, so now there's a 1-second block to "explain" the previous ones;

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User%3AMbz1

Sometimes I feel like I'm in the presence of a virtuoso; Mila plays the wiki-bureaucracy like some bizarre Soviet instrument. I've never seen an admin do that and certainly not on a series of blocks so richly deserved. This AGK fellow seems to mean well but he's a little too chummy with one camp to inspire any confidence. I applaud his efforts to clean house in the topic area but it's easy to get lost if you don't know the terrain. He's already topic banned Supreme Deliciousness after an http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive91#Supreme_Deliciousness, the same sock-puppeteer who's been fighting SD for years over the Golan Heights nonsense (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Majdal_Shams&diff=430007388&oldid=429921487, linguistic fighting over GH, that's Dror)It's an unbeatable tactic: harass your opponent with a series of sock-puppets and then make it look like they are the problem (not that SD might not be a problem, but it's tough to tell).

Ah well, maybe we will get lucky and they'll just ban everyone.

Posted by: mbz1

QUOTE(Sololol @ Thu 12th May 2011, 5:26pm) *

I'd received these files from an anonymous email address

Sol, in the above quote you are alleging you have got hacked emails from anonymous email address.
When you harassed me on my talk page, and I asked you why do you act on the hacker behalf you said:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Mbz1&diff=prev&oldid=415073080
When did you lied now or then or maybe you are the hacker?

Also for these of you who do not know the whole story, here's one more detail. Just before sol started harassing me at my talk page, I got email of PhilKnight's (a member of arbcom) impersonator. Whoever was that idiot, who sent me this email, sent it not only to my gmail account that was hacked, but also to my Yahoo account, that I have not been using for a few years, that a real Phil had no way of knowing! Below is the text of the email I got.

From: Phil K <parsivalarb@yahoo.com> Date: Sat, Feb 12, 2011 at 6:48 PM Subject: Bad wiki news, mbz1, read carefully To: xxxxx@gmail.com Cc: xxxxx@yahoo.com


mbz1,

I'm sorry to contact you outside of the official channels but doing otherwise could put my position in jeopardy. I'm not sure if anyone else from Arbcom has contacted you but the situation is this: your off-wiki email ring was discovered a while ago and, in exchange for leniency, two of the group members, xxx and yyy, have handed over copies of various emails (like the one attached, there are many more). They've claimed that you are the central figure behind the group, organizing DYK vote stacking and coordinating with banned users, and that they were never involved in any of the sock/meat puppeteering. The evidence they've given is damning and ,due to the severity of the lobbying, Arbcom is leaning toward blocking you and possibly a Meta-wiki block from all WP projects. Others will be blocked with xxx and yyy pardoned. I don't want to have that happen, for a few reasons.

I feel Arbcom is being manipulated by two editors, one with a history of canvassing, into making you take the blame while they get a free pass. You are a passionate advocate for your beliefs, an admirable quality, and a positive contributor to the Project, not qualities I'd associate with a canvassing ringleader. I could be wrong but I'd rather give you a chance to prove it than never hear the other side of the story. The problem is that all of the evidence points to you as the leader, other editors following your directions. What I'd need to help your case is evidence that you are not the director of this project, or at least not the only person directing the meatpuppetry. If xxx and yyy are lying to Arbcom about their role in this, if they did take part in the lobbying and weren't passive observers, then they would be blocked and I could negotiate leniency for you. You may also be able to prove that others aren't deserving of blocks but that is far more difficult. If I've misread your role in this and you are what the evidence is showing, I apologize for wasting both of our time.

Arbcom moves slowly but this currently an open-and-shut case and will be finished in a few days unless there's reason to reconsider. I know contacting you like this is highly irregular but I believe in the seriousness of our duties and have no wish to punish associated figures while the chief wrongdoers go free.

If you've any material you'd like me to inspect, either before or after your block, I will do what I can on your behalf. This is the only chance I can offer you. Best of luck.


This email was examined by a language expert and they concluded it was probably written by sol

Posted by: gomi

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

Posted by: Milton Roe

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

Posted by: gomi

For the curious, http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=1094&view=findpost&p=5892 is the original reference. It's from 2006 -- we're getting a little long in the tooth!

Posted by: Milton Roe

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

For the curious, http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=1094&view=findpost&p=5892 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

Posted by: AGK

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.

Posted by: Sololol

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' http://wikipediareview.com/lofiversion/index.php?t29934.html. What do you know, here's another memberhttp://neshumah.blogspot.com/2010/07/wikipedia-new-history-activist-network.html the canvassing attempt sponsored by the other member (it used to give his name as the contact). What http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2FIncidents&action=historysubmit&diff=380459719&oldid=380459499#Jiujitsuguy_and_Eric1985_blocked_indefinitely_for_off-wiki_canvassing_regarding_Israel.2FPalestine 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.

