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

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

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

Turn everything between Damascus and Cairo into glass?

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

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

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

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

Ok.
And I´m a little bit pregnant. But don´t you dare to call me pregnant, you nasty you!! I´m not fully pregnant, so if you call me pregnant you are lying shits.
Understood?!!!

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. Here I am arguing with HJ that Nableezy block was unwarranted, and here I am expressing my gratitude for Nab's unblocking It was on December 6,2010. There were more instances of me defending Nab, but I have more interesting things to do than trying to prove something to people as you and and tarc are.

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.

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

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

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

Solution for Middle East peace is much simpler

And in other news...

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 suggested giving AGK a barnstar

AGK deserves it after getting for example such demands:
"Get your priorities straight and answer me when I talk to you before you do anything else."

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, is saying "Thank you" to Sandstein for topic banning her, and asking for one more month of topic ban ;-)

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

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.

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?

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 Russian/Eastern European editors 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.

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 this.

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.

Mod's note: done. Whew, that was exhausting. It's here if anyone wants it. Obesity, sorry to muscle in on your turf.

About fucking time!

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!

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