Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Israeli apartheid/Proposed decision

From Requests for arbitration/Israeli apartheid/Proposed decision:
 * #May I suggest "Status of Palestinians in the occupied territories" Fred Bauder 19:51, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't see why this article shouldn't also concern the treatment of Israeli Arabs. Take for instance the infamous 2003 marriage law. -- Dissident (Talk) 08:50, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Unbalanced
I have the feeling this proposed decision is unbalanced, it defacto allows certain POV's in Wikipedia, and it does not address the issues sufficiently. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 22:47, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * It is a start not a definitive solution. Fred Bauder 16:50, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I forgot about this train derailment. There's only two choices the way I see it. 1. Ban everyone and give me exclusive authority to edit the article (sorry, no Kims, we already have one). 2. Amnesty everyone, and give exclusive authority to 72.232.204.226 to edit the article. El_C 12:45, 3 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Or you could go out of your way to get input from good wikipedians who never or rarely edit jew/israel/arab/muslim articles. A few admins who usually stick to science articles come to mind. WAS 4.250 18:13, 3 August 2006 (UTC)


 * That's a good idea. Maybe get some people from completely different cultures, from China or Japan perhaps.   --John Nagle 19:04, 3 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Coming from "completely different cultures" doesn't guarantee someone neutrality. The conflict is highly polarizing and I am afraid it would be practically impossible to find someone unbiased (even though some people claim to be). This is especially true today, in light of the ongoing war and image-rich media. ←Humus sapiens ну? 03:31, 4 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Lack of perfection in choices is no reason not to choose a better choice over a worse choice. WAS 4.250 07:47, 4 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Asking people who know nothing about the Arab-Israeli conflict for opinions about it doesn't sound like a very helpful thing to me, and the reality is that people who do know about it tend to have a POV. Therefore, the way forward is to trust that good editors will write carefully and will use good sources well. SlimVirgin (talk) 07:51, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

No part of "Or you could go out of your way to get input from good wikipedians who never or rarely edit jew/israel/arab/muslim articles. A few admins who usually stick to science articles come to mind. WAS 4.250 That's a good idea. Maybe get some people from completely different cultures, from China or Japan perhaps. John Nagle " necessitates "Asking people who know nothing about the Arab-Israeli conflict for opinions". WAS 4.250 08:32, 4 August 2006 (UTC)


 * As Leibniz said, it doesn't necessitate, but it does incline. By all means find a good Wikipedia editor, possibly from China or Japan, who doesn't edit Arab-Israeli articles, but who knows a lot (or an adequate amount) about the topic; and bear in mind that "adequate" would mean s/he would have to know at least as much as the editors who do edit a lot in that area. That's a tall order. SlimVirgin (talk) 08:50, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I had in mind someone asking on a science page, evolution for example, for a knowledgable admin to act as an unbiased sounding board for things like Islamofascism vs Islamofascism (term) and such and not for subtle content issues like whether or not some specific Muslim cleric was or was not a good source for something. WAS 4.250 08:59, 4 August 2006 (UTC)


 * You'd still have to know the literature: who had used the term, where, when, why; who had argued against it; who has used it but later repudiated it, and so on. Just as I'd have difficulty being a neutral and useful admin over an evolution dispute, my guess is that most science admins would have difficulty evaluating a mid-east related dispute. There was an idea a year or so ago to set up a small committee of users with PhDs (or professional equivalent) in a variety of fields, who would act as neutral content advisors, but it didn't get off the ground, and I'm not sure there would be a welcome for such a committee, as WP tends to be somewhat anti-expert. SlimVirgin (talk) 09:11, 4 August 2006 (UTC)


 * WAS, the way round all these disputes is for editors to become very familiar with NOR, V, and NPOV, and then to stick to them; and the more the content is in dispute, the more rigidly the policies should be adhered to. I have never seen a dispute continue where the policies were being correctly interpreted and stuck to. SlimVirgin (talk) 09:16, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia cannot work
Whatever. I have come to the conclusion that Wikipedia cannot work, and NPOV will always represent that of the largest group. Until that is fixed, Wikipedia will not be reliable. Just check an article at a bunch of different wiki's, and compare them. If NPOV works, they should roughly provide the same NPOV, which is just as illusive as a unicorn. See for example the taxonomy of the Psittaciformes, which differs per wiki... :-( -- Kim van der Linde at venus 21:14, 3 August 2006 (UTC)


 * The ban on Zeq seemed to work, and banning a few more editors under the same terms would probably work, too. If nobody gets banned, that's a signal that the way to push your point of view on Wikipedia is to organize a team, preferably one with some admins, to do so.   --John Nagle 22:35, 3 August 2006 (UTC)


 * A block was proposed against Zeq for having written an article about another editor, so how would you ban others "under the same terms," and how did the block against Zeq "work"? You have to be very careful here not to talk about "teams," when all you're seeing is editors who agree with each other, either about the substance or about the interpretation of policy. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:41, 4 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Nagle, if we're blocking people for creating attack biographies, perhaps we need to start with the person who created this: Jayjg (talk) 03:04, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

