Talk:List of material published by WikiLeaks/Archive 1

Archive 1

Title

It seems this should be titled Information leaked to WikiLeaks (not "by" WikiLeaks). Unless I've misunderstood something about how the site operates... While I'm at it, I don't think they are publishing everything that gets leaked to them, so perhaps Information published by WikiLeaks is best. Or maybe List of.... Thoughts?--Chaser (away) - talk 21:58, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm happy with whatever, I did try to get people to discuss it before splitting it but no one seemed interested. You're probably right that published is the way to go. I wanted to avoid using list so that the article doesn't turn into a list of information, but instead discusses the leaks. SmartSE (talk) 22:30, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia Cabal

WikiLeaks released a set of 3402 e-mail messages exchanged between a group of Wikipedia editors, conspiring to alter entries of the online encyclopedia in line with their political agenda. You can find these emails in this file:

http://wikileaks.is/file/wikileaks_archive.7z

The group called itself 'Wikipediametric' and generally targeted pages about history and current events, biasing them in favor of nationalism and Eastern European countries and against Russia, Socialists, Communists and Jews. The group employed a number of malicious tactics to achieve this end, including creating and citing false sources, assuming multiple accounts and false personas, defaming and blocking users who disagreed with them and instigating edit wars with other users. The members frequently discussed covering up their nature as a 'cabal' by creating elaborate false identities and avoiding suspicion by editing pages in a gradual manner as well as using exetrnal websites and programs to 'cheat' the wikipedia system. The emails also make reference to other similar cabals including, the 'Russians' and the 'Jews' who engaged in similar activities, espousing Communist and Jewish nationalist ideologies respectively, who the Eastern Europeans often engaged in conflicts with.

The case was discussed in the wikipedia arbitration section here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern_European_mailing_list

Third party coverage of the case can be found on various sites including:

http://www.thephora.net/forum/archive/index.php/t-61106.html

http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=26604&st=0

encyclopediadramatica.com/Wikipediametric

Do you think this should be mentioned in this article?

Explanation for the wikihounder.

"Analysis of the video indicates that the pilots thought the men were carrying weapons (which were actually camera equipment)." Is unreferenced and un-sourced. "When asked if they were sure that the men were carrying weapons, they answered in the affirmative." when combined with the previous sentence is synthesis, it is meant to imply the Pilots shot up the reporters and were incorrect about seeing weapons when the fact is there were weapons on the street when the pilots opened fire.V7-sport (talk) 00:47, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

What do you mean it is unreferenced and un-sourced? You remove the reference [1] that was given and there are more references for this.

I also disagree with the synthesis. The pilots said there were sure there were weapons. Nothing wrong with that. There is no synthesis. IQinn (talk) 00:57, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I know you have a habit of mischaracterizing sources, so you tell me, where does it say that "When asked if they were sure that the men were carrying weapons, they answered in the affirmative." ? V7-sport (talk) 01:04, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

"I know you have a habit of mischaracterizing sources"

"Explanation for the wikihounder."

Well you think that is a good basis to start a civil discussion about a content issue? So let's clear that first as it is obvious that statements like that make a civil discussion impossible. You think these statements could be contentious? IQinn (talk) 01:16, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

We don't have "a good basis to start a civil discussion about a content issue". I don't like you. You and I were in another dispute on another page. (again, one that you hadn't been previously editing) so you followed me here to revert something that was a mischaracterization of the source. Something that you are known for. (Ill provide a link to the Naring night raid to back that if you wish) "When asked if they were sure that the men were carrying weapons, they answered in the affirmative." isn't sourced by anything, it is a lie. You seem to want to suck me into an edit war by posting provable lies. Why not find someone else to give you the attention you crave? V7-sport (talk) 01:23, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Not to like me does not give you the right to incivility and it does not give you the right to call other editors "liars" and no i am not following you around as you have followed me around as well i have not called you a "liar" bad faith editor Muslim or terrorist supporter or anything else. We have strict policy of WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA.

