I say indef block any IP's originating from the institution in question. A stated goal of trying to influence Wikipedia in a POV way would get any individual anon blocked, so why not a pseudo-governmental organization?

So, how dare the Israels do on Wikipedia what every one else is doing, or how dare they announce that they are doing it when everyone else is so cleverly hiding it?

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.

Nope, Jayjg is a rabid editor on Israeli subjects all on his own. No paid lobby is required. On 8/1/07, jayjg <jayjg99(a)gmail.com> wrote: _______________________________________________ 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

Please stop playing the aggrieved victim, Jay. You've been a strongly partisan editor on pages relating to Israel for quite some time, and you've played a prominent role in the near-complete degeneration of civility on the pages in question. Protestations of innocence aren't going to fool anyone, at this stage. CJ On 8/2/07, jayjg <jayjg99(a)gmail.com> wrote: _______________________________________________ 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

jayjg schrieb: History reveals how "fair and balanced" you are: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion… http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion… There are obvious problems in Wikipedia, which need to get fixed: http://icssa.org/article_detail_parse.php?a_id=416 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Counte… Removing administrator status from POV-pushers could be a start. br -- Raphael _______________________________________________ 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

Removing administrator status from POV-pushers could be a start. "rabid editing" as I correctly characterized Jayjg's edits ("extreme or fanatical support of or belief in something), especially to Israeli and Jewish subjects, is not directly analogous to bad faith POV-pushing. I'm sure Jayjg thinks he is improving Wikipedia, for Wikipedia's sake and not someone else's, when he charges about like an angry mastodon. My comment concerning his reckless editing does not mean I think he is a cabalistic POV-pusher.

On 8/3/07, Raphael Wegmann <raphael(a)psi.co.at> wrote: Actually, you've been doing just that.

Wow, you found a workshop section created two years ago by an editor who ended up getting banned. You're proving the opposite of the point you are trying to prove.

Well said Bryan. KP, just because you have things to bitch about in Pashtun articles doesn't mean that governments encouraging the subversion of Wikipedia'a neutrality with paid sponsorship is acceptable. To use the AFD example: WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not an excuse for this to go on. On 7/29/07, K P <kpbotany(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > On 7/29/07, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > I say indef block any IP's originating from the institution in > question. A > > > stated goal of trying to influence Wikipedia in a POV way would get > any > > > individual anon blocked, so why not a pseudo-governmental > organization? > > > > Technically, their stated goal is to present Israel fairly and > > accurately (ie. NPOV). Their blatant COI means they are unlikely to do > > that very well, but they aren't openly intending to introduce a POV. > > Actually there are all sorts of nationalistic interests alive and > functioning quite well on Wikipedia--how arrogant of the Israels to > want to join the crowd? > > Most every Pashtun article on Wikipedia is written from a > Persian-nationalistic perspective, and attempts to change that run one > afoul of those largely responsible for supporting this > silliness--although these editors are falling by the wayside one by > one, because, generally nationalists have one-tracked minds. In the > meantime, there are some very poor, rather silly, and some very unique > (okay, POV) articles on the history of Afghanistan and Pashtuns, that > have very little to do with anything but the Persian declaration that > that section of the world is theirs, always has been, and always will > be. The Brits would have liked that to have been true about 100 years > ago, admitedly. Ironically much of the information is copied en masse > from the bery Brittish biased Encyclopedia Iranica, which, when > challenged, is met with the rallying cry of nationalism, "scholarly > source, scholarly source." > > So, how dare the Israels do on Wikipedia what every one else is doing, > or how dare they announce that they are doing it when everyone else is > so cleverly hiding it? > > KP >

Actually there are all sorts of nationalistic interests alive and functioning quite well on Wikipedia--how arrogant of the Israels to want to join the crowd? Most every Pashtun article on Wikipedia is written from a Persian-nationalistic perspective, and attempts to change that run one afoul of those largely responsible for supporting this silliness--although these editors are falling by the wayside one by one, because, generally nationalists have one-tracked minds. In the meantime, there are some very poor, rather silly, and some very unique (okay, POV) articles on the history of Afghanistan and Pashtuns, that have very little to do with anything but the Persian declaration that that section of the world is theirs, always has been, and always will be. The Brits would have liked that to have been true about 100 years ago, admitedly. Ironically much of the information is copied en masse from the bery Brittish biased Encyclopedia Iranica, which, when challenged, is met with the rallying cry of nationalism, "scholarly source, scholarly source." So, how dare the Israels do on Wikipedia what every one else is doing, or how dare they announce that they are doing it when everyone else is so cleverly hiding it? KP

Technically, their stated goal is to present Israel fairly and accurately (ie. NPOV). Their blatant COI means they are unlikely to do that very well, but they aren't openly intending to introduce a POV.

The point is that a foreign ministry has created paid "fellowships" to promote its version of truth and that one of their stated targets is Wikipedia. Your suggestion that we take this passively because their "stated goal" is to tell the truth isn't credible.

I didn't quite say this, but I think this was to me, not to you.

Every national, political, and ethnic group I know of is convinced there is a conspiracy at WP to oppose its views. Editing an objective information source is always going to be like that. Conspicuous pressure groups attract notice and opposition. Open POV is the easiest to see--no reasonable person would approach an article on an Israeli or Palestinian topic without being aware of the possibilities. That people feel bold enough to talk about it in this bald-faced way is just a recognition of our importance, and I see no particular reason for alarm. On 7/30/07, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton(a)gmail.com> wrote: -- David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S.