We are quite prepared to block "teams" with administrators on them and desysop the involved administrators. Fred Bauder 01:52, 4 August 2006 (UTC)


 * How are you going to determine when people are acting as a "team," as opposed to simply agreeing with each other? For example, from my perspective Homey and KimvdLinde were acting as a "team," though they probably didn't see it that way. People who share the same interests end up with the same articles on their watchlists, and therefore edit the same pages. I don't see that we can, or would want to, do anything about that. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:57, 4 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Sure. Any more evidence-free accusations? -- Kim van der Linde at venus 02:07, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to argue with you, but you've missed the point. My point is that who is and isn't a "team" often boils down to perception. From my perception, you were acting as part of a "team." From yours, you weren't; you were simply making edits that you thought were correct. Ditto for other people. SlimVirgin (talk) 02:19, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
 * As I said, the usuall unfounded evidence-free accusations. Maybe you should show the evidence for that. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 02:22, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
 * You are correct that it might be very difficult to show teamwork, but it happens. It should not be confused with people who simply share a point of view. Fred Bauder 02:54, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, it isindeed difficult to show that. However, it can be done. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 13:18, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Kim, you're missing the point, and wikilawyering again. Has this case not shown you the problem with that? Jayjg (talk) 03:04, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
 * No, you are missing the point that this proposed decision is offering a blue-print for Guideline: How to push your POV at Wikipedia gaming using the system. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 13:18, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
 * There were a couple of editors who until recently used to edit the same pages a lot, in what KimvdLinde would undoubtedly call a "team" if they were opposing her (though not if they were on her side). They had a strong POV, which I don't share, and so it was mildly annoying when both would arrive at an article. But what it meant was that I had to work even harder to persuade them; had to find better sources; had to use the sources well; had to do my best to represent their POV. In doing that, I learned more about the topic than I otherwise would have, and discovered that, although I still think my position was good, they had a valid point too. The result was better editing and better articles. How would it have benefited me or WP to start screaming "tag team" at them? All they were doing was sharing interests and agreeing with each other, and anyway, the correct response to opposition is to become a better editor, not start throwing around accusations. There are very, very few regulars on Wikipedia who don't respond positively to good editing. Most editors act in good faith, and people acting in good faith don't as a rule interfere with well-written and well-sourced material, so if you produce that, most of the time your edits will stick. SlimVirgin (talk) 04:55, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Whow, maybe you should take your own advise at hand, and before you make wild baseless accusations again, base those on evidence instead. Maybe show that I was material for blocking the RfM as you accused me of many times without any evidence. Or show that I indeed showed up at articles where Homey showed up as well. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 13:18, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm just astonished that the findings of fact say what we all know to be true: the wiki is biased to a pro-Israeli POV. Fat chance of any action's being taken though. A good remedy might be to bar certain editors from editing the same articles in concert but even better would be to stop deciding content issues by force of numbers. If and when rightwingers or other pressure groups wake up to how the pro-Israelis have created that bias... well, it's just lucky that they're not smart enough to take the obvious course. -- Grace Note.


 * It's biased in that way in your opinion, but that's because you have a strong anti-Israel POV. Everyone with an anti-Israel POV thinks the articles are biased in favor of Israel. People with a pro-Israel POV think the articles are biased against Israel. I can therefore only repeat: the way forward is always, always to use the best sources available, read them carefully, and write up their material faithfully with as little spin as possible. SlimVirgin (talk) 07:55, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
 * NPOV implies: "I talk as if I do not care if the State of Israel got pushed into the sea today." It is very difficult for people who do care about Israel to see this as "neutral", but that is the difficult task we impose on EVERYBODY in order to be able to talk about a genuine NPOV that we can try to agree upon. It is called "just not caring at all" about anything except encyclopedia quality. You get to be like a god in Greek mythology looking down upon the struggle except that you DO NOT get to do any divine intervention. You do not waste time with "what if..." or "My, how heroic!". You just sit there passively and observe &mdash; just like watching a sit-com on TV. In this case, that is not inherently anti-Israel. In that world that these gods live in, all the people doing the fighting are pretty dumb. There are no heros. There are no terrorists. There is no us/them. There is no good or evil.  There is no right and wrong. No drama. It is kinda boring because the plot does not change: They are all gonna be fighting the same ol' fight on next week's episode. Just different people then because most of the one's from last week's episode died. The only thing the observer should care about is getting the story accurately in a way that we mostly agree on. The observer should be obsessed with the Truth, but that Truth should be rather dull and boring because we all agree on it. Boring! You do not even get to explain WHY a person did a certain thing unless they maybe wrote a book about it afterwards AND you believe what they wrote in their book. Don't you see? It does not matter WHY Booth shot Lincoln. What is MUCH MORE important than that is the way the bullet entered behind Lincoln's left ear and lodged behind his eyeball, passing through and causing trauma to some intervening grey matter. It is much more interesting the way Booth's right leg broke moments later, than that he felt pain. It is much more important that Jackie picked up some of her husbands brains than to explain that she, in her stupor, imagined that such material would be good for anything.  When was the last time Kennedy's penis entered her vagina? Did she like it? That last time? Does it matter if she liked it? Had he fucked anybody else in the mean time? Why such details? Because we all agree on them if we can get the supporting evidence and therefor we "know" them to be fact. What went on in the minds of Lincoln and Kennedy are rather abstract. We do not know them to be fact. Even Hitler becomes merely "of interest". In NPOV-land, there is no Holocaut. There are just accurate damage reports.-- 75.24.106.82 14:24, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Very cynical. I think a more appropriate view is that if people have access to good information then they have some chance to make wise decisions which advance human welfare and avoid suffering. Fred Bauder 16:43, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