So once again. You think this is the right way to start a civil conversation?

"I know you have a habit of mischaracterizing sources"

"Explanation for the wikihounder."

I do not think so. IQinn (talk) 01:37, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Liar? I wrote that the statement was a lie. You put up an edit that states "When asked if they were sure that the men were carrying weapons, they answered in the affirmative." and then wrote "What do you mean it is unreferenced and un-sourced? You remove the reference [2]"...It's untrue. Full Stop.

And playing the victim card is not going to work, especially when you have been following me hither and yon to pick a fight. V7-sport (talk) 01:43, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

So, by your silence I can only surmise that you acknowledge that the statement was not backed by any source, and by restoring it you were just out to be a pest. Thanks again.V7-sport (talk) 03:19, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

You assumption is false again. I am giving you just a cool down time considering your incivility here and on other talk page just in the last hours. I do not suggest you keep reverting while a discussion is ongoing. IQinn (talk) 03:24, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

So you want to double down on mischaracterizing sources, excellent. The discussion isn't gong on unless you can tell me where the article says "When asked if they were sure that the men were carrying weapons, they answered in the affirmative." Your choices are to lie and tell me that is sourced by the article or to acknowledge that it doesn't.(I don't expect you to have the class to self-revert.) So which is it?V7-sport (talk) 03:32, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Working on checking more sources. So stay tuned. May i ask you in that time why you do not use edit summaries? Especially when deleting information? IQinn (talk) 03:37, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

What's so hard to check. You posted the source that you said justified your edit. If it's not in that source then you were mischaracterizing the content of your sources, again. So again, where in this source does it state "When asked if they were sure that the men were carrying weapons, they answered in the affirmative" ? This isn't that hard a question to answer. If it's not in THAT source you are just blindly reverting and edit warring -again- as well as wikihounding. V7-sport (talk) 03:45, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I am checking more sources and that takes time and i am very busy with other conversations. So please stop pushing and stop posting false allegations. I wonder why you did not answer my question why you did not use do not use edit summaries? not even when you remove large chunks of information. Could you please answer this question? Why is that? IQinn (talk) 03:55, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

YOU ONLY HAVE 1 SOURCE TO CHECK. The source you reverted me on and claimed that it said something that it doesn't. If what you reverted me on isn't in that source you were edit warring, again. Something that you have been blocked for repeatedly. I'm done answering your irrelevant questions, you never answer any one else's. So what is the verdict? Is it in THAT source or did you lie in order to wikihound? V7-sport (talk) 04:00, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Here, Look:

This was the source you used to claim "When asked if they were sure that the men were carrying weapons, they answered in the affirmative"
Removed because of copyright. the reference is here http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/06/world/middleeast/06baghdad.html

So what you claimed was there wasn't, again. V7-sport (talk) 04:04, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Shouting is uncivil. Please do not do this.

I need to check multiple other sources and i am busy with other discussions at the moment. So stop pushing. Nothing good comes out of pushing.

It is seems to be clear that you do not want to answer my question. So one can only assume that you did not have any good reason to remove this information without edit summary. Other editors have already ask you to use edit summary but looking at your history it seems to be clear that your are not listening. IQinn (talk) 04:07, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Wimping out of addressing the topic at hand is uncivil. There are no other sources. Either it is in the source that you used or you are just following me around trying to start an edit war. Pushing you too hard? Are you going to man up for once and answer the question? Is that possible? I gave you a reason here, that it was un-sourced, you lied and said it was. Now you are too craven to admit that it's not in the source that you said it was and that you reverted just to revert. V7-sport (talk) 04:13, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

