Can we do something about this? This user has been basically shoving out personal attacks since this event broke non-stop. Do we need this person's services on Wikipedia? Lawrence Cohen § t/ e 05:20, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
- See my comment below the edit and on user's page. —
Rlevse •
Talk •
10:17, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
- I propose banning Dajudem/Juanita indefinitely soley for the sheer volume of bullshit she has been spewing. Funny how she reminds me of Zeq with her endless "innocent victim" routine. Kaldari ( talk) 16:40, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
- I'm not seeing what's so particularly bad there; I kinda like the alliteration of "Earth to Eleland." Labeling someone as an
anti-Zionist isn't an attack anymore than labeling someone as a
Republican or
Democrat, frankly. If you look at our
Zionism and racism article, in certain contexts this could even be a complement, i.e. you certainly wouldn't call accusing another editor of being anti-KKK an attack. --
Kendrick7
talk
17:19, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
- You surely wouldn't be analogizing the KKK to Zionism, would you? I would look at that article but it is apparently off limits to me until this time 2009.
Juanita (
talk)
03:26, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
- I could probably draw a variety of analogies between the American South during Reconstruction (the period of the first Klan) and the period of the British Mandate of Palestine, but I shall not. I was mainly thinking of the U.N. resolution, since repealed, condemning Zionism as racism, and trying to defend you by pointing out the term, its meaning, and the implications of opposition to it, are a matter of some debate. -- Kendrick7 talk 02:16, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- You surely wouldn't be analogizing the KKK to Zionism, would you? I would look at that article but it is apparently off limits to me until this time 2009.
Juanita (
talk)
03:26, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
- Kendrick i hardly think a Zionist (ie a Camera member/fanboy) would believe calling someone a
anti-Zionist a complement. It is the volume of insults and poisoning of the well that means she should get an indefinate block, when i came here i thought the one year long topic ban was too long for her, but now i think its no-where near long enough.
(Hypnosadist)
17:53, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
- Well of course you would be delighted with an indefinite block, Hypnosadist. It goes without saying. A life sentence would be good, seeing how execution is not an available option, lol. Juanita ( talk) 05:33, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
- You may be right overall, but if we treat the use of the "Z-word" as a kind of third rail, as the larger community has a history of doing when they peer into frank discussions about the IP conflict, it reflects a degree of ignorance which I always feel the need to try and dispel. -- Kendrick7 talk 18:24, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
- Kendrick its not the word Zionist that is bad you are quite right, it is the constant accusation that any criticism must come from the "Evil Other Side" no matter what name she gives it.
(Hypnosadist)
21:21, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
- An " us versus them" mentality pervades among people from many cultures, and I don't believe that in itself should be a ban-able offense. -- Kendrick7 talk 03:13, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
- "Us and Them mentality" is why we have wikipedia is not a battlefield, "Us and them" people almost certainly preclude AGF and CIV in their activities as clearly demonstrated. (Hypnosadist) 09:04, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Oh pulease, you people! Will you ever listen to yourselves? Juanita ( talk) 04:38, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
- What a gandbang! Davidg ( talk) 04:45, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Wasn't there a checkuser confirmation per our internal standards that they are the same? Why hasn't one been blocked? Lawrence Cohen § t/ e 04:59, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
- you people are amazing and will stoop to anything to get rid of a voice you don't like! We are not 'the same.' This issue has been dealt with. I guess this is another example of your "good faith"? It seems "good faith" is only required from us
proles. Tell me Lawrence, was it you who wouldn't allow me to put up a screenshot from Yahoo! groups last night, marking it for "speedy deletion" 5 minutes after it got put up and dumping it almost immediately?
Juanita (
talk)
05:25, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
- Where was this dealt with? This is first I'm hearing (this is a big website) of where it was dealt with. Link? And your image was a screen shot of a copyrighted website. Our copyright policies do not allow for such usage outside of article space. Lawrence Cohen § t/ e 05:49, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Nevermind, Lawrence, you just continue your attempt to ban both me and my roommate. Maybe you will get lucky and get rid of both of us at the same time. You certainly don't want to assume that we are two people two computers one isp. That would be assuming good faith! And just look at all the people just on this page you'll delight with your actions. This is really really tiresome. And it really feels like harassment as well. Good night. Juanita ( talk) 06:04, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
- wrong, we are not the same. i have called for punishing the agenda driven israepedia/camera group even if no action could be taken against wikiforpalestine. i believe in rules and i believe in fair play. why do you people ignore my statements why discharging your charges against me?? both dajudem and judadem have experienced severe levels of incivility and personal attacks which are ignored. it is either justice for all or justice for none.