As I've pointed out before, Wikipedia is actually working in this area at the moment. With the threat of a ban hanging over some of the editors, behavior has improved considerably. This is an ordinary Wikipedia problem - a small number of editors were causing problems, and the process to deal with that has been set in motion. --John Nagle 19:30, 4 August 2006 (UTC)


 * There is no "threat of ban hanging over some of the editors", unless you're looking at a different proposed decision than I am. The fact that User:HOTR has left Wikipedia is helping to an extent, though his constant sockpuppeting is a problem, and the fact that Kim is restricting her edits mostly to wikilawyering on this case has also helped calm various articles down. However, I cannot agree with your claim that your behavior has "improved considerably" - on the contrary, you still see Wikipedia as an adversarial place where one must find various means of punishing those who disagree with you, and you still continue to edit Wikipedia as means for promoting an agenda, often in contravention of policy. This issue still needs to be dealt with. Jayjg (talk) 20:23, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

"Existing bias" clause
Can't say I'm very comfortable with this bit: "Expressed plainly, a slight pro-Israeli bias such as substitution of "allegations of Israeli apartheid" for "Israeli apartheid" is not an excuse for edit or move warring." This smacks of giving tacit approval to that very "pro-Israeli bias" the clause acknowledges to exist.

Fact is, it takes two to tango, and one cannot have an edit or move war without both parties participating. So why this suggestion that only the "anti-Israel" faction (for want of a better description) is at fault, and that by extension the pro-Israeli edits should be allowed to stand because the latter have a "slight majority" on Wiki? This is not the way to achieve NPOV articles. If there's an existing "pro-Israeli bias" on Wiki, then it seems to me that if anything, steps need to be taken to correct that bias. Putting the blame on those who are trying to achieve this end is neither fair nor useful in my opinion.

Wouldn't it at least be more appropriate to simply say that there is no excuse for edit or move warring under any circumstances?

My second point is regarding the polls started by Kim to try and get a number of these articles fixed. While I have no criticism of Kim in the main, I have been critical of her eagerness to start polls on contentious articles as a means of first resort. In my opinion, polls only tend to polarize opinion, they are easily manipulated by votestacking, and they are a crude way of forcing majority opinion on the minority, leaving the losers feeling alienated and bitter.

I confess that I'm still struggling with the meaning of Wiki policies regarding polls and I think they could do with some clarification, because they seem to contain a fair bit of contradiction. But at the very least, I think it should be made clear that polls should only be conducted when all other means to achieve consensus have failed. I think perhaps the debate over the "Israel apartheid" article may not have become so bitter had participants been given the opportunity to fully debate the matter on the talk pages first, before the poll was started. Gatoclass 16:45, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
 * We can't make binding a priori policy about how to engage in successful negotiation. Polls in this case are obviously an invitation to round up those with a pro or anti Israeli point of view to come and look at the situation, often without having the time to deeply delve into it. I fell in that trap myself when Zeq left a note on my talk page and I went over and expressed a shallow opinion against use of the term. When I later found out Bishop Tutu was staking out a position about Israeli apartheid my opinion changed as there was obviously a significant point of view out there. However the effect of putting up a poll is something we are becoming familiar with, so the results are appropriately discounted. Seizing on the result of such a poll to justify an action is not a sound basis, as having rounded up our friends to support our position we can't say it represents anything more than the result of our own effort, kind of like a political campaign. It still doesn't trump NPOV. Likewise a temporary advantage in terms of "existing bias" does not trump NPOV. The issues still remain for discussion and resolution. If the tilt went the other way, let suppose the change had been to (supported by a poll result, of course) was to Israeli racism, we could say the title showed a anti-Israeli bias. The same disparagement of move or edit warring would apply and rather than a major war we might more profitably have a discussion about finding a less biased title for the article. Fred Bauder 21:26, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Gatoclass, I think part of the problem here lies in the underlying premise that there is a "pro-Israel bias," whether it be "slight", "some" or whatever else. I see evidence on Wikipedia every day that if there is "strength in numbers" in either direction, it is anti-Israel, not pro-Israel.  In any event, I do not see why a statement in this regard is necessary in concluding this arbitration.  The point Fred seems to be trying to make is that when one perceives a bias on the "other side," one should take every opportunity to avoid a war.  Or something to that effect.  I am not sure exactly how this principle is to be put into practice, and from what I see on Wikipedia every day, a lot of other people aren't sure either.  The point is that I think the principle of "no warring even if you think it is justified by a bias toward the other side" is an ideal for Wikipedia to work towards, and it does not depend on which way the bias runs.  My hope and suggestion is that the arbitrators will opt for the general principle, without making a questionable and divisive "finding" that the bias runs in one direction or the other.  6SJ7 22:18, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
 * How would you phrase the general principle? Fred Bauder 22:44, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I thought I wrote that a few days ago. I thought it was on this page but evidently it isn't.  I have to find it.   6SJ7 22:58, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Ok, I was referring to this.  I see that it is geared toward the "remedy" that you proposed.  Let me see if I can come up with something more comprehensive.   6SJ7 00:10, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

