Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Statement re Wikilobby campaign

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Words of Congratulations and Deprecation

Well done and well-written. You all did a great job in dealing with this. Titanium Dragon (talk) 23:31, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I am suitably impressed. Excellent work. Orderinchaos 00:18, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Very thorough and meticulous work. There had been concerns that the connections between on-wiki identities and these mailing lists are not necessarily established. I think you addressed those. Under the assumption you have validated the email archive itself as authentic, I cannot find fault with the methodology, or the conclusions and endorse the sanctions as written. ++Lar: t/c 00:25, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
What they said. <eleland/talkedits> 00:46, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Well done. Thanks. --John Nagle (talk) 03:41, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Despite some editors putting their hosannas up here, note that there are a number of dissenting editors whose views are throughout this page. This was a rush to judgment and ill-advised.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:38, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Whatever you say, pal.
--NBahn (talk) 05:49, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
We can never be sure that the opinion we are endeavouring to stifle is a false opinion; and even if we were sure, stifling it would be an evil still. --John Stuart Mill, ...Pal...Juanita (talk) 20:19, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

[unindent]
My Dear User:Dajudem/Juanita--

Call me ignorant and uneducated, but somehow I don't think that John Stuart Mill was referring to this! Let me be clear about a number of things:

  1. I don't like you.
  2. I think that you have been arguing -- and agitating -- in bad faith; furthermore,
  3. I think that you were consciously trying to coordinate your edits with other members of Isra-pedia.
  4. I do not know if you are a personally repugnant person, but I am absolutely convinced that YOUR MOTIVATIONS are repugnant.

Disrespectfully yours,
--NBahn (talk) 21:29, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Ooocch. Nbahn: I find your comments above to be extremely unhelpful. I would like you to strike them. Thank you. Regards, Huldra (talk) 03:03, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Jeez. Obviously WP:CIV doesn't get a lot of play on NBahn's iPod.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:10, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
ok, i'll call you ignorant if you like. i do like the specificity of your "somehow", it gives a precision to your argument. but let's have j.s.m have the last word:

“Silencing an opinion is a peculiar evil. If the opinion is right, we are robbed of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth; and if it is wrong, we are deprived of a deeper understanding of the truth in its collision with error.” Davidg (talk) 22:48, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

No one here, at any point, has sought to silence your point of view. You and your cohorts are being sanctioned for your actions, not your beliefs. This never-ending persecution complex is truly a theatre of the absurd. Tarc (talk) 03:38, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Let's fix the spelling and add another congratulation. The secret plans to inflitrate wikipedia were exceptionally dispiriting to read about and dealing with them firmly was necessary. If there were named wiki editors on the CAMERA list who either were promoting this or who did not point out that this secret campaign was against wiki policy, they need some sort of sanction to prevent this in the future. Now I do think WP:canvassing could explain why open groups like the wiki-Palestine yahoogroup and wikipedia meetup groups was or are OK to clarify that issue. Carol Moore 14:37, 17 May 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

[edit] Removal of content

Thanks for your report. I have removed content which exposed the usernames of a few Wikipedians. It is my personal view that that content does not add anything to neither the substance of the report nor to its quality. What matters to Wikipedia is the exposure of evidence related to people who violate something and not to people who did nothing wrong and have nothing related to the violators except probably their POV -according to the emails. If they were involved it would have been a different issue.

I read your section and I believe your introductory explanation was meant to be made in good faith and I have no doubts about that but it certainly creates a certain kind of unwanted disputes and adversity - a thing yourselves fought against it when you aborted an attempt to bring damage and adversity to this place. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 04:01, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, sometimes you need to re-break a bone or two in order for the whole to set and heal properly. This needed to be aired out, and now we can move on. Tarc (talk) 04:59, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
The reason we included those names was to make it clear, up front, that the named editors had no involvement in the group. As it's more than likely that someone will publish the full set of e-mails at some point, we felt that it was better to address those editors' non-involvement up front, so that further innuendo and drama could be avoided. -- ChrisO (talk) 07:15, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
I am fully aware of the reasons Chris and have had no doubt about it. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 08:56, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
As a minor clarification, Chris was actually continuing a campaign of harrassment against me (and possibly others, I don't know), by disingenuously pretending to "help" me (while posting a ban-worthy insult about me), even after I asked him unequivocally to leave me alone. IronDuke 22:30, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Paranoid nonsense, as I've pointed out to IronDuke, who seems constitutionally incapable of assuming good faith. -- ChrisO (talk) 01:02, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Chris, when you write that I am unwelcome on Wikipedia, can you honestly expect me to have good faith about your edits when it comes to me? It would be rather bizarre of me to feel you had my best interests at heart, wouldn't it? IronDuke 02:05, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Though assurances may carry little weight on the internet and wikipedia, I have absolutely no intention of publishing the archives at all. I shared them with the admins who wrote this statement, and I hope my involvement in this dispute can end. Bangpound (talk) 15:11, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
I accept that and I'm glad for your assurance. It's clear, though, that a number of others (not just the few administrators to whom you provided the archive) also have copies - most obviously the people who infiltrated the Isra-pedia group in the first place, plus Electronic Intifada. It would not surprise me at all if one of those people published the full archive in order to cause further embarrassment to CAMERA and the list members. -- ChrisO (talk) 01:02, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

The emails were made public by EI and a link was carried to the page at the CAMERA lobby and at the CAMERA wiki page. All one had to do to find the emails was simply follow the link offered by editors here. Zeq had his email address exposed over and over again on the CAMERAlobby page. Parts of the emails were discussed and characterized. There has been absolutely no discussion of one of the original contentions of the Israpedia group that there are many pro-Palestinian administrators and zero pro-Israeli administrators and that this prevents a fair and balanced POV in the editing. In fact I made a comment (in the emails) that I had found one administrator who seemed to have a more balanced pro-Israel POV (that was Humus Sapiens) -- but that comment has been essentially distorted as more proof of wrong-doing on my part. Yet I am now seeing that it is likely that the contention that wiki is unbalanced in favor of an anti-Israel POV is most likely true. The fact that we have presented to you a Yahoo! group of Wikipedians for Palestine has been poo-pooed as unimportant and/or without 'proof' of wrong-doing. (added later)Juanita (talk) 23:31, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Since everyone is being so circumspect, let me just say that it remains very frustrating that there is no way to deal with an aggressively partisan, POV editor who was named as a master of frustrating efforts to make these articles NPOV. Zeq boasted that his editor joining in a named ongoing mediation (I was part of) was labeled as a good way to "divert attention" from (as explained earlier) any editing that undermines pro-Israel efforts on wikipedia. Isn't there some way to deal with aggressively partisan editors who are constantly WP:Gaming the system to succeed in owning or otherwise keeping articles POV pro-Israel? Sure, I've learned a lot about editing wikipedia in order to counter their games, but also picked up some bad habits it's tempting to use on less experienced editors - though I have wonderful self control, of course :-) Not to mention I've wasted hundreds of hours on a few articles I merely wanted to make less POV for the principle of it; instead my efforts have become an unpaid part-time job since I refuse to let these editors "win" through their games of attrition and wearing out less POV editors. Carol Moore 16:10, 30 April 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