Davidg (
talk)
06:13, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
- Maybe some of us are a bit burned out with Zeq and company. (How many years have we been dealing with this? Two and a half now?) Forgive us for not having the patience of Job. Regardless, your point is taken, so let's move on. Kaldari ( talk) 21:20, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
- wrong, we are not the same. i have called for punishing the agenda driven israepedia/camera group even if no action could be taken against wikiforpalestine. i believe in rules and i believe in fair play. why do you people ignore my statements why discharging your charges against me?? both dajudem and judadem have experienced severe levels of incivility and personal attacks which are ignored. it is either justice for all or justice for none.
Davidg (
talk)
06:13, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
- Two and a half years? That would be just about when the wikiforpalestine group established itself.
Juanita (
talk)
03:22, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
- These constant insinuations of conspiracies are exhausting the community's patience. <
eleland/
talk
edits>
04:25, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- You speak for the entire community, Eleland? I am the one on trial for conspiracy, lol.
Juanita (
talk)
04:29, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- If only you could step back from your preconceptions, you'd realize that you're not "on trial," and you were not banned for "conspiracy," but for repeatedly and explicitly making clear that you view Wikipedia as an ideological battleground, and clearly implying that you are here to advocate for an Israeli nationalist POV in order to counter a perceived infiltration of Palestinian nationalist POV, rather than to attempt a neutral POV which documents the views of all sides. The personal attacks and massive assumptions of bad faith didn't help, either. <
eleland/
talk
edits>
16:07, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- I'm kind of shocked to read the above from Eleland. "I will not apologize for working strenuously to fix Wikipedia's severe neutrality problems when it comes to Israel." Eleland, that's a quote from your own talk page, found immediately to the left of your banner implying support for Hezbollah. Should you really be lecturing others on how they're allegedly editing "in order to counter a perceived infiltration of ... POV" when you basically suggest that you do the same thing and refuse to apologize for it? Gni ( talk) 22:12, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
- I suggest you take another look at the charges brought before the arbiters. The charges themselves imply a conspiracy. I have been editing since January 2005 but I am not being banned (or even critized) for those edits. My edits are proof of the pudding. If you think there are not two sides to this conflict, re-read the Palestinian notice board here at wiki. You yourself posted there, demonstrating that you are every bit an advocate for a Palestinian nationalist POV as I am for an Israeli one. My edits or behavior on wiki is not what this
witchhuntinvestigation is all about. I was banned for one year because I came to this forum to defend the charges made against all members of Israpedia. It took all of one day to ban me, and my first post here was met with ridicule and condescension. When you all agreed to ban every member of the group, you essentially charged every member of the group with conspiracy. I urge you to reread the statement by the Admins, opening with a statement lifted verbatim from Electronic Intifada, and see if it is not the very definition of conspiracy? Further clarification by the admins involed usingloadedwords such as these to express their opinions: "stealth" "meatpuppetry" "tactics" "private" "influence" "surreptitious" "ideologically like-minded" "sockpuppetry" "nurture hatred or fear" "targets" and the like. Juanita ( talk) 04:41, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
- If only you could step back from your preconceptions, you'd realize that you're not "on trial," and you were not banned for "conspiracy," but for repeatedly and explicitly making clear that you view Wikipedia as an ideological battleground, and clearly implying that you are here to advocate for an Israeli nationalist POV in order to counter a perceived infiltration of Palestinian nationalist POV, rather than to attempt a neutral POV which documents the views of all sides. The personal attacks and massive assumptions of bad faith didn't help, either. <
eleland/
talk
edits>
16:07, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- You speak for the entire community, Eleland? I am the one on trial for conspiracy, lol.
Juanita (
talk)
04:29, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- These constant insinuations of conspiracies are exhausting the community's patience. <
eleland/
talk
edits>
04:25, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Let's see now. What are we all discussing? Me. My bullshit. My innocent victim routine. My insults. My web poisonings. How I am "shoving out personal attacks." My "constant accusations". Gossip, thy name is Wikipedia! Are we discussing principles or proposals? Not a bit of it. Actually there is a wee bit of 'philosophy' going on here as well. Discussion of Zionism as "Camera member/fanboy" --Zionism as KKK -- Zionizm and an "us vrs them" mentality. It would almost be funny. A jury of my peers? Not here! Juanita ( talk) 04:41, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
- If you wanted collegiality , the way to get it would have been to start out in the process, by actually listening to people's concerns here, and by responding to them with some small bit of reasonability. -- Steve, Sm8900 ( talk) 19:22, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
While we've more tolerant of trolling and personal attacks on arb cases than at other places, my patience is very thin here on the workshop page. If these behaviors don't cease immediately, I'll protect the workshop page and its talk page. As the case has now moved into voting, you should have made all pertinent points necessary by now and unless you have something significantly new to add, you may want just watch the voting. — Rlevse • Talk • 13:01, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Can we do something about this? This user has been basically shoving out personal attacks since this event broke non-stop. Do we need this person's services on Wikipedia? Lawrence Cohen § t/ e 05:20, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
- See my comment below the edit and on user's page. —
Rlevse •
Talk •
10:17, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
- I propose banning Dajudem/Juanita indefinitely soley for the sheer volume of bullshit she has been spewing. Funny how she reminds me of Zeq with her endless "innocent victim" routine. Kaldari ( talk) 16:40, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
- I'm not seeing what's so particularly bad there; I kinda like the alliteration of "Earth to Eleland." Labeling someone as an
anti-Zionist isn't an attack anymore than labeling someone as a
Republican or
Democrat, frankly. If you look at our
Zionism and racism article, in certain contexts this could even be a complement, i.e. you certainly wouldn't call accusing another editor of being anti-KKK an attack. --
Kendrick7
talk
17:19, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
- You surely wouldn't be analogizing the KKK to Zionism, would you? I would look at that article but it is apparently off limits to me until this time 2009.