''Seizing on the result of such a poll to justify an action is not a sound basis, as having rounded up our friends to support our position we can't say it represents anything more than the result of our own effort, kind of like a political campaign. It still doesn't trump NPOV - Fred Bauder.''

I quite agree. And yet that's just what seemed to happen on the "Israeli apartheid" page.

The problem I have with existing policy is that it doesn't really make the principle very clear, in fact it appears to be ambiguous in that in some places it seems to say that polls aren't binding and in others to imply that they are. I don't think decisions should simply be based on who has the numbers (unless the numbers on one side are really minimal, as I said below), they need to be based on NPOV regardless of who has the majority. And the best way to do that is to work through the issues in debate, assuming of course that there is a reasonable degree of goodwill on both sides. Gatoclass 07:25, 7 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Gatoclass, I think part of the problem here lies in the underlying premise that there is a "pro-Israel bias," whether it be "slight", "some" or whatever else. I see evidence on Wikipedia every day that if there is "strength in numbers" in either direction, it is anti-Israel, not pro-Israel - 6SJ7


 * Well I guess that only emphasizes how one's POV influences one's perceptions, because I see the very opposite! Articles on the Israel-Palestine conflict, and also on Islam, seem to me to exhibit at best a slight and at worst an outrageous bias toward the Jewish/Israeli POV. Last time I looked at Zionism and Racism for example, it was little more than a thinly disguised apologia for the Zionist POV. I happened to come across the Banu Nadir article in my travels and couldn't believe the outrageous bias - Mohammed in that article is (or was) depicted as little more than a crude caricature of evil, lustfulness and treachery. Now I can accept that some people might view him that way - I'm not exactly a great fan of the man or his religion myself - but such caricatures have no place on Wiki, and bring the whole project into disrepute in my opinion. (And while I have no opinion about the current arbitration case concerning His Excellency, I can certainly understand his consternation about such crude depictions).


 * As to whether or not there are more anti- than pro-Israel editors on Wiki, I have no idea, but I do think the pro-Israel camp have a commitment to their cause and a persistence that their opponents lack, which is why these articles tend to start creeping back toward the pro-Israeli POV over time. That's my perception anyhow.


 * In any event, I do not see why a statement in this regard is necessary in concluding this arbitration. The point Fred seems to be trying to make is that when one perceives a bias on the "other side," one should take every opportunity to avoid a war.


 * My point was simply that I wouldn't like to think the pro-Israel people are going to look at the clause in question and conclude that their behaviour at Israeli apartheid has somehow been legitimized, or that they are entitled to have their way on other articles as a result of their superior numbers. Or that alternatively, the other camp is not entitled to remove pro-Israeli bias when the numbers are against them. As long as everyone is clear about this, then I can probably shelve my concerns. Gatoclass 08:30, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't think you have anything to worry about in that regard, Gatoclass. I do not think that the people you regard as "the pro-Israel people" believe they had "their way" on this issue.  I certainly don't think I have gotten "my way" on this issue.  As I have said elsewhere (as confirmed by looking at all of the discussion pages, polling pages, etc.), renaming the article to its current title was my fourth choice, and at best it was the third choice of any of the people you are referring to.  Despite what you would call "inferior" numbers, the people who wanted the article to stay at its original title (which includes you, I believe), got "their way" for awhile, and even now, have gotten their second choice, meaning a still-independent article under a title that still has the words "Israeli apartheid" in it.  I really don't see what all the complaining has been about.  6SJ7 16:51, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

On the existence of cliques
It seems to be that the accusation that certain groups of editors form "cliques" in which they generally support each other's positions and actions is not wholly without merit. This became rather apparent while I was looking over the (failed) RFA for User:Ambuj.Saxena (here).