We do it step by step and your pushing does not change anything. Posting the whole article onto this page here is a copyright violation. I have removed the article but you reverted. So i am asking you to remove the article from this page. IQinn (talk) 04:18, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I'll remove it after you read it. Have you read it? (can you?) If so, where does it say "When asked if they were sure that the men were carrying weapons, they answered in the affirmative"? V7-sport (talk) 04:20, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I have a link to the article and i will read this article and multiple other article as soon as i have the time. So you can remove it. There is no reason to violate copyright. IQinn (talk) 04:22, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

It's obvious you are just out to edit war. (either that or you lack the WP:competence to edit here as other editors have speculated.) The article that you used as a source for "When asked if they were sure that the men were carrying weapons, they answered in the affirmative" doesn't say anything to that effect, so you are mischaracterizing the sources, again. This time you did it in order to pick a fight by following me to a page that you have never edited from another dispute on another page that you hadn't edited. This goes into the Iqinn file for when someone else drags you into another ANI for being a menace to Wikipedia. Until that happy day get a life and stop stalking me.V7-sport (talk) 04:31, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Well let's see what John will tell you about it. I have edit Wikileaks and Bagdad airstrike related pages for a very long time and i have all of them on my watch list. So your allegation is baseless.

You are playing the victim here to try to drive the attention away from the fact that you made uncivil comments in another debate at the same time. All your accusations are false and it seems clear that you are out to have a fight instead of having a civil debate about the content issue. I prefer a civil debate.

I am not edit warring and i can only suggest that you as well stay away from reverting the article to the from your preferred version. You haven't answered about the edit summaries. Don't you think the a lot of trouble you personal have with multiple other editors is based on the fact that you do not use edit summaries. Other editors have also complained about this "bad habit". Can you change that? IQinn (talk) 04:49, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

WHAT YOU REVERTED IS A MISCHARACTERIZATION OF WHAT THE SOURCE SAYS. IT'S A LIE. IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH EDIT SUMMARIES AND EVERYTHING TO DO WITH THE IRREFUTABLE FACT THAT YOU HAVE FOLLOWED ME AROUND REVERTING MY EDITS FOR NO OTHER REASON THEN TO PICK A FIGHT AND THEN WHINE THAT I AM BEING UNCIVIL AND POST TEMPLATES THAT YOU HAVENT READ AND DON'T UNDERSTAND. Mischaracterizing what sources say is the cardinal sin here and you have done it multiple times. It's a breach of trust against the wikipedia community which should have been done with you ages ago. Whining about my edit summaries is a bad joke when you are in the midst of defending an edit that was an outright lie, done to start an edit war.V7-sport (talk) 05:02, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I wonder how editors like you who engage in uncivil behavior Wikipedia:Civility so often still get away with it. I told you multiple times stop personal attacks, stop shouting and do answer other editors questions.

So will you start using edit summaries? And do you think it would be helpful to prevent disruption if you would have used edit summaries in the edit here where you deleted material from a controversial article? As i said many other editors complained about that you do not use edit summries. I am just trying to help you to prevent further disruptions.

I am not starting an edit war and i hope you calm down and do not start one by reverting to your favorite version just because you are angry that other editors do not agree with you. You have been warned many times. Why don't you take some sleep or a walk outsite or anything else that could possible calm you down. IQinn (talk) 05:21, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Post the civility link again, it means nothing when you are stalking, edit warring and mischaracterizing what sources say. Again, this has nothing to do with edit summaries and everything to do with you edit warring, and attributing citations to a source that doesn't say what you claim it says. (Just like you did on Naring Night Raid, to peruse your agenda) Pulling off un sourced information isn't "reverting to my favorite version". HELLO! YOU ARE NOT SUPPOSED TO MAKE SHIT UP AND THEN CLAIM PEOPLE WHO DIDN"T SAY IT SAID IT. It's not just a rule on Wikipedia, it's something that people who are civilized are supposed to recognize. It's NOT a difficult concept. If you don't like my mannerisms go wikihound someone more congenial. V7-sport (talk) 05:33, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I am not stalking and because you believe that i am does not give you any right to be uncivil. Well you are shouting again. Unbelievable. Well here are our rules how to behave here. Wikipedia:Civility and you almost broke any of them just in the last few hours. Well you top anything in that term what i have ever seen here and than you blame the other party for it. Sorry but i think this is "disgusting". IQinn (talk) 05:40, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