Posted by: Wikifan

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' http://wikipediareview.com/lofiversion/index.php?t29934.html. What do you know, here's another memberhttp://neshumah.blogspot.com/2010/07/wikipedia-new-history-activist-network.html the canvassing attempt sponsored by the other member (it used to give his name as the contact). What http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2FIncidents&action=historysubmit&diff=380459719&oldid=380459499#Jiujitsuguy_and_Eric1985_blocked_indefinitely_for_off-wiki_canvassing_regarding_Israel.2FPalestine 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.

Posted by: mbz1

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 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ALar&action=historysubmit&diff=347933269&oldid=347901566 trying to bring those users back.

Posted by: Tarc

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 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ALar&action=historysubmit&diff=347933269&oldid=347901566 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.

Posted by: 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."

Posted by: Sololol

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 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ALar&action=historysubmit&diff=347933269&oldid=347901566 trying to bring those users back.


Please refer to the first page of this thread. Actually I'll recap for you:
1. http://tinypic.com/r/m8dx53/7 of you conferring with a banned user. http://tinypic.com/view.php?pic=2i7wv43&s=7
2. You entering a discussion you'd never been in before right after Nocal's latest sock was blocked. to start ahttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Egypt&diff=403799548&oldid=403797933 in the email.
3. You admitting you are doing this to http://pastebin.com/eiGsjKSR

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 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Nableezy&diff=prev&oldid=431927468 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.

Posted by: Tarc

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

How to solve the I/P issue:


Turn everything between Damascus and Cairo into glass?

Posted by: victim of censorship

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

Posted by: The Adversary

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 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Nableezy&diff=prev&oldid=431927468 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 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:HJ_Mitchell&diff=prev&oldid=421007188, next screaming for oversighters for being http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:SlimVirgin&diff=prev&oldid=407757856.
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?!!!

Posted by: mbz1

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 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Nableezy&diff=prev&oldid=431927468 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 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:HJ_Mitchell&diff=prev&oldid=400947427, and http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:HJ_Mitchell&diff=prev&oldid=400949653 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.

Posted by: The Joy

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

Posted by: Sololol

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 http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2001/nov/25/medicalscience.genetics 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.

Posted by: The Joy

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 http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2001/nov/25/medicalscience.genetics 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.

Posted by: mbz1

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?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uIEeiDjdUuU&sns=em tongue.gif

Posted by: asad112

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:AGK&diff=432633885&oldid=432629114

Posted by: Silver seren

QUOTE(asad112 @ Sun 5th June 2011, 7:47am) *

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:AGK&diff=432633885&oldid=432629114


Yeah, he did that after I and several other users started criticizing AGK for doing the 1 second block statement thing for Mbz1's block log.

Posted by: mbz1

QUOTE(Silver seren @ Sun 5th June 2011, 8:22am) *

QUOTE(asad112 @ Sun 5th June 2011, 7:47am) *

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:AGK&diff=432633885&oldid=432629114


Yeah, he did that after I and several other users started criticizing AGK for doing the 1 second block statement thing for Mbz1's block log.


Not at all I gave AGK barnstar after another editor http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:AGK&diff=prev&oldid=432629114

AGK deserves it after getting for example such demands:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:AGK&diff=prev&oldid=431778919

Oh, and BTW while we are here see how that horrible POV-pushing Mbz1, as tarc called me , and that lead of "pro-Israeli" canvassing ring , as sol called me, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Sandstein/Archives/2010/July#Topic_ban_question

Posted by: AGK

QUOTE(Silver seren @ Sun 5th June 2011, 8:22am) *

QUOTE(asad112 @ Sun 5th June 2011, 7:47am) *

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:AGK&diff=432633885&oldid=432629114


Yeah, he did that after I and several other users started criticizing AGK for doing the 1 second block statement thing for Mbz1's block log.


The discussion is still not resolved, but I like how you misrepresented the reality there.

Posted by: asad112

QUOTE(mbz1 @ Sun 5th June 2011, 6:01pm) *

QUOTE(Silver seren @ Sun 5th June 2011, 8:22am) *

QUOTE(asad112 @ Sun 5th June 2011, 7:47am) *

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:AGK&diff=432633885&oldid=432629114


Yeah, he did that after I and several other users started criticizing AGK for doing the 1 second block statement thing for Mbz1's block log.