I did some digging and here and some results of the voting patterns at WP:RFA of the following, since June 1 2006:


 * User:Mperel - 2 votes in RFA
 * User:Jayjg - 9 votes in RFA
 * User:TShilo12 - 2 votes in RFA
 * User:SlimVirgin - 6 votes in RFA
 * User:Briangotts - 10 votes in RFA
 * User:PinchasC - 2 votes in RFA
 * User:6SJ7 - 1 vote in RFA
 * User:Humus_sapiens - 4 votes in RFA
 * User:Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg - 1 vote in RFA
 * User:Pecher - 2 votes in RFA

And a breakdown of how they voted in this particular RFA:

Requests_for_adminship/Ambuj.Saxena

Oppose


 * SlimVirgin (Aug 1st, 16:12) : 2nd Oppose out of 96 votes.
 * Jayjg (Aug 1st, 16:46) : 3rd Oppose out of 97 votes (immediatly following SlimVirgin's vote)
 * MPerel (Aug 1st, 17:31) : 4th Oppose out of 98 votes (immediatly following Jayjg's vote).
 * Briangotts (Aug 1st, 18:21) : 6th Oppose out of 100 votes (less than an hour after MPerel's vote)

Thats four oppose votes in about two hours out of 100 votes cast on a nomination thats been open for about 5 days.


 * Pecher (Aug 1st, 19:35)
 * PinchasC (Aug 1st, 20:23)
 * Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg
 * TShilo12 (Aug 1st, 22:30)
 * Humus sapiens (Aug 2nd, 18:59)
 * 6SJ7 (Aug 3rd, 4:09)

A couple of points to note:


 * The nomination was going remarkable well before SlimVirgin's oppose, which was the 2nd oppose, with about 90 supports.
 * The nomination was about 5 days old, but within ~6 hours of SlimVirgin's oppose, seven members of her clique had all voted oppose.
 * As far as I can tell, only SlimVirgin and Jayjg seem to have had direct experiences with this editor, the rest of the voters seem to be basing their votes from the others lead.
 * The majority of the voters are infrequent contributors to the RFA process, and it is rather curious how they all managed to find this particular nomination at around the same time.
 * I can't seem to find any RFA where they have taken opposing positions (although there may be some, I haven't really checked that thoroughly).

I've only taken a look at the RFA voting patterns, but if the same type of behavior holds true (I've also observed this at WP:ANI) to editing in articles, then I can see where the claim of a group of editors supporting each other across multiple, possibly unrelated, articles has some validity.

The existence of cliques is probably inevitable when a group of editors edit articles concerning the same topic, and share similar points of view, but when this cliquish behavior extends to unrelated matters and topics, then this behavior becomes very troubling. - —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 12.75.0.184 (talk • contribs) 23:38, 6 August 2006.


 * The fact that this is posted anonymously doesn't do much for its credibility. It represents a very partial view, and the author himself admits "I can't seem to find any RFA where they have taken opposing positions (although there may be some, I haven't really checked that thoroughly)." Exactly. A proper statistical analysis would take that and much more into account.


 * Rather than searching for conspiracies, apply Occam's Razor. Editors who share the same interests tend to gather in the same places. This happens in a number of ways. The main vehicle is watchlists. Editors interested in the same articles will all notice when a change is made and may respond with their own edits. Another way it happens is via contributions histories. My watchlist is currently 4,000 articles long, and has become next to useless because there are too many changes to keep up with. So I often look at the contributions of editors I know share my interests. In that way, I find out about AfDs, RfArs, RfAs, RfCs, RfMs, and other things that I wouldn't otherwise have noticed. This is all quite standard practice. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:28, 7 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I can feel SV's pain as regards watchlist size, and I'd be embarrassed to admit the size of my own, Maybe we can poke the devs into implementing hierarchical, prioritised, or otherwise structured watchlists.  But with the best will in the world, the distinction between "I monitor other people's contributions and end up making edits and 'votes' that agree with theirs" (wiki-anti-stalking, riding wiki-shotgun?), and a "team", is a pretty fine one.  Alai 01:32, 7 August 2006 (UTC)


 * My watchlist is also almost 4,000 items large, and, frankly, is almost useless. I rarely look at it. As, I suspect, with many editors, I generally look at My Contributions and User Contributions of editors whose interests I share. Perhaps the anon IP can suggest that the "User Contributions" tool be removed from Wikipedia; that would also cut down on wikistalking. Jayjg (talk) 02:03, 7 August 2006 (UTC)


 * You'll note that nowhere did I (at least) say "and teamwork is obviously a bad thing". (Speaking personally, the person I tend to "wikistalk" by this method is myself, which is probably a little pathetic...)  Alai 02:55, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh, I didn't see your comment as negative; sorry if I gave that impression. Jayjg (talk) 17:04, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm inclined to think that perhaps "votestacking" or "meatpuppetry" (whatever you want to call it) should be permissible amongst existing Wiki users, because at least it would remove the suspicion that some parties might be surreptitiously contacting one another to crank up the numbers on a vote. That way it would at least all be above board. But whether it would improve the situation or not I don't know. Personally, I don't like polls, and I'm inclined to think that they should only be binding when you have no more than two or three taking one particular side, because it's common to find one or two obstructive people in an article whereas if there are four or more, it usually indicates a valid alternative POV. Gatoclass 07:10, 7 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I find it a little worrying that it's editors who are perceived as being Jews, or interested in Jewish-related issues, who are being singled out in the list above. I see no mention of Muslim editors who often edit in the same areas and agree; or left-wing ones; and so on. There are certain pages and certain votes, where as soon as I see a particular name voting yes, or making a certain edit, I can predict which other names will turn up to vote the same way or support the same edit. This is not a bad thing. It's called collaborative editing.