[edit] User:Dajudem a/k/a "Juanita" ban issues

I have a year-long topic ban because of my membership in Israpedia and for what supposedly other editors have written in supposed private emails; and the insistence by you people that every member of the group was subversive and disruptive or whatever. I had been looking at the Deir Yassin article for some time before I joined the group, but much was made of the edits later. One of the edits I made while an Israpedia member merely 'commented out' rather than deleted the offending statement so that the author could come back and clarify it if necessary. But I have been swarmed and insulted here --not for anything I have done here (though other members are trying to 'dig up the dirt' on me now by reviewing all my past edit- edits that apparently have withstood scrutiny until yawl have looked for proof of my wrong-doing-- after I was given the ban). How do I know that the editors swarming this issue and hitting us up with bans are not very same members of the Wikipedians for Palestine (the self-acknowledged "anti-Zionist" group)? It is certainly clear enough to at least some of us wikipedians that we are being persecuted by people who have a different POV. How do we know that these anti- Israel wikipedians have not become administrators sitting in judgment of us who are merely trying to get a more balanced POV into wiki? In fact I am sure that most objective readers would be able to see very clearly that this is a persecution of those of us with a pro-Israel POV. Juanita (talk) 17:18, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Gaming the system to get yourselves into administrator positions and then adjudicate Israeli-Palestine atricle issues under the false guise of an "uninvolved admin", is that a part of "merely trying to get a more balanced POV into wiki" ? Zeq's recruiting of people to be my "rock n roll buddies" is "merely trying to get a more balanced POV into wiki" ? Who are you trying to kid here?
You weren't persecuted for your beliefs; you were persecuted for your actions. You aren't martyrs for a cause here.
wikiforpalestine, as far as I can tell, doesn't hide and doesn't plot to violate the rules of the Wikipedia project. The act itself of gathering like-minded individuals together isn't a bad thing; if it was, then we should delete all the WikiProjects.

Tarc (talk) 19:52, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

You are simply wrong. I did not game the system to become an administrator. I probably have my 100 edits since 2005 and I made no attempt to become an administrator. I never hid anything about my POV -- it is all there in my history since 2005. As far as I remember I have not got into any editing war, or reverted anything except my own work. I am being persecuted for my outside group membership and what others in the group apparently wrote. I did not violate the rules of wiki and have never edited something I didn't believe was fact and had references for. I have never put a falsehood up in wiki. I think I can say with absolute assurance. If you are so convinced that I am persecuted for my actions, please tell me exactly what that action is. Your interpretation of Israpedia as a group in which all members hide and plot to violate is simply your interpretation and POV. I never hid or plotted anything. How would you know if wikipediansforpalestine does/doesn't plot to violate the rules? Are you a member? It is certainly a secretive group in that they determine whether your have the correct POV before you will even be accepted. They do this by getting your user name at wiki and checking your edits. You must be anti-Zionist to even be a member. Clearly you are giving one POV a pass on your apparent limited knowledge and assuming the other 'gathering of like-minded individuals' are all complicit in evil and must be banned. Juanita (talk) 20:19, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
For the love of pasta, please let her have the last word. It doesn't matter. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:20, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Of course not, because you-all will have the last action and I shall be banned away. As one wikipedian (not a member of the evil Israpedians) said to me "it is a foregone conclusion." Juanita (talk) 20:41, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

It would be very easy for this page to turn into another endless and pointless rehash. If it seems desirable to avoid that, I think it will happen only if certain people have their say and the rest are willing not to reply to it. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:59, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. There are people who have commented on these issues too much already, on both sides, and they will be banned from this page if necessary. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:10, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
of course we are all aware of the POVs of those who will be banned from this page. I continue only to respond to attacks. Tarc just accused me of 'gaming the system', attempting to put myself into the guise of an 'uninvolved admin', and hiding and plotting to violate the rules of the Wikipedia project. I did not do any of these things and should be permitted to defend myself as long as I continue to be attacked. I am the victim here without a defender while the rest of you prosecute the case against me and attempt to silence both my pov and my right to be heard. I have been presumed guilty and obviously will soon be banned from arguing in my own defense. Juanita (talk) 20:35, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

To Juanita: I do recall the start of Wikipedians for Palestine; it was then discussed quite a bit on WP. (Full disclosure: I am not a member, and I have never been a member). I went over there to look now, and somebody has updated the page there. I´m copying it here:

In light of the recent CAMERA/Isra-pedia scandal [] and seeing that Dajudem/Juanita wants to compare this group to the CAMERA/Isra-pedia effort she was involved in let us point out some key differences:

  • 1. This group never recruited neophytes to edit Wikipedia; only editors already in "good standing" were allowed to join.
  • 2. Unlike the Isra-pedia group, the existence of this group has never been hidden. It has always been public and purposely so (Yahoo does permit "unlisted" groups).
  • 3. Unlike the Isra-pedia effort, this group has always been explicitly committed to NPOV.
  • 4. This group has always been independent and never bankrolled and backed by any organization, let alone one as well staffed and funded as CAMERA.
  • 5. This last point may help explain why Isra-pedia had more message traffic in one week than this group had in the last seven months.