Not at all I gave AGK barnstar after another editor http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:AGK&diff=prev&oldid=432629114

AGK deserves it after getting for example such demands:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:AGK&diff=prev&oldid=431778919

Oh, and BTW while we are here see how that horrible POV-pushing Mbz1, as tarc called me , and that lead of "pro-Israeli" canvassing ring , as sol called me, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Sandstein/Archives/2010/July#Topic_ban_question


Nothing against AGK, but he is doing his just doing his job. I don't think he is being more significantly patient than other admin would have to be after making some pretty controversial decisions in relatively quick succession.

You gave him a barnstar for being patient, but how were you expecting him to act exactly? Were you expecting him to start telling editors to screw off his talk page?

Posted by: mbz1

QUOTE(asad112 @ Sun 5th June 2011, 4:31pm) *

QUOTE(mbz1 @ Sun 5th June 2011, 6:01pm) *

QUOTE(Silver seren @ Sun 5th June 2011, 8:22am) *

QUOTE(asad112 @ Sun 5th June 2011, 7:47am) *

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:AGK&diff=432633885&oldid=432629114


Yeah, he did that after I and several other users started criticizing AGK for doing the 1 second block statement thing for Mbz1's block log.


Not at all I gave AGK barnstar after another editor http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:AGK&diff=prev&oldid=432629114

AGK deserves it after getting for example such demands:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:AGK&diff=prev&oldid=431778919

Oh, and BTW while we are here see how that horrible POV-pushing Mbz1, as tarc called me , and that lead of "pro-Israeli" canvassing ring , as sol called me, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Sandstein/Archives/2010/July#Topic_ban_question


Nothing against AGK, but he is doing his just doing his job. I don't think he is being more significantly patient than other admin would have to be after making some pretty controversial decisions in relatively quick succession.

You gave him a barnstar for being patient, but how were you expecting him to act exactly? Were you expecting him to start telling editors to screw off his talk page?


I observed many times how other administrators archived such questions with no responding to them, collapsed the threads with angry messages, or simply ignored such questions. Once an admin deleted my own question with an edit summary "tiresome".Another one deleted my message with an editot summary: "removed garbage". AGK keeps politely responding the questions, and besides as I said before, I gave AGK barnstar because I saw other editor suggested he deserves one.

Posted by: nableezy

This really belongs in the annex tho, as it has gone from one topic to another none of which belong in this sub-forum.

Posted by: mbz1

QUOTE(nableezy @ Sun 5th June 2011, 7:10pm) *

This really belongs in the annex tho, as it has gone from one topic to another none of which belong in this sub-forum.

Agree, moving it to annex is long overdue.

Posted by: nableezy

QUOTE(mbz1 @ Sun 5th June 2011, 2:29pm) *

QUOTE(nableezy @ Sun 5th June 2011, 7:10pm) *

This really belongs in the annex tho, as it has gone from one topic to another none of which belong in this sub-forum.

Agree, moving it to annex is long overdue.


By agreeing that this belongs in the annex you are saying, unintentionally I assume, that this actually should be discussed on Wikipedia. I whole-heartedly agree. Where on WP should we discuss you directing "Brocollo" to make an edit at DYK (even including the signature in your email to him) shortly followed by his making that exact edit. Where on WP should we discuss you copying from an email of a banned user an argument and pasting it on to WP, not making a single modification, even down to the extra space before the last comma? Where, Mila, would you like to discuss this?

Posted by: The Joy

Back to the original post (though I do enjoy these passionate, yet polite, discussions), a group of Wikipedians with a similar cause conspired together to control various articles on Wikipedia?

Why should we be surprised? This happened before with several http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern_European_mailing_list not too long ago. This kind of thing probably happens more often than anyone thinks. Honestly, there's no real way to stop it. You can't even disclose such a thing without violating Wikipedia's privacy policies. In the end, the whistleblower gets sanctioned too.

Posted by: The Adversary

QUOTE(The Joy @ Tue 7th June 2011, 4:04am) *

Winning an Information War on a site like Wikipedia is pretty nigh impossible. You have to have a large number of people working 24/7 365 days using different IP addresses and have an incredible amount of patience. Even if you win in the short-term by holding articles under your control, you can never let down your guard down ever as opposing or neutral editors will eventually come after those articles. If the subject or area you want to control has dozens, hundreds, or thousands of article related to it, it would take a lot of people, energy, and time to keep them under control. Even if arbitration and administrators intervene, what can they do? People will just get new IPs, new accounts, and maybe new people to carry on the war. If Wikipedia IP banned the entire Middle East from editing, proxies and activists outside the Middle East will continue the fight. All POV people can hope for is a short-term victory and prolong that victory by gaining social and technical power, but even these people get caught eventually.