Juanita (
talk)
03:26, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
- I could probably draw a variety of analogies between the American South during Reconstruction (the period of the first Klan) and the period of the British Mandate of Palestine, but I shall not. I was mainly thinking of the U.N. resolution, since repealed, condemning Zionism as racism, and trying to defend you by pointing out the term, its meaning, and the implications of opposition to it, are a matter of some debate. -- Kendrick7 talk 02:16, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- You surely wouldn't be analogizing the KKK to Zionism, would you? I would look at that article but it is apparently off limits to me until this time 2009.
Juanita (
talk)
03:26, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
- Kendrick i hardly think a Zionist (ie a Camera member/fanboy) would believe calling someone a
anti-Zionist a complement. It is the volume of insults and poisoning of the well that means she should get an indefinate block, when i came here i thought the one year long topic ban was too long for her, but now i think its no-where near long enough.
(Hypnosadist)
17:53, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
- Well of course you would be delighted with an indefinite block, Hypnosadist. It goes without saying. A life sentence would be good, seeing how execution is not an available option, lol. Juanita ( talk) 05:33, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
- You may be right overall, but if we treat the use of the "Z-word" as a kind of third rail, as the larger community has a history of doing when they peer into frank discussions about the IP conflict, it reflects a degree of ignorance which I always feel the need to try and dispel. -- Kendrick7 talk 18:24, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
- Kendrick its not the word Zionist that is bad you are quite right, it is the constant accusation that any criticism must come from the "Evil Other Side" no matter what name she gives it.
(Hypnosadist)
21:21, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
- An " us versus them" mentality pervades among people from many cultures, and I don't believe that in itself should be a ban-able offense. -- Kendrick7 talk 03:13, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
- "Us and Them mentality" is why we have wikipedia is not a battlefield, "Us and them" people almost certainly preclude AGF and CIV in their activities as clearly demonstrated. (Hypnosadist) 09:04, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Oh pulease, you people! Will you ever listen to yourselves? Juanita ( talk) 04:38, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
- What a gandbang! Davidg ( talk) 04:45, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Wasn't there a checkuser confirmation per our internal standards that they are the same? Why hasn't one been blocked? Lawrence Cohen § t/ e 04:59, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
- you people are amazing and will stoop to anything to get rid of a voice you don't like! We are not 'the same.' This issue has been dealt with. I guess this is another example of your "good faith"? It seems "good faith" is only required from us
proles. Tell me Lawrence, was it you who wouldn't allow me to put up a screenshot from Yahoo! groups last night, marking it for "speedy deletion" 5 minutes after it got put up and dumping it almost immediately?
Juanita (
talk)
05:25, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
- Where was this dealt with? This is first I'm hearing (this is a big website) of where it was dealt with. Link? And your image was a screen shot of a copyrighted website. Our copyright policies do not allow for such usage outside of article space. Lawrence Cohen § t/ e 05:49, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Nevermind, Lawrence, you just continue your attempt to ban both me and my roommate. Maybe you will get lucky and get rid of both of us at the same time. You certainly don't want to assume that we are two people two computers one isp. That would be assuming good faith! And just look at all the people just on this page you'll delight with your actions. This is really really tiresome. And it really feels like harassment as well. Good night. Juanita ( talk) 06:04, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
- wrong, we are not the same. i have called for punishing the agenda driven israepedia/camera group even if no action could be taken against wikiforpalestine. i believe in rules and i believe in fair play. why do you people ignore my statements why discharging your charges against me?? both dajudem and judadem have experienced severe levels of incivility and personal attacks which are ignored. it is either justice for all or justice for none.