Regards, Huldra (talk) 08:45, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Huldra, it would be interesting to know just what the discussion consisted of and where it was discussed. All we know about these people is that their group was not terribly active on Yahoo! but they may have communicated with each other privately. What bothers me is the possiblity that these editors are the very ones sitting in judgment of us today. I would like to see the pro-Palestine, anti-Zionist group at wiki come clean and volunteer their wiki identity. Just imagine. Best wishes Juanita (talk) 03:53, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

ps. good thing you posted that for posterity. The group is now defunct. Juanita (talk) 04:10, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Juanita; I am just sorry I did not post the list of number of posts; as far as I recall (I just looked at it briefly) there had been zero activity on the list since last summer(?). In other words: the list was pretty "dead", it being discussed here just made the funeral official, so to speak. As to communication with each other privately; I suspect that happens all the time: just go to certain editors talk-pages and see all the "E-mail for you!" notices. ..or see the email that Jayjg sent, by mistake, to the wikiEN-l before x-mas ;-) Regards, Huldra (talk) 10:09, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Probably afraid someone would join and gain access to their archives. If that doesn't speak to guilt, I don't know what does! As for Dajudem, I continue to concur that the ban is unjustified and unsupported, and I think that the user would be wise to appeal.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:05, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
I thought this was the appeal? Has it been heard and arbitrated already? Juanita (talk) 15:36, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm not an expert in these things . . . but don't you file a request for arbitration with the ArbCom or some other body?--Wehwalt (talk) 15:43, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
I am so bad at this and wiki is such a labyrinthine organisation. Here is what I understood was an appeal that was put up by user:Lawrence Cohen here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/CAMERA_lobbying I assume I am part of this appeal as I was asked to present evidence and they have agreed to hear it; I assume also that when they make a decision, it will involve my ban as well one way or the other? My husband always tells me that I should not assume so much, and he is generally correct. 99 X out of 100, I could kick myself for my assumptions, when they are wrong, (way too often) the bottom always falls out. Juanita (talk) 04:01, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] List of blocs and bans in "Palestine-Israel Conflict Section"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:ARBPIA#Log_of_blocks_and_bans

I have not got into personalities but would just ask: What percentage of the users banned and blocked or even sanctioned are POV -sympathetic to Israel? Are any one the list sympathetic to the Palestinian cause? Just wondering Juanita (talk) 22:25, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

We don't play favorites here. It could be that one side, if they are banned more, don't work correctly under our internal rules. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 22:36, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
The author's assertion of neutrality is what is being contested here. If there is evidence of bias it will be exposed by selective enforcement of rules & the severity of sanctions when applied to different groups. Juanita (talk) 19:06, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
The two sides might also not be the same size. If one faction of editors is larger than the others, the odds are that it will have a larger number of dicks as well. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:53, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
ditto my answer above. Your characterisation of some wikipedians as dicksis noted. Juanita (talk) 19:06, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
No answer to my question regarding the numbers. Apparently my presumption that pro-Israeli editors are sanctioned more than others is true? I could of course do the research, but considering yawl have been involved in this banning business longer than I have, I was hoping you would tell me. As to the contention that one faction of editors is larger than the other, is there any indication of that? If it were true that pro-Palestinians were the larger group, then a higher weight of banned pro-Israelis would have even more significance. Juanita (talk) 16:05, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
No, it is not. It is my general experience that pro-Palestinian editors get away with far less than the pro-Israeli camp. And, in fact, the numbers of nationalistic fools on either side. do appear fairly well balanced. This can, I think, be explained by the significant pro-Israeli block of US-resident editors, and the fact that many potential contributors from Islamic countries do not have easy internet access. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 17:47, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
I am not talking about "nationalistic fools," that is your characterisation. I am talking merely about people who edit wiki with a point of view. Your opinion that pro-Palestinian editors "get away with far less than the pro-Israeli camp" is a expression of your POV of course. Wikipedians_for_ Palestine is possibly one example of pro-Palestinians getting away with something simply because they have managed to be more secretive. You statement can easily be interpreted as demonstrating a bias against the pro-Israeli camp. Juanita (talk) 19:06, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Oh, well done, mate. Keep going and you'll talk yourself right into an indefinite block.
Let me get a little something off my chest. Who am I? I'm a bog-standard, very boring, very normal Englishman. I don't do God, I don't do guns, I don't do hate or fanaticism (rarely). I pride myself on being so tremendously boring. And why? Because that's the price I pay for sanity and rationality, and those are things worth having. So don't ever accuse me of being one of the God brigade: that bunch of cretins who think they have perfect access to what the big man in the sky wants, and that this justifies blowing people up or trolling Wikipedia - oh, yes, it's all the same mentality, just a difference of degree. And those people who do POV editing, and don't even attempt neutrality? Damn near all of them are "nationalistic fools".
Call me whatever insults you like, but don't accuse me of being one of those I dedicate my days and nights to rooting out. And one of the results of those days and nights is that I can state with confidence, from my anecdotal experience, is that the pro-Palestinian editors get away with less, largely because they have less fluency in English and have more difficulty understanding policy, amongst other things. Does that answer your questions? Moreschi (talk) (debate) 19:37, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
I did not accuse you of being one of the "God brigade"...I said it was possible you had an anti-Israeli bias. Not all people who are anti-Zionists are religious, nor are all Zionists religious. Consider this, though, in connection to your idea that pro-Pals have less fluency in English. It is estimated that there between 7 to 10 million Muslims who use English as a first language [1]. There are 5.4 million Jews living in Israel & 5.2 million in the U.S.Haaretz The vast majority of the Muslim world accepts the contention that Israel is Palestine, you can certainly accept that? That means there are nearly as many Muslims with English as a first language as there are Jews in Israel and the U.S. It doesn't prove anything, but it is food for thought. Juanita (talk) 23:11, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
I think you're right, Moreschi. I had a look at the list of blocks and bans with the intention of trying to work out the proportions from each camp that had been sanctioned. It appears to have been been almost neck and neck between pro-Israeli and pro-Palestinian editors until this Isra-pedia business blew up. There's now a significantly large number of sanctioned pro-Israeli editors, but the excess is almost entirely made up of the Isra-pedia members who have been sanctioned. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:28, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

