<img alt="" height="1" width="1">EI exclusive: a pro-Israel group's plan to rewrite history on ...
uruknet.info, Italy -4 minutes ago
A pro-Israel pressure group is orchestrating a secret, long-term campaign to infiltrate the popular online encyclopedia Wikipedia to rewrite Palestinian ...

View the article

The discussion is already on at the Administrator's noticeboard, here.

Cheers, Pedrito

Not a surprise.

SHOCK, is Guy actually acknowledging that those WR "trolls" were right about Jayjg etc. after all?:

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

CAMERA is basically the Fredo Corleone of the Israel Lobby. The initial infiltration of Wikipedia with coordinated pro-Israeli activists seems to have begun in mid-2004.

I'm fairly surprised by how strong and good the responses on the ANI thread have been. I was half expecting it to be deleted and oversighted for linking to a site which reveals Zeq's e-mail address.

By the way, can anybody think of a way to prove, iron-clad, that it really was Zeq in those e-mails? I mean it's entirely obvious, but it wouldn't hurt to have 100% proof when I propose to ban his ass.

It might be enough to have some Admin look at what e-mail address he has hooked-up to his account...

Cheers, Pedrito

Do I detect ass covering/diversionary tactics here? In the debate there seem to be numerous mentions of how the longest standing Israeli POV pusher, Jayjg is entirely innocent in this affair and oh what a relief that is (so he can just carry on biasing articles just as before).

Oh, look at that, the denial has already begun...

Of course, Zeq is denying all knowledge...

I predict Zeq will be let off because he will cry harrassment /Palestinian POV pushing, then he'll likely cry about it to some Israeli newspaper and they'll claim Wikipedia has been taken over by terrrorists...

His every edit is making his situation worse - he's clearly as guilty as sin.

He seems to be getting a little bit of coaching about how to evade. Unfortunately for him, he's not the sharpest tool in the shed, and his disingenuineness is showing. It may be that in the end he'll be cut loose, but what I'd watch for is gathering forces to first, start insisting that the evidence is circumstantial and that he should not be forced to answer any questions (this has already begun), and then for that process to continue until the people who want to ban Zeq get frustrated and start to lose interest. Part of this process, ideally, would include accusations of incivility etc. against those in favor of insisting on better disclosure from Zeq. Then a second wave will appear to "look over" the situation and determine that there is no clear evidence of wrongdoing, so nothing can be done about it.

I don't think that's how it's going to go. It's obvious as hell that Zeq is guilty; so obvious, that a direct defense of him will make the defenders look bad, especially if they have obvious links to the Jayjg-Humus-Silverberg Axis of Isra-Evil.

I think they're going to ultimately hang Zeq out to dry; but they're going to make enough noise to obscure the real issue, which is the incredible vulnerability of Wikipedia to organized campaigns of this sort. Zeq is a semi-literate fool, but his postings to that mailing list were intelligent in one respect; he exactly identified the strategy for subversion. Edit mostly in unrelated topics, schmooze and ass-kiss your way to adminship, then start infiltrating Israeli-Palestinian discussions and laying the hammer down.

CAMERA will mark this down as a "learning experience" and start again with a smaller, handpicked clique. It will only take about five to ten dedicated, intelligent agents to run roughshod over the whole WP enterprise. Frankly I'm surprised Scientology hasn't done it already; with their reputation they'd be the first to try.

I notice how all the other Israel activist gang are avoiding this discussion like the plague.

This shows that having unreliable content on controversial topics will result in more people contributing content to Wikipedia and a rise in Wikipedia's popularity.

Haha..

You make some good points. It's easy to jump the gun, though, on deciding that "Team Israel" players have gone too far, and will end up banned. There's not a small amount of history of such editors coming back from the brink of what seemed inevitable banning.

I expect that what is more likely to happen with CAMERA, though, is that they'll be contacted by more together organizations, and be asked to fit their efforts into the bigger campaign (if that isn't what is already going on). If CAMERA makes a big stink about how, far from trying to bias Wikipedia, they were trying to remove bias, and 6 million Jews were murdered in the Holocaust, and they just didn't understand how Wikipedia works, and the President of Iran has called for Israel to be "wiped off the map," and really the greater shame of it all is that they should have been put into the position of being THE ONLY ONES defending Israel and the Jewish People, etc., then the more serious players can do a, "Gosh, what they did is wrong, but it's really not that hard to understand, is it? I mean look at them. No, keep looking at them; all eyes on THEM. And smile for the CAMERA." routine.