You had never edited this page before and you followed me over from another dispute that you started on another page that you hadn't edited. So that's bullshit. You are following me around trying to start another edit war, as you have repeatedly before. From the moment of our first interaction on this website you were uncivil so the idea that you are whining about civility is another bad joke. AGAIN IF YOU DON"T LIKE IT PESTER SOMEONE ELSE. Yes, that was shouting.... It doesn't seem to penetrate your head though. Wikipedia:CivilityWikipedia:CivilityWikipedia:CivilityWikipedia:Civility.... Boo fricking hoo. You can dish it out but you can't take it.

So, When I remve your "When asked if they were sure that the men were carrying weapons, they answered in the affirmative" are you going to restart the edit war by restoring un-sourced bullshit? V7-sport (talk) 05:53, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I have edited Wikileaks and Baghdad airstrike related pages and i have all of them on my watch list. That is simply a fact. But WP:AGF seems to be to much to expect from you.

Do not blame me for your edit wars. You had edit wars with multiple different other editors in the past month and you seems to be the Common Denominator. That is the past anyway and i am following WP:BRD since then and so should you.

Well the pilots have been ask if the men were carrying weapons and they answered in the affirmative. You dispute that they have been ask and you dispute that they answered in the affirmative. The logs of the conversation of the pilots confirm that. Do you dispute that?

You have not stated that you are going to use edit summaries in the future. Will you. It seems to be the case that you think you have special rights and that our rules does not apply to you. Good luck.

Well now you are uncivil and you admit being uncivil and you seems to be proud of the fact that you can be uncivil. You know that this is unacceptable and people do get blocked for this kind of behavior. Especially when they have been ask not to do it but keep doing it as if Wikipedia:Civility does not exist for them personally. IQinn (talk) 06:12, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

• You have not edited this page, I checked, so you are not being truthful... again.
• You have been blocked for editwars with multiple editors and been dragged into ANI's for just this kind of bullshit harassment.
• The source that you posted doesn't back what you said was in it. Again. Yet you just reverted my edit without bothering to read or understand what you were reverting, again.
• This has nothing to do with edit summaries, you are just trying to weasel out of getting caught mischaracterizing sources.
• Blocked? Especially since you have been stalking, lying and edit warring? I doubt it. I am well and truly sick of this bullshit.
• The civility page that you keep posting without reading or understanding has something to say about harassment. Go read it.
• Again, When I remove your "When asked if they were sure that the men were carrying weapons, they answered in the affirmative" are you going to restart the edit war by restoring un-sourced bullshit? V7-sport (talk) 06:32, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

• I have edited Wikileaks and Baghdad airstrike related pages and i have all of them on my watch list. That is simply a fact. But WP:AGF seems to be to much to expect from you. Your are misinterpreting again.
• You have been blocked for edit ware with multiple other editors in the past few months and it seems to be clear that you are the Common Denominator.
• Again, i do warn you to revert the article until the discussion is over and you found consensus in the way it should be edited. You have been warned enough.
• Again, you do read better Wikipedia:Civility as you seems not to get it and we have to add one more thing to your long list of violations you have done just in the last few hours. "bullshit" "bullshit" is not civil simply if you disagree with another editor. How far will you go?
• Again, when are you going to answer if you will stop making edits in a controversial area without edit summary?
• Again, well the pilots have been ask if the men were carrying weapons and they answered in the affirmative. You dispute that they have been ask and you dispute that they answered in the affirmative. The logs of the conversation of the pilots confirm that. Do you dispute that? IQinn (talk) 06:48, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

This isn't either of those other pages. The fact that you haven't edited here and followed me over to make a pain in the ass out of yourself is irrefutable. The point you have ignored is that the material that you reverted is not backed by the source that you gave. That means that either you are edit warring or lying. That's the only discussion going on at this point, whether you are a liar, an edit warrior or both. Shall we come to "consensus" on that? Or is the discussion over? V7-sport (talk) 08:37, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Your accusations are absolute baseless as it has been shown and you just tries to play a victim because you left uncivil comments on the other page and here.