← One of the most distressing things about Wikipedia is our collective ability to manufacture things to fight about. This entire thread was kicked off with an aggressively mistaken assertion. These kind of arguments can be safely and most properly ignored. MastCell Talk 03:48, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure what "this kind of argument" refers to, but if you are referring to my point that the numbers on each side is relevant, this is by no means a "manufactured" argument. Wiki operates on the principle of consensus. In respect to a highly contentious and emotionally charged issue (such as the Israeli-Palestinian conflict)consensus between the two sides is unlikely to be reached. A democratic vote will favor one side over the other; and banning people will tip the balance of the scale and introduce bias. It may be a fatal flaw in wiki, because truth is not ascertained democratically. Juanita (talk) 04:11, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I think this decision was reached in a shabby fashion and without regard to fairness. One side's information was taken as 'gospel' (namely EI) while its own bias was papered over. While that bias is acknowledged in the article about the decision, the fact is that if you look at the actions of EI they are at least as deserving of this kind of ban -- if not far more so -- than the group that actually was banned. This is not a tu quoque argument, it is just fact. Please take a look at Oboler's statements and evidence on this point -- . This was a very one-sided decision and wikipedia's editors should be ashamed for acting in such an unbalanced fashion. [[User: blazar1967] 15:29, 14 May 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blazar1967 (talk • contribs)

Who's obelor and where are her/his comments? Carol Moore 14:40, 14 May 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}
Likely a pointer to this entry in the arbcom case. Basically a wikilawyering response to the whole affair, attempting to even defend the wholly indefensible actions of Zeq, coupled with a hint of "they're being punished because they're pro-Israeli" accusation, which is patently false. Tarc (talk) 15:31, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, Tarc, for the neutral summing up of Oboler's statement! No need to go read, I'm sure that Tarc's summation is the last word on the subject. Hoping so anyway.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:21, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Well, a question was asked, and I answered it. We have a user who's first and so far only edit is to an ANI discussion...never a good sign...to point out some uninvolved editor's lone and flawed (IMO) argument regarding this case. Tarc (talk) 17:33, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm sure someone is investigating to see if he's a sockpuppet. If not, I'm sure the editor's argument will be considered on its merits. As it should be.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:45, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm amazed at the insinuations of sockpuppetry! Tarc and Wehwalt, get a life. By way of clarification, while the above was my first comment/edit on Wikipedia, I am not related in any way, shape or form to anyone who has ever posted on this subject before. I'm actually an academic whose field is astronomy. I reside in Florida. And while I am pro-Israel, I do think that some of what Camera does, goes too far. Now as regards this issue, I will confirm the reference that Tarc mentioned, but I don't agree that Oboler's statements are flawed. In fact, looking at that page, I really don't see cogent criticism of it. Ken Arromdee's comments on that page (and this one) are also quite well put and agree with my own. Blazar1967 (talk) 01:28, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] By way of rebuttal

By way of rebuttal to the statements [here:]

Starting with the numbered parts in the Background section:

2. The authors of the report appear to base their accusations on the Electronic Intifada allegation regarding CAMERA "orchestrating a secret, long-term campaign to infiltrate the popular online encyclopedia Wikipedia to rewrite Palestinian history, pass off crude propaganda as fact, and take over Wikipedia administrative structures to ensure these changes go either undetected or unchallenged" as their baseline and have applied them not only to CAMERA but to any wikipedian member of the Israpedia without regard to the validity of their edits; that is to say, we were sanctioned for our participation in the group.

3.The authors of the report say that they are keeping the emails confidential so that privacy is not 'needlessly violated' but at the same time affirmed their authenticity, provided a direct link to EI and the emails, and discussed the content (some of it) and provided several email addresses on wiki.

4. That EI has chosen to publish only the more 'incriminating' ones, there can be no doubt. According to the report, many of the emails are 'banal'. It may well be that the unpublished emails are not only 'banal' but exculpatory regarding members' intentions. Considering that the original allegation is all about intention, it would only be fair to consider the emails in their entirety and speak to the issue of intention for all members who have been sanctioned, as well as to the intention of CAMERA itself (which has been on trial here as well without significant representation) not merely those which are "incriminating." The report mentions that there is 'no indication that EI has faked or otherwise significantly altered their content.' Is there evidence that there have been any 'insignificant' changes? Juanita (talk) 16:47, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't think we overlooked exculpatory material. Since you were on the list and presumably know its contents, if you know of exculpatory elements in your own postings or anybody else's that we failed to take into account, let me know (you can e-mail me in private if you like). There were of course such considerations in the case of the one account that we decided to not include or make public, so it's not as if we weren't looking for such elements. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:24, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Some of my emails to the group had to do with using each other as a resource to fact-check articles. That could be considered exculpatory for the charge of "passing off crude propaganda as fact" for example. I do not have a copy of the emails as I did not have them delivered to my mailbox but read them at the Google site, which has since been taken down. I can only read what Electronic Intifada has provided. Juanita (talk) 19:23, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
We have provided no email addresses that were not already publicly available. In the case where we judged the participant's activity with Israpedia to be non-disruptive, we have taken virtually no action. No, I can remember no evidence of even insignificant changes by EI, apart from the cherry-picking of the emails they did. The emails people haven't seen were simply banal ("how the hell do I press that edit button?"), but not exculpatory. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 17:45, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
By providing a link to the emails, the authors are complicit in their dissemination. Your judgment was that my activity was disruptive, since I have had action taken against me? I have yet to be given evidence of my disruptive edits, nor had it explained how they were disruptive. See above regarding exculpatory emails. The determination of what is exculpatory and what is not is generally not made by the prosecution, which is your capacity in this regard. Juanita (talk) 19:23, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
As for manipulations made by EI, of course we can't know if the material we saw is any more authentic than that published by EI, because we don't ultimately know through what channels it has reached us (except for the last person in the chain). But since none of the known members has protested against manipulations in the published parts, we think at this point it's pretty safe to assume it's all genuine. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:53, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes, exactly. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 17:57, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
No, not at all. You are (both) making the (false) assumption that every member read and downloaded every email, and that is not true. I for one cannot say whether the material was manipulated or not, as I did not download it to my machine but read it at the Google site. The assumption and implied accusation that we have not protested against manipulation because it is genuine, is incorrect. I do know that my participation in the exchange was innocent, and there may have been evidence to that effect that was left out of published material or simply not published. Juanita (talk) 14:35, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
And in my view, there's simply too much detail to fake convincingly, plus it dovetails with things that were happening on Wikipedia at the time. By the way, the reference to "significantly" altering the e-mails relates to the fact that EI (understandably) blacked out the headers and other details that could have identified the leaker. The actual body of the e-mails was unchanged. We, of course, had access to the full headers. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:11, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
I still say ALL the emails that tie up to a wikipedian need to be oversited. (Hypnosadist) 03:31, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
I adhere to my position, stated in the discussion at the time, that the users were not shown to have violated WP rules, but were banned in a rush to judgment under questionable circumstances. For whatever my opinion is worth as a non-admin, of course.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:55, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Wehwalt--
This non-administrator most vociferously objects to everything that you are both explicitly and implicitly stating to be the unqualified truth.
--NBahn (talk) 12:04, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for being specific!--Wehwalt (talk) 05:36, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Guess I'm here too late

I've been following this a bit on wikien but had to go away from the 27th to the 1st. Of course, this statement came out on the 27th.

