Then Jay, you should have no objection to sending some sort of proof of
this, such as proof of employment, to a Wikipedia staffer? And it wouldn't
hurt having the CheckUser ombudsperson review your uses of CheckUser to
ensure that you've never run a Check against a political opponent in an
Israel/Palestine article and perhaps having someone with Oversight access
check the Oversight logs for any improper behavior.
It's not that we don't believe you but since there IS an Israeli-government
paid and co-ordinated campaign to push a pro-Israel agenda on Wikipedia it
would be a sensible security precaution to do a background check on
Wikipedia's most prominent pro-Israel editor. Don't you think?
On 8/2/07, jayjg <jayjg99(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 8/2/07, Hello all <wikipedian51(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> > The point is there is a concerted effort by an organization funded by
> the
> > Israeli foreign ministry to manipulate wikipedia.
> >
> > Moreover, when Hasbara Fellowships asks people to "join the team" I read
> it
> > as indicating not that a team of POV-pushers is about to descend on
> > wikipedia but that they are already here and have been for some time.
> >
> > Anyone even casually familiar with articles on Israel, the Palestinians
> and
> > their conflict has seen concerted POV pushing and edit warring by a
> small
> > group of editors and it's completely logical to assume that some of
> these
> > editors are with Hasbara or some other pro-Israel lobby group.
> >
> > It's also quite logical to assume that a more skilled lobbyist trying to
> > manipulate and influence wikipedia would learn how to play the game and
> rise
> > to a position such as Admin or higher and use his or her position to his
> > employer's advantage.
> >
> > The clear leader of the pro-Israel group of editors on Wikipeida is
> Jayjg,
> > an admin who has been "reminded" or "admonished" on several occasions
> for
> > edit warring and an admin who recently got another editor,
> > PalestineRemembered, banned based on a false accusation.
> >
> > As a security precaution shouldn't we be asking Jayjg to state whether
> or
> > not he is associated with Hasbara Fellowships, AishHatora, AIPAC or any
> > other pro-Israel lobby group? Given his track record of edit warring
> > shouldn't someone review his use of Oversight and CheckUser to ensure he
> > hasn't used these features for political reasons? Should someone who has
> > been warned, "reminded" or admonished on several occasions for edit
> warring
> > continue to hold these administrative positions indefinitely without
> review?
> >
> > If it comes out that Jayjg is Hasbara Fellowship's "team leader" on
> > wikipedia or is associated in some way with an organized and funded
> lobby it
> > will be yet another scandal of essjay like proportions that will shake
> > confidence in Wikipedia. We should take preventative measures now rather
> > than look the other way and let the media uncover our skeletons for us.
> >
>
> Hi User:Shia1. I'm not sure how long you plan to keep flogging this
> conspiracy theory; you've been trying to get someone to bite since
> late June, I believe. For the record, I'm not associated with or paid
> by any pro-Israel lobby group, including Hasbara fellowships.
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
ArmedBlowfish, you have my sympathy. No one should have to live through
that experience.
I also think it's time to close that line of discussion. Any relevant point
you had to make in that regard has long since been established.
-Durova
Re:
"To help SlimVirgin:
* Stalkers and other abusers tend to go after the vulnerable, and part
of vulnerability is social isolation. By being supportive, we reduce
the chance that this particular case of stalking will become a violent
one. And no, I'm not saying that Daniel Brandt et. al. are the
violent type, in fact I do not believe they are, but the information
which may or may not be true has been released to many. If it's true,
all it takes is one nut to read that and hunt SlimVirgin down, and
this could become much worse. By the time you know the danger you are
in, it is often too late. You hear the sound of someone entering
downstairs... door opening and closing... footsteps... and then the
voice of the man you fear. You don't believe you could run out past
him. There are no ladders to escape out the window." (snip)
Oh cut it out. ArmedBlowfish, you're feeding into a stereotype. The trolls
have tried some very similar tactics with me, perhaps in part because the
editors at *Search Engine Land* changed a line in my bio without asking me.
I won't confirm or deny whether the trolls got it right, but I read your
description and laugh *pity the fool who tries that*. I'm a war veteran.
I've owned a Harley-Davidson and I've handled live rattlesnakes and I've
saved an apartment building from burning down. I've even survived being
struck by lightning.
It's Slim's choice what to do. She isn't asking for your advice and I'm not
asking either. We're adults and we're quite capable of choosing for
ourselves.
-Durova
The Hasbara Fellowship program is a project of the Israeli Foreign Ministry
which "educates and trains university students to be effective pro-Israel
activists". The program essentially pays people to engage in promoting
Israel's point of view online.