 * "Meatpuppetry" is when non-Wikipedians sign up for accounts after being asked to in order to push through a vote or an edit. They're not members of the community and so we have rules against it. But you can't have rules against members of the community sharing interests and agreeing with each other, and the longer someone has been an editor, the more likely they are to have made wiki-friends, come to respect the editing of certain others, etc.


 * The only way to get rid of it is have the devs remove watchlists and user-contributions, and introduce a rule that, if you see someone on an AfD (for example) that you've agreed with in the last 10 days, you must either disagree with them or not vote. That's how silly it would have to get. SlimVirgin (talk) 07:41, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, yes, of course people gravitate into camps of like-minded people over time, I'm simply saying that's it's kind of pointless to have restrictions on who you can and can't contact within the Wiki community when a poll is being conducted, when it's so very easy to get around any such restrictions simply by sending a quiet email to one's list of buddies.

I haven't suggested that you or your friends have engaged in such behaviour, the point is simply that since there's nothing to stop people from "cheating" like this, perhaps it would be better if such actions were made permissible. Then no-one would have cause for suspicion in the first place. But then again, maybe a change like that would create problems of its own? Gatoclass 09:01, 7 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure there is a rule against it, is there? And if there is, what's the definition? If I post on five other talk pages that such-and-such a vote is going on, is that vote-stacking, or is it alerting interested members of the community? Actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 09:09, 7 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually, I'm not clear on whether or not it's allowed either. I had assumed it's not from comments I've read here and there. Maybe someone can clarify? Gatoclass 09:17, 7 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't see how there could be a workable rule without a clear definition. I suppose it boils down to commonsense. If I post about a vote or problem on five pages, it's probably fine; if I post on 50, it would be seen as spamming. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 09:25, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

"Editors who share the same interests tend to gather in the same places. This happens in a number of ways. The main vehicle is watchlists. "

I find it unlikely that Jay, Pecher, Moshe, TShilo12, Humus sapiens, MPerel and 6SJ7 all just happened to have Requests_for_adminship/Ambuj.Saxena in their watchlists. A similar phenomenon occured at Wikipedia_talk:Central_discussions/Apartheid where a cluster of half a dozen or so people all descended on July 5th to vote the same way in a previously slow moving poll. The likeliest explanation is some sort of behind the scenes communication via email or chat.

"Exactly. A proper statistical analysis would take that and much more into account."

Let's run a proper statistical analysis on cluster voting that follows a vote by SlimVirgin or Jayjg and various RFAs and polls. The results, I dare say, will show an interesting pattern. Let's also run a statistical analysis to examine whether PinchasC has a habit of showing up as an "uninvolved admin" when SV or Jay are in a dispute.

"I find it a little worrying that it's editors who are perceived as being Jews, or interested in Jewish-related issues, who are being singled out in the list above."

This is pure nonsense and an attempt to intimidate people into not scrutinizing SV's behaviour too closely. Not all members of SV's clique are Jews (indeed, there's no reason to assume that even a majority are) and, I dare say, most Jews on Wikipedia do not belong to SV's clique. Ex-Homey 16:25, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Homey (assuming this is Homey), your sense of what is "likely" or "unlikely" is highly skewed, since you still deny your obvious sockpuppeting (e.g. User:Sonofzion), putting up one bizarre explanation after the other, each one more unlikely than the last. I'm afraid we're going to have to rely on more reliable sources for common sense than your spin. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 17:04, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, indeed, assuming it is you, and not someone pretending to be you, or you pretending to be someone pretending to be you, I recall that you had a shadow of your own until not so long ago, and given your recent behavior, you're on the weakest possible ground for pointing the finger at anyone else. As for the central discussions thing, it was because this case started and gave it publicity, as you or someone else from your "side" acknowledged. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk)


 * SV, are you denying there were emails or other communication around either the Saxena RFA or the Israeli apartheid naming poll? Please answer the question rather than engaging in ad hominems. Ex-Homey 20:56, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

In this RFA, 40 people voted "oppose" and nearly all of them opposed per SlimVirgin. Homey, are you going to accuse all of them of being meatpuppets solicited by SlimVirgin? If not, then why do you single out those people who are usually on the opposing side of disputes with you? Pecher Talk 20:27, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

A cluster of votes in close proximity suggests some sort of vote stacking through email or some other communication, particularly as the votes were mostly "dittos". It might not be possible to completely disregard such votes but perhaps in future "dittohead" votes should be given less weight when consensus is being judged? Ex-Homey 20:56, 7 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't think it's forbidden to follow the contributions of editors who edit in areas of common interests is it? (Excepting those who follow an editor's contributions with the intent of harrassing the editor, of course).  If a respected editor expresses concerns in an RFA, there is a great likelihood others might respond, which is exactly what compelled me in the RFA above.  As per alleged cliques and conspiracies, lets' get some numbers straight.  Out of the 27% or 58 RFAs SlimVirgin and I have in common out of our combined 217 total, when we both voted on a candidate in which one or both of us opposed, we agreed 55% of the time (6 RFAs out of 11).  When we both voted on a candidate in which one or both of us supported, we agreed 90% of the time (46 RFAs out of  51).  I hardly think that demonstrates we are members of a clique, do you?  Among the list of editors allegedly in a "clique" above, many of us may have similar interests, but we aren't exactly monolithic in our perspectives.  The main thing we do seem to have in common though is that we seem to be on Ex-Homey's hit list. -- M P er el ( talk 02:58, 10 August 2006 (UTC)