And no, I'm not a member of CAMERA, or the mailing list. If you look at my contributions you can see I've been here for a while (until I got disgusted by the rules abuse in the spoiler warning case). I suppose I am a Zionist, however.

I find this whole thing to be both ludicrous and one-sided. About the only legitimate criticism of the CAMERA list is the admin-stacking part, and even that is used to blame people who don't seem to have anything to do with it other than being on the list.

What's wrong with people using the phrase "war"? Come on, they were phrasing private emails. They didn't expect someone from Wikipedia to look at their message, pick on their wording as being too hostile.

And the statement about getting pro-Palestinian editors in trouble by making accurate, well-sourced edits and getting them in trouble when they try to delete them? That's the equivalent of saying "I can get rid of a gang of shoplifters by selling items in my store and when gang members walk away with them, I can report them to the police." Making good edits and catching vandals by watching them vandalize the good edits isn't "baiting". At most, the only thing wrong with this is that they may be assuming that the pro-Palestinian editors are vandals when they're not... but if they're wrong, the plan doesn't hurt anyone; it just produces some extra good edits.

In fact, a *lot* of the CAMERA quotes are very reasonable when read as being about how to handle vandals. Would it be evil to declare war on vandals? Who wouldn't want to keep a list confidential from vandals? What's wrong with saying "I want to gather some more people to keep vandals from introducing bias in these articles"? And if there actually is a "major Palestinian offensive" towards making articles biased, what would be wrong with CAMERA members watching out for signs of it? CAMERA is, generally, saying "we want to take bias out", and everyone here is reading that as "CAMERA actually wants to put bias in, but just calls that taking bias out", which is blatantly anti-AGF.

I hope more people will listen to me here than listened to me when I objected to wiping out spoiler warnings (which later repeated itself with episodes-and-characters.)

Ken Arromdee (talk) 23:52, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I think that assumes that CAMERA's idea of "bias" corresponds to everyone else's idea. That might be true if CAMERA was some sort of politically neutral media watchdog. However, from everything I've read about CAMERA in the week or so since this blew up, that seems to be far from the case. It appears to have a very strong political slant where "bias" is considered to be anything that doesn't support their own ideological position. I see no reason to believe that CAMERA members would not have put aside their organization's strident ideology in editing Wikipedia. Indeed, with Zeq coaching members to wage "war" on Wikipedia with the apparent approval of the CAMERA official who ran the list, there's every reason to believe that the list members would have come to Wikipedia with the intention of fighting ideological battles, rather than collaborating effectively with others. At the very least, that would have been seriously disruptive. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:34, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
I think you're basically repeating things I just addressed. As I pointed out, assuming that someone who says "we want to eliminate bias" really means "we want to eliminate all opposing views" demonstrates an astonishing failure to AGF. You're doing a kind of POV-laundering--you can't ban people for belonging to an organization whose POV you don't like, so you instead use the organization's POV as an excuse to reinterpret otherwise innocent statements, and then ban people on the basis of those innocent statements.
And calling something a "war" 1) is perfectly justified in the context of fighting bias (you do fight people when they introduce bias) and 2) is interpreting a tone that you have no business trying to interpret, since an (ostensibly) private mailing list may have different standards for civility than a Wikipedia talk page. Ken Arromdee (talk) 05:29, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Ken, your views are just the sort of reasoned, well-considered view which unfortunately was missing when the howling mob descended in late April.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:44, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] A case study

Ok, I´m also late, but I disagree with the above statement by Ken Arromdee that "CAMERA is, generally, saying "we want to take bias out", and everyone here is reading that as "CAMERA actually wants to put bias in, but just calls that taking bias out", which is blatantly anti-AGF."

The one editor that I know is Zeq, and I have tried to avoid editing the same articles as him for the last two years (ever since he wanted me banned for edit-warring from an article which I had made exactly -1- edit to ;-D ). Zeq has apparently written the following:

  • Every time you see a Hamas person makes an outragous statements (like Jews came from apes or kill the jews) you write a small article about that peroson (google his name to find more ) and bring the quote from memri. why doing all that ? because google is wikipedia friend - 3 days after you created the article google the person's name again and voila your article will be the #1 in google for that name.

Now, take a look at the article Muslim Association of Sweden, started by Zeq on 28 April 2006. First; notice that it is indeed #1 when you google for the name. Secondly, I remember the story well, it dominated the news in Scandinavia (where I am) for....a whole afternoon, April 28 2006, before it was "killed off".