Davidg (
talk)
06:13, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
- Maybe some of us are a bit burned out with Zeq and company. (How many years have we been dealing with this? Two and a half now?) Forgive us for not having the patience of Job. Regardless, your point is taken, so let's move on. Kaldari ( talk) 21:20, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
- wrong, we are not the same. i have called for punishing the agenda driven israepedia/camera group even if no action could be taken against wikiforpalestine. i believe in rules and i believe in fair play. why do you people ignore my statements why discharging your charges against me?? both dajudem and judadem have experienced severe levels of incivility and personal attacks which are ignored. it is either justice for all or justice for none.
Davidg (
talk)
06:13, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
- Two and a half years? That would be just about when the wikiforpalestine group established itself.
Juanita (
talk)
03:22, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
- These constant insinuations of conspiracies are exhausting the community's patience. <
eleland/
talk
edits>
04:25, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- You speak for the entire community, Eleland? I am the one on trial for conspiracy, lol.
Juanita (
talk)
04:29, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- If only you could step back from your preconceptions, you'd realize that you're not "on trial," and you were not banned for "conspiracy," but for repeatedly and explicitly making clear that you view Wikipedia as an ideological battleground, and clearly implying that you are here to advocate for an Israeli nationalist POV in order to counter a perceived infiltration of Palestinian nationalist POV, rather than to attempt a neutral POV which documents the views of all sides. The personal attacks and massive assumptions of bad faith didn't help, either. <
eleland/
talk
edits>
16:07, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- I'm kind of shocked to read the above from Eleland. "I will not apologize for working strenuously to fix Wikipedia's severe neutrality problems when it comes to Israel." Eleland, that's a quote from your own talk page, found immediately to the left of your banner implying support for Hezbollah. Should you really be lecturing others on how they're allegedly editing "in order to counter a perceived infiltration of ... POV" when you basically suggest that you do the same thing and refuse to apologize for it? Gni ( talk) 22:12, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
- I suggest you take another look at the charges brought before the arbiters. The charges themselves imply a conspiracy. I have been editing since January 2005 but I am not being banned (or even critized) for those edits. My edits are proof of the pudding. If you think there are not two sides to this conflict, re-read the Palestinian notice board here at wiki. You yourself posted there, demonstrating that you are every bit an advocate for a Palestinian nationalist POV as I am for an Israeli one. My edits or behavior on wiki is not what this
witchhuntinvestigation is all about. I was banned for one year because I came to this forum to defend the charges made against all members of Israpedia. It took all of one day to ban me, and my first post here was met with ridicule and condescension. When you all agreed to ban every member of the group, you essentially charged every member of the group with conspiracy. I urge you to reread the statement by the Admins, opening with a statement lifted verbatim from Electronic Intifada, and see if it is not the very definition of conspiracy? Further clarification by the admins involed usingloadedwords such as these to express their opinions: "stealth" "meatpuppetry" "tactics" "private" "influence" "surreptitious" "ideologically like-minded" "sockpuppetry" "nurture hatred or fear" "targets" and the like. Juanita ( talk) 04:41, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
- If only you could step back from your preconceptions, you'd realize that you're not "on trial," and you were not banned for "conspiracy," but for repeatedly and explicitly making clear that you view Wikipedia as an ideological battleground, and clearly implying that you are here to advocate for an Israeli nationalist POV in order to counter a perceived infiltration of Palestinian nationalist POV, rather than to attempt a neutral POV which documents the views of all sides. The personal attacks and massive assumptions of bad faith didn't help, either. <
eleland/
talk
edits>
16:07, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- You speak for the entire community, Eleland? I am the one on trial for conspiracy, lol.
Juanita (
talk)
04:29, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- These constant insinuations of conspiracies are exhausting the community's patience. <
eleland/
talk
edits>
04:25, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Let's see now. What are we all discussing? Me. My bullshit. My innocent victim routine. My insults. My web poisonings. How I am "shoving out personal attacks." My "constant accusations". Gossip, thy name is Wikipedia! Are we discussing principles or proposals? Not a bit of it. Actually there is a wee bit of 'philosophy' going on here as well. Discussion of Zionism as "Camera member/fanboy" --Zionism as KKK -- Zionizm and an "us vrs them" mentality. It would almost be funny. A jury of my peers? Not here! Juanita ( talk) 04:41, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
- If you wanted collegiality , the way to get it would have been to start out in the process, by actually listening to people's concerns here, and by responding to them with some small bit of reasonability. -- Steve, Sm8900 ( talk) 19:22, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
While we've more tolerant of trolling and personal attacks on arb cases than at other places, my patience is very thin here on the workshop page. If these behaviors don't cease immediately, I'll protect the workshop page and its talk page. As the case has now moved into voting, you should have made all pertinent points necessary by now and unless you have something significantly new to add, you may want just watch the voting. — Rlevse • Talk • 13:01, 17 May 2008 (UTC)