James Duffy, JTDIRL, has been causing problems on the "State of Israel" article of late, because he refuses to work with others in our Wikipedia peer-review. Instead of working on the many Arab and Jewish refugee articles that already exist, he keeps bypassing the peer-review by trying to stuff his own biased statements into new articles. When I noted this, he made personal attacks on me as promoting "censorship". This is a violation of Wikipedia protocol. I have tried discussing this with him, and have alerted members of this list about this incident. Astonishingly, Jtdirl has decided to respond with total frabrications. He is now screaming that I am accusing him of anti-Semitism. Huh? Sure, it is wrong of Jtdirl (James Duffy) to do an end-run around our peer-review, and for him to shove his POV essays on this subject into other articles. And it is wrong for him to falsely accuse me of "censoring" him, for the "crime" of asking him to follow standard Wikipedia protocol. But where does this have to do with anti-Semitism? Nowhere. JTDIRL claims: That in of itself is false. But more disturbing, Jtdirl then starts mentioning something about the status of Jerusalem, which has NOTHING to do with this topic. His claims to the contrary are bald-faced lies. No one is writing about Jerusalem. He is just making this up. Jtdirl just is in some sort of rage, because I AND a few others have removed his POV essay and out of place statements in the State of Israel article. Sadly, though, his incoherent responses do come close to Jew-baiting. Every time I disagree with him, he claims to be the victim of false anti-Semitism charges...even though the topic has nothing to do with Jews or anti-Semitism. He seriously needs to lay of the Jews for a while. Seriously. With concerns, Robert (RK) Jimbo writes: In theory, I agree with you. However, I also agreed with Jtdirl that these topics (Arab refugees and Jewish refugees) should be discussed on Wikipedia. That's moderate as well. I just was shocked by his false claims of censorship. (Especially since we have more than three articles discussing this subject!) When we work together for months to whip articles into decent shape, it seems inappropriate, and a violation of Wikipedia policy, to do an end-run around them by starting a new discussion on the same subject, pushing only Jtdirl's point of view. I am not the only person who has pointed this out. Jimbo writes: Ok, I agree; I could be mistaken. But Jtdirl refuses to talk to me, so no conversation is possible. You saw for yourself James Duffy's odd response to my points: I said we *should* have articles on Arab refugees, but we should no do an end-run around our peer-rview. I stated that it is wrong to claim censorship is going on. Jtdirl (James Duffy) responded, stop calling me an anti-Semite! And then Jtdirl started talking about Jerusalem. Huh? His statements have absolutely no relationship to what is being said to him. He is in his own little world, and that kind of freaks me out. I get the idea that people read his letter, and respond to his false claims about me...even though my letter said nothing about what he mentions! It would be very easy to smooth things over, but that is impossible until his responses respond to what I actually write. (That is a truism, no?) On a separate topic: I am uncomfortable with the way that Jtdirl and others slander me as a racist. For example, Jtdirl again stated that Zionists are racists. He does this knowing that I a Zionist, therefore the clear implication is that I am racist bigot whose words should be ignored. Such angry and false speech about Zionists (which includes tens of millions of Jews and Christians) is not appropriate here. Would we accept it if people said that Irish nationalism is racist? That feminism is FemiNazism? That black progressivism is really white-hating communism? I doubt that most Wikipedias would stand for this. But when people here make these generalized and incorrect statements about Zionists, no one says a word. You and I don't speak this way about people of other groups; I propose that this standard should be true for all of us here. I hope that I am not perceived as being unreasonable. Robert (RK) ---- Fred Bauder <fredbaud(a)ctelco.net> I am disturbed by the way that so many Wikipedia contributors are libelling me. Time after time, people are ignoring the words I write in lettesr, and somehow respond to statements that I never wrote. For instance, I have worked with many others in articles on Arab refugees and Jewish refugees from the Arab-Israeli wars. Also, in recent days I have been concerned about this topic in regards to the State of Israel article, and have said so quite explicitly. I *agreed* with everyone, including Jtdirl, that these topics should be discussed, but I do not want him doing an end-run around all already peer-reviewed articles. In all other cases, people here have labelled that sort of thing as a violation of Wikipedia standards; I only hold that we maintain the same standards here. This should not be controversial. Yet in response, Jtdirl wrote dishonest (or incoherent) responses, mumbling about Jerusalem and anti-Semitism. This proves my point. His response literally has nothing to do with the content of my post. In fact, they never do. He just keeps screaming about anti-Semitism, over and over. He can keep screaming about anti-Semitism until he turns blue, but that won't change the issues. It is just a diversionary tactic on his part, and one I am sad to say that some of you seem to have fallen for. And many of you were so fooled by his posts, that you missed the truth: Jtdirl has been using me as a whipping boy for his disagreements with all the other people who also agree with. Many people have been bothered by Jtdirl's recent POV writings to the State of Israel article. Try checking the History option. Several Wikipedians, including Jiang, me, and Uriber have been disagreeing with Jrdirl. But instead of dealing with them, he uses Jew-issues as a smokescreen. For shame. Chris Mahan also wrote a response to this issue... saying "Boo hoo". Wow! Real mature! I had no idea that this was the kind of problem solving that Wikipedia encourages. I am saddened that so many people find such responses acceptable. And let us considers two of Fred Bauder's recent posts. When I pointed out that Jtdirl needs to respond to what people actually write (as opposed to topics that no one even mentioned) Fred bizarrely wrote that Jrdirl's responses do make sense, and I am just not accepting NPOV. This isn't about NPOV; it is about the fact that Jtdirl made some sort of response that had nothing to do with what anyone on this list wrote. Fred Bauder, out of the blue, then chastizes me: out the conquest have link to Huh? I never said otherwise, and I am tired of certain people here lying about my beliefs. In fact, my position is the exact opposite of what Fred attributes to me. I have always held that these are subjects that Wikipedia should cover, and I am glad that we already have many articles on them. Do you see what I mean? I have a certain position...and people just write total fabrications about my beliefs. That is just unacceptable. Robert (RK) __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com