The news/outrage was that the Muslim Association apparently demanded special laws for Muslims in Sweden. The story was "killed" when it turned out that it was "only" the leader who had made this suggestion (in a letter) *without* support from the members. And all other Muslim organisations, including the umbrella organisation, the Muslim Council of Sweden, distanced themselves from the letter. In the Swedish article, http://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sveriges_muslimska_förbund, it states that that the leader was forced to withdraw his proposal as members of his own association went against it. (Based on this ref: [2]). But no such information on the English WP! Even though, when you look at the refs in English there is clearly inf. that all other Swedish Muslims (except his wife!) disagreed with him. And now the case, I assume partly based on the WP article, lives happily ever after in the blog-sphere, and is used as an example of the danger Islam is to Western countries...... (And noooo, I´m not going to fix the article: "I don´t do God") Regards, Huldra (talk) 08:00, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I just wanted to say that that is really what wiki is all about, creating something out of something else. It attempts, through the admixture of all sorts of POV's to develop a NPOV. A good article is not born -- it is made. A good article must eventually stand on two legs, or it will be bad and get trashed, or added as a factoid somewhere. If the story is as you tell it, you owe it to fairness to make your case. Just don't try to silence those who have a different take on things. I mean the universal 'you', not you personally here. There have been some unfair and paranoid articles about Muslims and Israelis and Jews and Zionists and Christians as well. I certainly understand your outrage if the Muslims were portrayed in an unfair light - and it is exactly this sort of sense of having been victimized in the the media that brought CAMERA into existence (note the concept of FAIRNESS in their name), and the same spirit that brought Israpedia into existence. There is nothing sinister about wanting a fair shake in the press. Juanita (talk) 06:15, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
That's a good catch, and I do urge you to fix the article, even though you "don't do God." Zeq's strategy is a common one among POV-pushers, and one that WP does not seem to have an effective mechanism for arresting. I recall another User:CltFn, who made articles for scores of books and even pamphlets which criticized Islam, and inserted gross NPOV and even BLP violations that stood unknown and unopposed for many months. We get the same thing from the pseudoscience and conspiracy-theory folks, of course. <eleland/talkedits> 13:01, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
"I don't do God". Now that's priceless!
:-)
--NBahn (talk) 13:22, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Its a famous Tony Blair's spin doctors quote. (Hypnosadist) 16:11, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Quite. In fact, Moreschi used it earlier on this page, and I copied shamelessly from him ;-) (Perhaps we should have a Template: The User don't do God?) Oh, and I have translated (roughly) some of one of the Swedish articles on the talk-page of Muslim Association of Sweden. Please feel free to use it....or "stubbify" the article. Regards, Huldra (talk) 20:42, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Huldra--
If you would be so kind as to make up a template saying "This User doesn't do God" with a link to some information on the quote, then that would be just great! (I'd offer to do it myself, but I don't know how.)
--NBahn (talk) 21:44, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Ugh. I have only started one Template in my life (look at [3]) ..but I totally messed up, and went running to the Template Gurus, screaming for help. Which one wonderfully gave. I would suggest contacting one of those on the list of Higher Entities to help you. Best of luck! Regards, Huldra (talk) 22:06, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Ahem, I see I am referred to as "he". Just for the record, I´m a "she" (Any Scandinavian would understand that a Huldra is never male ;-D Regards, Huldra (talk) 21:04, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Don't they have equal-opportunity huldras these days? ;-) -- ChrisO (talk) 21:13, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
 ;-D Sorry, nooo: since the Huldras usually live for centuries, we are just a tiny bit old-fashioned --Huldra (talk) 21:33, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
I love wikipedia, allways learning something new. (Hypnosadist) 06:02, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
If Zeq does those things, then you can ban him *for those things*, not by taking other statements and reinterpreting them so that you can add a ton of extra charges into Zeq, and incidentally, implicate a lot of other people who didn't do those things but did agree with--or even just were on the same mailing list with--the other statements. Ken Arromdee (talk) 13:38, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
1)Zeq is part of the Arb com. 2)These are the Tactics he was equiping Camera's self called Army, i'll be presenting evidence on the other tactics that members of this group are still using at the moment. (Hypnosadist) 16:14, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm not clear on all of this. Huldra objects to the reporting of a statement by the leader of the group, on the grounds that he was not speaking for the group? If the person advertised himself as the leader, then it's his job to make it clear he's only speaking as a private individual, meaning he shouldn't advertise himself as such.
Zeq is part of the Arb com?
I agree. Any sanctions should have taken place for on-Wiki actions. I am glad that reasonable people, not part of the PalestWiki group or their ilk, are starting to come forward.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:54, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Object to the Wording in the Statement

The statement refers to TARGETED ARTICLES, and TARGETED USERS. I object to the use of 'TARGETED' as prejudicial. Juanita (talk) 04:07, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Tough! Users like Tarc were singled out to be forced off wikipedia and specific pages marked out for co-ordinated editing by the israpedia group. Thats Targeting in plain english. (Hypnosadist) 05:05, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Frankly, the whole report is fairly prejudicial. For example, Dajudem made an edit to an article after there was a supposed "tarageting" of the article, and the report assumes post hoc ergo prompter hoc. And of course, if CAMERA is serious about this, the action has done nothing to stop them.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:49, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
I had to look that up, but that is exactly right. The report is all about guilt-by-association & negative assumptions. Juanita (talk) 15:34, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
You say that like it is a bad thing. Its like a robbery where someone gets shot; everyone from the shooter to the driver of the getaway car shares the blame. I was singled out by this off-wiki meatpuppet organization, and anyone associated with this group should be held just as accountable as Zeq was for those actions. Tarc (talk) 19:16, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
I never even read that email, let alone acted on it. Juanita (talk) 20:28, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Respectfully, I disagree. The overall aims and tactics of the group were clearly out-of-line. Those who acted in accordance with those aims and tactics should be sanctioned. Those who were merely "associated," in my view, should not be. When you say something like that you're feeding the trolls. <eleland/talkedits> 19:24, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Going back to that email that TARGETED TARC:

Most of his edits are on rock bands so clearly this is an area that he knows something about ... If you like rock bands you can befriend Tarc - I have no idea if this "friendship" will hold once you start editing the Hamas article......It is more importent that you make friends with people who never edit anything about israel related issues - people who could vote for you or your proposals should you need their help.