I´m not sure I agree fully with you. Yeah, sure it is near impossible to police all the thousands of articles in the I/P -area, but to create a bias? Quite easy.

At the moment the I/P-area is a cesspool. Many (most?) articles are beyond salvation. (However, there are some gem-stones there, and with all the old material (read: books from 18 th & 19 cent.) coming online, lots of interesting things wrt history can be written.)

However, I am quite certain that the area, as a whole, cannot be cleaned up before some drastic measures are put in place. One "weak" version would be to only have "verified" users edit ("verified" like, say on ebay). Now notorious banned socks are wasting so much time of "regulars", wikihounding them sock after sock.

A "stronger" method would be to only have verified academics editing, though, as pointed out, that certainly will not solve all problems. But it would at least save us from endless supply of googled up garbage like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Blame_Israel_first.

Posted by: nableezy

Would it be possible to split off everything since Wikifan hijacked this thread into another topic? Nearly every post since the first page is about something, I cant figure out what exactly, completely unrelated to the topic of this thread. I for one am not interested in a defense of Zionism as offered by a sixteen year old.

Posted by: Herschelkrustofsky

Mod's note: done. Whew, that was exhausting. It's http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=34031 if anyone wants it. Obesity, sorry to muscle in on your turf.

Posted by: SB_Johnny

QUOTE(Herschelkrustofsky @ Mon 13th June 2011, 10:55am) *

Mod's note: done. Whew, that was exhausting. It's http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=34031 if anyone wants it. Obesity, sorry to muscle in on your turf.

About fucking time! hrmph.gif

Posted by: Mr.Treason II

QUOTE(Tarc @ Thu 12th May 2011, 10:22pm) *

QUOTE(powercorrupts @ Thu 12th May 2011, 5:02pm) *
Also there is http://encyclopediadramatica.ch/The_Wikipedia_Jews Is it me, or is ED new and improved?


Thankfully it was preserved before becoming an icanhascheezburger wannabe. That reminds me that I need to create a new account at some point, too.

As for the latest, one can only hope that some admins with balls will pick this up and actually do something. The CAMERA affair was cracked at AN/I,not from waiting for ArbCom to get off its ass.

QUOTE(radek @ Thu 12th May 2011, 5:14pm) *

Can someone specifically indicate though - with paraphrasing - what these "big crimes" they are supposed to be guilty off actually were?


Mbz1 creates puff-piece articles of pro-Israeli propaganda, submits them to the "Did You Know?" forum, then solicits wiki-buddies to go there and vote in favor of adding said articles to the front page. She even provides the complete "here's what you need to cut n paste" line for a positive vote. They believe all that oppose them at DYK are antisemites and look for ways to undermine their opinions.


Yes, it's a puff piece show. Puff pieces of obviouus radicalism that damages innocents should be deleted.

Posted by: nableezy

QUOTE(Mr.Treason II @ Thu 14th July 2011, 2:34am) *

Yes, it's a puff piece show. Puff pieces of obviouus radicalism that damages innocents should be deleted.

Is there a way of forcing a different avatar be used by an account? I know at least two other people have complained about the use of The Joy's avatar being used by this account, add me to that list. Nothing personal Mr. Treason, but that pic is taken as far as I am concerned.

Posted by: The Joy

QUOTE(nableezy @ Thu 14th July 2011, 3:30pm) *

QUOTE(Mr.Treason II @ Thu 14th July 2011, 2:34am) *

Yes, it's a puff piece show. Puff pieces of obviouus radicalism that damages innocents should be deleted.

Is there a way of forcing a different avatar be used by an account? I know at least two other people have complained about the use of The Joy's avatar being used by this account, add me to that list. Nothing personal Mr. Treason, but that pic is taken as far as I am concerned.


Indeed! angry.gif

Posted by: Mr.Treason II

QUOTE(The Joy @ Thu 14th July 2011, 9:23pm) *

QUOTE(nableezy @ Thu 14th July 2011, 3:30pm) *

QUOTE(Mr.Treason II @ Thu 14th July 2011, 2:34am) *

Yes, it's a puff piece show. Puff pieces of obviouus radicalism that damages innocents should be deleted.

Is there a way of forcing a different avatar be used by an account? I know at least two other people have complained about the use of The Joy's avatar being used by this account, add me to that list. Nothing personal Mr. Treason, but that pic is taken as far as I am concerned.


Indeed! angry.gif


I've changed it to wriagra as you can see.