 * A conspiracy is always the easiest explanation for all natural and social phenomena. This is why conspiracy theories are so popular. Pecher Talk 21:04, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

As for Sonofzion, Jayjg the CheckUser conclusion was "likely" not "confirmed" - you have falsified the result in your recent recapitulation of it. Please post the raw data of the Sonofzion/HOTR Checkusuer result so people can judge for themselves rather than rely on your self-serving interpretation. Ex-Homey 20:57, 7 August 2006 (UTC)


 * CheckUser results are usually not made public. Pecher Talk 20:59, 7 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Right; especially not to sockpuppets who may or may not be Homey. As for the CheckUser result, upon reviewing the evidence, The Uninvited Co. concurred with my findings, and found the evidence to be "nearly conclusive".  CheckUser can never 100% prove that one editor is sockpuppeting; after all, many can (and do) claim that their sister or nephew or brother-in-law suddenly decided to edit, using their IP, POV, etc.  Or, as Homey has done, they can claim that an IP they have, until now, used exclusively, has suddenly become a shared computer used by all sorts of new Wikipedia editors, each mysteriously having the same interests as Homey himself. Combine that with various sockpuppet games ("I'm Homey" "No you're not, I'm Homey"), and tangents about RFA votes which took place weeks after this case, and have nothing whatever to do with it, and you have a textbook example of standard spin practice. Homey (if this is you), the readers of this page haven't suddenly turned into idiots; please stop treating them as if they have. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 22:22, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

"CheckUser results are usually not made public"

The operative word is "usually" - I am requesting that they be made public. As for Jay's statement, Uninvited company said "likely", you have since embellished the finding to "confirmed" which is a different category - a rather self-serving embellishment at that. Jay, did the results on Sonofzion show "same system" or different system - you refused to answer that question when I asked you before.

It's highly irregular for someone to run a checkuser on someone they are in a dispute with - reading Checkuser policy it looks like you abused your permission. Ex-Homey 02:37, 8 August 2006 (UTC)


 * You can request whatever you like, but who are you? If you are Homey, your regular abuses of your admin powers, combined with your justifications for doing so, indicate that you have little conception of what actual "abuse" is. Regardless, it doesn't matter; you're simply using these pages for your usual deception, distortion, spin, and FUD, on topics which have nothing to do with this case. I won't be playing your game any more. Bye. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 03:00, 8 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Jay, I understand why you want to dodge the question - however it's a legitimate one despite your attempt to dismiss it with ad hominems. Is it acceptable for someone given Checkuser privilege to use it on someone they are in a content dispute with? Yes or no? Why did you embellish the results by saying "confirmed" when in fact they were not at that level? Why are you afraid to release the raw data if you are so confident in your interpretation? Why do you refuse to say whether the HOTR/Sonofzion results showed "same system" or "not same system" even though the meta checkuser pages say this would be included in the results and can be announced? Ex-Homey 03:50, 8 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I have two complaints:
 * If there is a conspiracy, a clique - why no one bothered to let me know ? This is really unsocial behavior (on part of all the Zionist conspirators who forgot about me). Next time there is an evil Zionist conspiracy I want to be in it.
 * This whole exchange with ex-Homey/Homey/Not-Homey/wouldbe-Homey is getting boring. I want some color, sophistication added otherwise I am loosing interest. So unless Homey make some different move I want out, even if there is a Zionist conspiracy don't get me involved. I want to be part of an  interesting conspiracy  not part of boring ones. Zeq 03:23, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

A clique isn't a conspiracy.Ex-Homey 03:48, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

PLEASE, someone please wakes me up when this is over. Will he ever give up and move on with his life ? Zeq 06:49, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

The only legitimate questions here are how many bites at the same apples does Homey get here and how long is the community going to tolerate this colossal waste of its time and patience. FeloniousMonk 01:48, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Felonious, can you show me one example where you've publicly disagreed or differed with SlimVirgin or Jayjg on anything? Ex-Homey 20:26, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Meanwhile in the real world
I'd like to point your attention to what is happening today in Articles for deletion/Allegations of Israeli apartheid while some here make allegations of pro-Israel bias/conspiracies/cliques: I'm not going to touch on the WP coverage of the ongoing Israel-Lebanon conflict, but as I said elsewhere, almost all articles related to Jews and Israel are under daily attacks, war or no war. ←Humus sapiens ну? 03:58, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * "Keep - I was asked via E-mail to take a look at this. As I recall, I voted delete in the last one. Perhpas I was wrong. As the result of the last one was speedy keep, I see no need for this AfD at all."
 * was away since May 21 and today suddenly s/he appears to vote.