I guess that was supposed to be Zeq targeting Tarc? For friendship? Targeting someone for friendship... man that is evil! Juanita (talk) 04:21, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Eleland. It is not enough to be on that email list, it must be shown that someone acted on it. And the evidence in Dajudem's case is very scanty on that. Except for one post hoc ergo prompter hoc assumption, it just isn't there.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:31, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Junaita/Dajudem, whatever, are you actually going to sit there with a straight face and spin Zeq's words as an honest and legitimate attempt at finding Wiki-buddies to edit with? To me, it reads like a "gain his trust so maybe he'll vote for/with you down the road" plot, a deceptive and underhanded attempt to curry favor. Tarc (talk) 12:58, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
"Hey dude, glad you're into the same bands I am, uh, mind voting my way on Muhammed and Aisha? It's all good, whatever."--Wehwalt (talk) 12:15, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
As far as I know, even bumbling and inept criminals still get sentenced. So even though Zeq & Co.'s plot was amusingly naive, it doesn't make it any less of a serious issue. Tarc (talk) 12:33, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
"Deceptive and underhanded" doesn't seem to equate with "bumbling and inept." If it is to laugh at, it is less serious than otherwise. It is more or less the same as hoping to bring change to WP by coordinated praying. As for hypnosadist, given the block history, all that is required to watch the user being forced off WP, I suspect, is to sit back and have a cold drink! :)--Wehwalt (talk) 12:42, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] How I see it

Basically, a number of users have, based on evidence, been linked with posts in the Electronic Intifada publication of the discussion, and thus banned for attempting to breach the system. This includes Juanita. Now, I see she's the last one trying to dispute this (others seemed to have resigned to their fate). But I see her doing one of two things: 1, trying to get her ban reversed on a technicality, and 2, basically clamoring about persecution for her views and bias on the part of the arbitrators in such a shrill tone that I honestly haven't seen in ages. If you want to help your own case, at least improve your tone. And let's not forget the tu quoque game she's playing with Wikipedians for Palestine.

If you think you've got enough evidence that there's been a processional mistake in their arbitration, by all means present it. At this moment, even though you claim not to endorse the main goal of the group (which, as has been stated before, was pushing for "balance" [i.e. their views] by recruiting new users and getting them into administrative positions), the fact that it's been demonstrated that you've tacitly advanced their goals by "reporting" your changes to the group. That you have no plans to become an admin is irrelevant. It wasn't that you were in the group per se, it's because you were an active participant. We can wikilawyer this all day, really, but if you can demonstrate that you were only a minor player/bystander, nothing's stopping you. Without the shrill tone, however.

Finally, in regards to the CAMERA group and POV pushers on the IP issue in general - let this be the final say in this case. Don't go witchhunting for people who may be affiliated with this group. If there is concrete evidence that other edits can be positively linked with this group, you can pursue those links, but let's not go deliberately hunting for examples. The fact of the matter is, the head honchos and a handful of users have been caught based on already-revealed evidence. This should send a strong message to anyone who would attempt to pull off something like this. This goes the same for pro-Palestinian (or pro-anything) groups: if evidence comes up, by all means do what you must, but don't pursue otherwise. We already have enough dramaz as it is. --OneTopJob6 (talk) 11:56, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry if you don't like my tone, and the fact that I have not "resigned myself to my fate" as you claim the others have. (At least one user in this case who is not resigned is totally blocked from wiki editing. I don't know about the others) Frankly I don't believe in "resigning myself to my fate." It hasn't been decided yet.
To your 2 points: they are both wrong. I want my ban reversed on the evidence, not on a technicality. I make no apologies for my participation in Israpedia. In fact, I had no idea that it was against wiki rules to participate in a group with other editors of a particular point of view and doing so is hardly different than discussion on the discussion pages at wiki. In fact, Israpedia editors were encouraged to discuss changes at the discussion page and not to make unilateral changes. The changes I made were small and factual. I want my ban reversed on the ground that I did not do what I was accused of doing; not a technicality. That is the very definition of justice.
To your second point that I am :" basically clamoring about persecution for her views and bias on the part of the arbitrators, in such a shrill tone..." Again, sorry the tone bothers you, but your assumption is wrong. The case has not been arbitrated as of yet and there is no way that I have claimed the arbitrators were biased. Evidence of that claim is what? Now your statement that my case will be helped if I improve my tone: I certainly would expect that the arbitrators of this case will not be swayed by such banal considerations.
To the 'witchhunting' in relation to the wikiforPalestine group -- this is not about their edits, it is about their existence. What you don't seem to appreciate is that wiki has at least a dozen editors that are actively anti-Zionist and their purpose is to rid wiki of any Zionist bias. What better way to achieve that goal (also the goal of Electronic Intifada) than to silence all the voices who participated in the Israpedia group? This is not a tu quoque argument. If you want to ban all coordinated agenda-pushing groups then fine, ban us all. What is wrong is banning only one side in this conflict. If it is not possible to be even handed then consider alternatives. One can only hope to achieve some modicum of fairness and balancing by presenting opposing views, and achieving a kind of balanced tension. My method would be fair and reasonable and easy to implement: I say ban people for their words and actions on wiki, not for their words elsewhere. Juanita (talk) 15:26, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sock puppetry charges

The report says:

The creation of a private off-wiki group to influence edits on Wikipedia is a serious violation of Wikipedia:Sock puppetry, which states that "the recruitment of new editors to Wikipedia for the purpose of influencing a survey, performing reverts, or otherwise attempting to give the appearance of consensus is strongly discouraged."

Ok, I don't want to sound like a lawyer, I'm not, but this interpretation is stretched. The section quoted speaks about creating a false impression of consensus. It does NOT speak about the use of off wikipedia mediums to discuss work on wikipedia. Nor does it ban off wiki discussion of wiki-drama. If such discuss were banned the admins here would be in violation for their use of e-mail. Presumably discussion took place in those e-mails as well. I'm not suggesting we assume bad faith, I'm suggesting that in fact there is nothing wrong with this activity provided it is not about building a false consensus. Based on this I suggest a sock puppetry charge needs to be far more specific.

Once we have narrowed the scope there is still a gap between recruiting editors to be sock puppets and recruiting editors and suggesting they don't need to do more than a bare minimum in order to vote. The difference is the one is getting people involved in Wikipedia... and what anyone says about their level of activity from there forward is just an opinion. I honestly don't see how you can have real people who are interested in Wikipedia as sock puppets. Fake accounts, sure, real people... it just wouldn't work. Given this, the charge against some of the people blocked for a year boils down to the fact that they tried to get new users involved.

Had they used the list to push people to vote in certain way, and had some accounts that matched the actions they urged then voted, then there would be evidence of a violation. The crime is recruiting for sockpuppetry, not attempting to recruit like minded people. If wikipedia admins give the impression that some groups of people (for example of a particular ethnic group... which is how this was first raised in Wikipedia) are not welcome as editors, and are doubly not welcome if they are told about Wikipedia by organisations who say their goal is to remove bias... that gives a worrying impression of wikipedia.