Hasbara has said the following about wikipedia:
<http://www.israelactivism.com/index.php?mode=newsletter#article11>
http://www.israelactivism.com/index.php?mode=newsletter#article11
Everyone knows about Wikipedia, a place to go to get the 'real' scoop. How
often do you use Wikipedia to look up subjects you know little about? Now
imagine how often other people use Wikipedia to look up subjects related to
Israel.
Wikipedia is not an objective resource but rather an online encyclopedia
that any one can edit. The result is a website that is in large part is
controlled by 'intellectuals' who seek re-write the history of the
Arab-Israeli conflict. These authors have systematically yet subtly
rewritten key passages of thousands of Wikipedia entries to portray Israel
in a negative light.
You have the opportunity to stop this dangerous trend! If you are
interested in joining a team of Wikipedians to make sure Israel is presented
fairly and accurately, please contact director(a)israelactivism.com for
details!
-------
This looks like a concerted and funded effort to push a particular political
POV on wikipedia. If there is a "team" of people paid to edit Israel related
articles in a POV fashion shouldn't they be required to declare their
Conflict of Interest? Should employees or other individuals paid by Aish
HaTorah, which runs the Hasbara Fellowships program on behalf of and with
funding by Israel's Foreign Ministry, have to declare their COI if they edit
Israel related articles?
jayjg said:
> As I said before, the lack of good faith here is astonishing, and,
> frankly depressing, as are many of the other comments here.
Jayjg, at this point it would be wise to remember Carbonite's Law:
"The more a given user invokes Assume good faith as a defense, the
lower the probability that said user was acting in good faith." This
is the second time in two posts that you have invoked AGF, probably
because you realize how flimsy the claim that you didn't even read the
email you forwarded is.
Your actions in this thread are exactly what Andrew decried and asked
for the immediate cessation of. You are not doing anyone any favors
by forwarding inflammatory content to the list and then dissembling
about it - you're not helping SlimVirgin and you're certainly not
helping yourself. So Stop It. Go take a wikibreak. Your combative
responses to nearly every post in this thread aren't helping anything.
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Durova <nadezhda.durova(a)gmail.com>
Date: Aug 1, 2007 10:32 PM
Subject: That which we call a t****
To: wikien-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
I finally subscribed to this list overnight. Here's hoping the quality of
discussion is usually higher.
When the Essjay scandal broke I was one of the first Wikipedians to call for
his resignation, perhaps the very first. When this thing broke I checked it
out and posted enough evidence to debunk it thoroughly. It's just nonsense:
a bunch of haters and one very odd Ph.D. trying to stir up trouble. They're
not particularly good at it either.
Those people won't admit they're wrong no matter how compelling the evidence
is. But we can stand by a good volunteer who, like the rest of us, is just
doing her best to help out a nonprofit website. And as for the rest, shrug
shoulders and move on. Trolls don't control us.
Smile at the irony and get back to building an encyclopedia.
Cheers,
Durova
http://mashable.com/2007/08/01/simpledia/
"What you do is provide the URL or a paragraph of text, and Simpledia
will find related content on Wikipedia. The actual search function
works well enough, and is of course limited to the content that's been
provided on Wikipedia. The tool works in a similar manner to Google's
"similar pages" function for its search query results."
- d.
On 1 Aug 2007 at 17:01:39 -0400, Rob <gamaliel8(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> If they are sensible, then why are they on Wikipedia Review? While
> the sensible are not responsible for the insane and paranoid, if they
> willingly choose to participate in a forum where the insane and
> paranoid plot their attacks, what does that say about how sensible
> they supposedly are? Wikipedia blocks its trolls, and if WR's
> defenders (and by defenders I mean both WR-ites and people who say
> "eh, they have some good people in the mess" or "they come up with the
> intelligent critique now and then") want people to take it seriously
> and not view it as an insane attack site, then WR should do the same.
Maybe they're there to find a forum where they can speak their mind
without being labeled a "troll" for it? Maybe the absence of the
cliques and taboos of Wikipedia are sometimes considered to be a
positive thing even by people not sharing the ideologies of the
nutters in that site?
--
== Dan ==
Dan's Mail Format Site: http://mailformat.dan.info/
Dan's Web Tips: http://webtips.dan.info/
Dan's Domain Site: http://domains.dan.info/
I am truly depressed by the lack of support SlimVirgin is receiving
from certain individuals on this list, but at the same time, not
surprised. Victim-blaming has a long and horrific history. When it
happens to rape victims, it is called 'the second rape'... to victims
of assault, 'the second assault'... or, to cover all situations,
victim-blaming or secondary victimisation.
The far-too-frequent society response to victims of rape, violence and
harassment - to abandon her, to blame her, to insult her - is severely
psychologically damaging to the victim, and helps keep perpetrators
safe to continue these abuses.