Everyone who edits famously controversial topics knows that there pretty much the only "uninvolved" administrators are those who don't care, and therefore don't show up. "Uninvolved" means only uninvolved in editing disputes related to the article.

With few exceptions, you can predict which version of an article an "uninvolved" administrator will protect in a high-profile dispute of this kind. Here, formal content neutrality amounts only to an evasion of responsibility for the decision the administrator takes. This evasion is enshrined in the essay, "The wrong version" which mocks the idea that content preference ever plays any role in page protections, and preemptively dismisses questions along these lines as paranoia; it might well be retitled, "No administrator is ever biased."

The same is true of many, if not most, blocks and bans (those related to POV-pushing rather than Wikipolitics.)

...and of course, the WikiLobbyists figured out how to exploit this long ago. Talk utter nonsense, but do so politely while citing both Wikipedia policies and third party sources. It doesn't matter if the sources contradict what you're saying; you're not trying to convince anybody who knows anything about the subject, you're laying the groundwork for admins to drive-by, note that it is a "content dispute," and either do nothing or rule against your opponents for calling you out as lying scumbags.

More than once I've been in a discussion with Jayjg, Armon, and others, where they've cited sources which flatly contradict the point they're citing them for. They're not illiterates, I'm sure they knew what they were doing. As I once told Moreschi - he suggested that the comment be "framed and posted above WP:ANI" - Wikipedia admins remind me of playground supervisors who let the kids beat the hell out of each other, but come running in if one uses the word "fuck."

So, any idea if Jayjg etc are lobbying behind the scenes around the CAMERA revelations?



Humus Sapiens hasn't edited since February and Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg has only made 4 edits in the past two months.

Note that the whole debate has now been moved to a special sub-page.

This just in, Zeq has been banned (topic-ban for a year, general ban for a week).

Cheers, Pedrito

Humus Sapiens isn't completely in the Jayjg camp. He strongly supported RachelBrown against SV and Jayjg.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&oldid=32535815

Oooh a week! What a joke, anyone not on the pro-Israel side would have been banned 4ever. No doubt he'll just set up a new account, but perhaps his telltale dimwittedness will give him away.

This hint about SV is intriguing:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=207312643



It's obvious who Dragon is referring to but where are these animal rights boards? Does anyone know where the smoking gun is? This could bring down SV (at least it would if she were any other admin)

If memory serves me well, there is a thread about this incident somewhere in the archives here at the Review, and it turned out that the incident you describe was a forgery by someone who was trying to imitate SlimVirgin's style in order to incriminate her.

Zeq's block has been extended to a year and his topic ban is now permanent.

Well, then, clearly this is a settled issue which will never surface again, and we can all go back to talking about naked short selling.

Nthing to see here... PRESS please go away now...

Who wants to bet that Jayjg or SlimVirgin will swoop in, declare the block and bans to be excessive and reduce them to time served?

That probably would have happened a year ago. If someone tries to undo the blocks and bans this time, I doubt that it will be either one of those two.

Whoa people still even remember me? I'm actually really really honored. I'm really not being sarcastic. Not only have I only made 4 edits in the last 2 months I also haven't edited anything controversial in like a year. Would you guys say I was a good editor?

You seem a little self-involved.

Trust me little is way too small for how self-involved of a person I am.

I'll trust you that far. You remind me of that Shankbone fellow, and a few other Wikipedians, in that regard. Do you think that is a good thing?

Do you have your own Durova Brag.? It's kind of like a poem comprised of statement about how tough you are. They are fun to write.

Honestly I don't think there is anything that weird about what I am doing, its not like I am writing an article about myself, I was going to get into editing wikipedia again and was curious to see if I was universally disliked or anything.

Maybe Somey could write you a note or something?

Actually, I see you've accelerated slightly.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...n_Al-Silverburg

My all-time favourite of yours is this one:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&oldid=32885390