[WikiEN-l] The Israeli cabal tries a hostile takeover

[Relata Refero]

I am puzzled on multiple fronts by this email. Was the Harvard law class not
a randomly chosen class of law students, but a group of people who had met
in order to make waterboarding sound legal in public discourse? Because
otherwise I don't see the analogy. The only other people CM has 'banned'
are people following Zeq's instructions and who give their accounts away in
the "evidence", or were editing, clearly disruptively, from the CAMERA
office. I'm sure the former, at least, could have their bans lifted if they
repudiated the supposed methods and agreed to some form of mentorship. On
the contrary, the attitude has been "yes, so what. Why can't you see,
Wikipedia is biased, why aren't you worried about what the other lot are
doing, we're just trying to fix it, are you on *their* side?" which is
precisely the attitude we don't really have time for.

I wouldn't call that enormous subpage of AN/I "not much review", but
whatever.

RR

On Wed, Apr 23, 2008 at 9:06 PM, Nathan <nawrich at gmail.com> wrote:

> The whole rush to ban anyone associated with this group is disturbing, and
> not receiving much in the way of review. Christiano has so far blocked two
> editors and topic banned another one for a year, based on what in my mind
> is
> a non-review of their actual edits. This reminds me of the Harvard class
> involved in editing the Waterboarding article - some of the same people,
> in
> fact. We don't ban people for having a point of view. Having a point of
> view
> isn't a violation of WP:NOT#BATTLEGROUND. We don't ban people for knowing
> eachother off wiki, or sharing a point of view that they discuss off-wiki.
> We don't ban people for being associated with strange people like Zeq, who
> claimed to marshal an "army" to go to "war" on Wikipedia in the e-mail
> that
> is attributed to him. Or we shouldn't, anyway, since now apparently we do
> ban people for these reasons. What makes this more problematic is that the
> folks being banned are ostensibly pro-Israel POV warriors - and the
> "evidence" against them consists of e-mails represented on
> electronicintifada.com, a very strongly anti-Israel and pro-Palestinian
> activist organization. I put quotes around evidence because there barely
> is
> any evidence on that page except the efforts of junior amateur sleuths
> trying to connect editors to e-mail addresses.
>
> Nathan
>
> On Wed, Apr 23, 2008 at 11:05 AM, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On 23/04/2008, Fred Bauder <fredbaud at fairpoint.net> wrote:
> >
> > > I think the push by CAMERA is probably a reaction to the gradual
> > movement
> > > of articles which relate to the Arab-Israeli toward neutral point of
> > > view. We just need to keep that up, not panic about organized efforts.
> > We
> > > have alway had to deal with disorganized efforts.
> >
> >
> > I question the blogosphere "o noez the zionists are coming" response's
> > sanity factor based on fingering Jayjg as an agent of CAMERA. Er,
> > what.
> >
> >
> > - d.
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > WikiEN-l mailing list
> > WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> >
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>