 * I think you make it clear above in your statement that the above is likely reactionary in nature. It is quite common to learn from the behavior of others.  --Ben Houston 07:55, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Humus, that may be true. We are doing our best to reinforce NPOV here. Don't forget that many other race/religion/nationalty-based articles are also knowing the same fate. I'd single out a very infamous one; Islamofascism. We talk about allegations of Israeli Apartheid and keep Islamofascism w/o the allegations. Isn't that unfair? -- Szvest 09:44, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * No, it isn't. Islamofascism is about a neologism, not about allegations that Islam is a fascist ideology. Allegations of Israeli apartheid, however, are about a allegations that Israel engages in apartheid policies. Pecher Talk 14:48, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * In addition to Pecher's comment let me repeat that I've changed the title "Islamofascism" to "Islamofascism (epithet)", but it was promptly reverted back.
 * To Ben Houston and other wikilawyers, let me rephrase your own argument: this is not an uncommon practice, but we chose to single out a certain group for punishement. Correct? ←Humus sapiens ну? 19:51, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Your comment is incoherent. --Ben Houston 22:43, 12 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm ready to move "Islamofascism" to "Allegations of Islamofascism" right now, any objections? 6SJ7 20:12, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, when I look at the first paragraph of "Islamofascism", the perfect title would be the one Humus chose, "Islamofascism (epithet)", but in light of prior experience, what's the point? Maybe there should be a request for move there.  6SJ7 20:24, 11 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I would certainly support that if you want to make a request for a page move. I only realized recently that it had been moved back to Islamofascism. It used to be Islamofascism (term). SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 01:05, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

1) My family lived in a country that was successively a fascist and then a Stalinist dictatorship. The term "lawyering" would often be used by the state and its apologists as a way of dismissing anyone who disagreed with authority or argued in favour of their rights or due process. I think the term "wikilawyering" is a symptom of the same sort of mentality as evidenced by the admins who throw it around.

2) When Humus pines about who is being "singling out a single group for punishment" I look at the small number of Arab and Palestinian editors on wikipedia and the rate at project for offences, real or imagined, that would have earned other editors mere cautions or be ignored when they are "liked" (her words in ANI) by SlimVirgin or certain other admins (hi Mantanmoreland). There seem to be some admins who spend much of their time targetting individuals they view as pro-Palestinian or anti-Israeli. Perhaps Humus can explain why these editors have been singled out? Ex-Homey 20:19, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

BTW Humus, SlimVirgin refused to answer when I asked her if there were any emails to editors regarding either the Israeli apartheid renaming vote or the request for adminship mentioned above (as I said, I doubt many people had that AFD on their watchlist). Ex-Homey 20:22, 11 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Let's not change the subject. This ArbReq was conceived against a disorganized (AFAIK) group of editors. In the mid-flight it was discovered that the charges of misbehavior/abuse fell apart and there is nothing really special about this group. But the accusers still scramble to trump up something...
 * From my own experience, editors from this group routinely harmoniously work with Palestinian or pro-Palestinian editors. And BTW, being pro-Israel doesn't necessarily mean to be anti-Palestinian and vice versa. It was Homey who turned WP into a battleground by unnecessarily inflaming/polarizing/radicalizing an entire corner of WP. As if the real conflict is not painful enough. ←Humus sapiens ну? 23:16, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Humus, there's a pro-Israel institutional bias in wikipedia because there is a lack of balance between editors and admins who are pro-Israel and those who are pro-Palestinian. There is also a quite consistent attempt to exclude, punish, and harass pro-Palestinian editors. Surely, you've noticed the short life span of Arab and Palestinian editors on wikipedia and the block voting against them when they seek admin status ("not experienced enough" is, I believe, one of Jay's stock reasons for opposing them). There also is quite obvious vote-stacking going on in favour of Israeli topics - or do you deny that there was an email over the Israel apartheid name change vote?Ex-Homey 10:01, 12 August 2006 (UTC)


 * And how many have you proposed for adminship? SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 10:39, 12 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Slim, if you're going to ask a question you should first answer the question I've asked you several times now. Was there any email sent around regarding the Israeli apartheid renaming poll or the above mentioned RFAdmin poll? If not, how do you explain the short and sudden outbust of votes against the RFAdmin? Your claim regarding watchlists obviously doesn't fit with an RFA. Ex-Homey 20:38, 12 August 2006 (UTC)


 * As I thought, you've nominated none, so don't complain. I've nominated two editors regarded as pro-Arab or pro-Muslim, and both were promoted (one the first time, one the second), and as I recall, Jayjg supported them both. And no, I won't be interrogated by you so that you can twist my replies to fit another of your conspiracy theories. In fact, I won't be responding to you again at all. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 01:03, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

And how many perceived pro-Arab or pro-Palestinian admin candidates have you opposed, SV?Ex-Homey 20:49, 13 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Notice how the conspiracy allegation turns into a witchhunt. ←Humus sapiens ну? 05:26, 14 August 2006 (UTC)