The experience of Serena, who was ultimately banned from her
classrooms and friends after being raped:
http://www.justicewomen.com/cj_second_rape.html
An introduction to the phenomena of 'The Second Rape', geared towards
helping victims deal with it, and explaining why it happens, along
with a few typical examples:
http://www.justicewomen.com/help_special_rape.html#two
Some survey results on the topic of secondary victimisation:
http://www.musc.edu/vawprevention/research/victimrape.shtml
On 01/08/07, Andrew Gray <shimgray(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On 01/08/07, jayjg <jayjg99(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I don't see any good coming from giving into trolls and stalkers. The
> > fact that a bunch of disgruntled, mostly banned ex-Wikipedians like to
> > spin conspiracy theories, and occasionally disrupt Wikipedia, should
> > simply be ignored. Not discussed on Wikipedia, not discussed here,
> > just ignored.
>
> "Ignored" is one thing. "Silenced" just feeds the fire.
>
> I note this thread began because a debate about Slim's identity, and
> the massive efforts gone to to conceal edits associated with her, *was
> on the front page of slashdot*. (Slashdot. Not Wikipedia Review, or
> Encyclopedia Dramatica, or anyone else; Slashdot, perhaps a classic
> example of our "natural supporters".) This led to a large amount of
> curiosity amongst our community. But a small group of people cracked
> down heavily on anyone trying to say "what the fuck is going on here?"
> on the wiki... which just further encouraged speculation about those
> efforts to conceal something.
An excerpt from the song 'The Second Rape' by Aus-Rotten:
Defense attorney: Do you know the man who "allegedly" attacked you?
Victim: Yes I know the man who raped me.
Defense attorney: And isn't this man a friend of yours?
Victim: Well I thought he was a friend of mine.
Defense attorney: And were you drinking that night he 'allegedly" attacked you?
Victim: I had a drink or two but is that a crime?
Defense attorney: I'll ask the questions if you don't mind!
-What were you wearing: How did you act?
Victim: My wardrobe isn't an invitation for a man to attack.
-I didn't act in any way to bring this on. Why am I on trail? What
did I do wrong?
Defense attorney: Could you tell the jury why you let this happen?
Victim: I was in shock. I couldn't stop him.
Defense attorney: You claim that you were raped but how do we know?
Victim: I said no, I said no, no, no!
Defense attorney: Isn't it true you're just a woman scorned?
Victim: I'm a woman who's been raped and torn.
Defense attorney: Your honor, I demand that this case be dismissed,
-it all comes down to her word against his!
In the above, the attorney's questions are fairly typical - the
victim's strength, not so typical. If you don't mind a long read,
this paper is enlightening:
http://www.yale.edu/ynhti/curriculum/units/1981/3/81.03.06.x.html#c
> If you honestly don't see that this sort of behaviour is wasteful,
> counterproductive, inflammatory and - in the long run - just poisoning
> our reputation, then I am afraid my complaints are hopeless. But, by
> god, they were worth making.
>
> At some point in the past, people fucked up, made enemies or handled
> something badly or just been unlucky in who they dealt with. Things
> have moved on, and developed, and we're now in a situation where they
> have no choice but to look foolish, or keep harming the project. The
> only reasonable solution here is for them to stop and walk away.
> Sooner or later, they have to realise this.
Just as the officials at Serena's school drove her out - putting her
in independent study, banning her from her classrooms and friends -
after she was raped by a classmate.
> I will say it again - the people we are looking bad to now aren't the
> people who already thought the worst of us. We're now beginning to
> look like incompetent spiteful twerps to neutral third parties, and I
> see no indication it's ever going to improve. Essjay got us faintly
> amused newspaper coverage - what will "Wikipedia Covers Up Unknown
> Misdemeanours" look like?
>
> The project is bigger than them, it is more important than a username,
> and I will not stand by to see it dragged down to protect their pride.
>
> --
> - Andrew Gray
> andrew.gray(a)dunelm.org.uk
On the contrary, secondary victimisation is far more damaging not only
to Wikipaedia, but to all of society. It teaches the perpetrators
that they can get away with it, and the victims that they can't expect
help. It helps abuse continue - both by participating in
victimisation of current victims and by making it easier for future
victimisation to occur to new victims.
And yet, far too often, victims are abandoned and blamed in the name
of society... it's her fault the football team is calling her a ho...
it's her fault a crime occurred against her in her own apartment...
it's her fault she got raped.
Thanks for listening,
Armed Blowfish
P.S. While I don't believe Andrew means to hurt anyone, people often
hurt others without meaning to. Hence my attempt to explain why it
hurts, in the hopes that this will stop.