I never added that material to the article.

You removed that material from the article without edit summary. I reverted you and ask for an edit summary and i followed WP:BRD what you did not. You routinely edit on controversial articles without using edit summaries. Other editors have ask you in the past to use edit summaries as this is huge problem if you don't and that you even accused other editors of bad faith when they revert you and ask for an explanation. Can you agree to use edit summaries in the future when performing such actions??

So you dispute that the pilots have been ask and affirmed that the insurgents had weapons? [3] You claim the pilots have never said that the insurgents were carrying weapons? IQinn (talk) 09:23, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

"I never added that material to the article.".... You did when you reverted my edit. Guess you weren't paying any attention to what you were doing, just mindlessly edit warring. Yeah, got it. V7-sport (talk) 09:27, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

What are you talking about. You removed the material without edit summary and i reverted you per WP:BRD. That is not edit warring. Once again you come out with bogus accusations instead of answering questions regarding the content issue. IQinn (talk) 09:30, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

It's been made abundantly obvious, You know exactly what I am talking about. This is the part of the program where you post the same verbiage over and over. Here, one last time: You restored material that wasn't backed by the reference, you did it twice. You did it after you followed me over here from another dispute. You have a long history of edit warring and mischaracterizing sources, then making a scene and playing the victim. You have been a bad actor and an activist editor and it would be the best thing for wikipedia if you were to be permanently blocked. Hope that's clear.V7-sport (talk) 09:39, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

You have a long history of edit warring and mischaracterizing just see your last edit where you present Fox News as truth because you did not attribute the information to the source. Your are one of the most distracting editors on WP and you have a long history of edit warring and a history as an activist editor where you go around over a long list of articles and deletes everything that does not meet your strong right wing US POV. It would be the best if WP would block you as you have harmed our reputation. Hope that's clear. IQinn (talk) 09:45, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

That was from a reliable news source, not an editorial so to say it needed attribution is either a lie or an indication that you don't know what you are doing. However I added other reliable sources so you needn't worry. And "our reputation"? Please. You have ruined your reputation with stunts like this better then I could have dreamed of doing. V7-sport (talk) 09:49, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

LOL, you added "According to some media reports", like a dog marking it's territory. Of course it's "According to some media reports", what else would it be according to? Then again, in your case it could be "according to anything" or "according to crap you just made up". V7-sport (talk) 09:53, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, you ruined our reputation by systematically removing information on a wide rage of US articles in a way edit warring style. Well if that does not harm our reputation. Yes according to media reports. And why you removing 12-18 victims when there is a consensus as per the main article. Edit warring again? IQinn (talk) 09:57, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Learn what consensus means before you use the word, it's an embarrassment to watch you mangle the English language. V7-sport (talk) 09:59, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

You dispute that there is not a consensus for 12-18 people killed. The infobox and talk page discussion suggest so. Want me to copy over the refs for 18 victims? IQinn (talk) 10:02, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Just added a source that says 12. Go find someone else to pester. V7-sport (talk) 10:05, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I just added references that say up to 18. IQinn (talk) 10:08, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Congratulations, I wont embarras myself by adding "According to some media reports" or some other totally moronic verbiage. V7-sport (talk) 10:13, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Your reply does not make sense. IQinn (talk) 10:15, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

waste and junk delivered?

Has wikileaks ever told what percentage of i) (fully public) newsgroup-posts and/or ii) simple Spam is in their dumps? --Itu (talk) 00:49, 20 July 2016 (UTC)