Not sure if I get to add such a long comment as a non-admin (and less than regular contributor)... and now I'm scared to ask my admin friend on MSN because it might influence my edit, and then according to the definition here it would be a "serious violation of Wikipedia:Sock puppetry" (that's a joke people).

Seriously though, anyone else's thoughts on my understanding of this would be welcome, as would be a tighter definition from the admins if they agree some of my points hold some water. Oboler (talk) 18:42, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

This Wikilawyering, I respectfully submit, ignores the spirit of the rules; certainly, the emails show a levelheaded best attempt at subverting that spirit. Therefore, it is with the utmost respect that I submit that Oboler is missing the point of these rules.
Respectfully,
--NBahn (talk) 19:58, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Heres a piece of the puzzle that you may be missing, its from the emails writen by Zeq, its about vote stacking;
They can be very informal, someone suggest something on the talk page and a vote tally is taken. usualy ends up in 3:4 5:2 or so. imagine such votes who used to end up in 5:2 for the pali side suddenly end up

6:6 or 15:6 to our side. At first thsi would stop them the latter may even get our way. there are more formal votes: deletion of articles, renaming. Such cases there may be 20 participants but can go up to 100 in rare cases. the palis bring all the islamic and lefty friends (a group of 30-40) ... there are votes on people becomeing an admin. A majority of 80% or so is needed. these can be 40 votes (with 37 for and 3 against) or can go up to 120 or 200 in rare cases (i.e. if there are 20 against the other side bring his big guns and try to have 100 for)numbers may change. key is that being orgenized can be a big advantage but this advantage does not need to be seen as cordination.

This group was put together with one intention, to game the system. (Hypnosadist) 20:32, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Firstly thanks for the replies guys.
--NBahn, on Sock puppets it says

"All sock puppet uses are forbidden and warrant aggressive approaches to protect the encyclopedia from their actions"

Yet we are at best talking about meat puppets where it says "While Wikipedia assumes good faith especially for new users, the recruitment of new editors to Wikipedia for the purpose of influencing a survey, performing reverts, or otherwise attempting to give the appearance of consensus is strongly discouraged." - My bold. The penalty for being a meat puppet is:

"A new user who engages in the same behavior as another user in the same context, and who appears to be editing Wikipedia solely for that purpose, shall be subject to the remedies applied to the user whose behavior they are joining."

The penalty here has been applies for attempting to recruit meat puppets, something "highly discouraged", but which has been treated the way one would expect a Sock puppet incident (with real damage) to be treated. Now part of that can be blamed on formatting I guess, but the text itself makes it clear that meat puppets and sock puppets are not the same. That something is "highly discouraged" puts it at a much lower level of offense than something that is "forbidden". Doing something that is "highly discouraged" is perhaps not grounds for a year long ban. More in my reply to Hypnosadist.
Hypnosadist: The quote you give only applies to one user (Zeq), and multiple users were banned for Sock Puppetry. Evidence against the intentions of one of them surely can't be used as evidence of the intentions of all of them, and what is the basis for banning someone for their intentions as expressed off Wikipedia? Intentions which if fullfilled, would according to the policy only result in the penalties being applied across the board to those involved as meat puppets - providing their edit record showed they were only meat puppets and hadn't got involved in Wikipedia themselves except as directed (if they had done substantial other editing, good faith would need to be assumed).
I believe this sets a precident that is (a) based on intentions stated offline - not actions online (b) uses a broad brush with a quick trigger finger and assumes bad faith based on association (c) interprets the sock puppet rule in a way that confuses meat puppets and sock puppets, and may have an effort of discouraging people to get others involved in the Wikipedia. As the Sock puppet page says, "Keep in mind there can be multiple users who are driven to start participating in Wikipedia for the same reason, particularly in controversial areas such as articles about politics, religion". Again even Zeq's action could have resulted in new wikipedia editors, and some might agree with his opinion some of the time, but that could still be left as "Zeq had a bad intention, it wouldn't have worked anyway, and... wikipedia is now better for the contributions of these new editors."
To sum up: The penalty even for Zeq should be in keeping with a penalty for doing something "strongly discouraged". To pick a higher penalty because of where he works, who he associates with, or any personal characteristic that is not related to his behavior as an editor... is problematic. It might be justified if there was an large threat to wikipedia... but the concensus seems to be that there is not. The penalty is more in keeping with the hype that initiated this case (another partisan group that admits its purpose is to push POV online) than with the details of the case.
Thanks again for the replys. Oboler (talk) 21:38, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Oboler: Can I suggest you reproduce what you have written here?--Wehwalt (talk) 21:50, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Happy to but... I think I need to work out a way to rewrite it given the thoughts have developed based on the feedback of the other users here. Not lookign forward to that... it too long enough to write the first time and I'm not sure how clear I'm expressing myself. Anyway, I'll work on it now. Hope it made sence to you at least, that will make two of us! :p Oboler (talk) 22:58, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
It's excellent.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:05, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Oboler--
We seem to be talking past each other: I am reminded of a business anthropology class that I took where it was emphasized that language is merely one element of communication; that if one does not know the culture then that opportunities for misunderstandings abound.
I submit that you seem to be reading the rules literally, while I am reading the rules figuratively. I respectfully submit that it is more correct to read the rules figuratively -- as opposed to literally -- because it seems highly unlikely (To me, at least.) that the rules were drawn up by J.D.'s.
Respectfully,
--NBahn (talk) 23:38, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
--NBahn, thanks for the reply. In interpretation I'm simply assuming the rules say what they mean. I am a Dr, but its a PhD in Computer Science, not a JD in law I'm afraid. I tend to look for the simplest solution. The sock puppetry definition was after all reached by concensus, so we can assume they are designed to be readily understood and if people found them unclear they would have been changed. Infact, they are unclear, which is why I'm suggesting changing them by seperating meat puppetry into its own article. The context of the entire rest of the article simply doesn't match what we are talking about in this case. Only the meat puppetry bit does and it clearly was written to describe something far less serrious. In this case, the situation can at best be described as an attempt at establishing a framework in which meat puppetry could potentially be used. That's a lot of ifs, a lot of assumptions, and a long way from an actual breach. Never mind one serrious enough for such a penalty. Oboler (talk) 00:37, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Oboler--
Then I fear that we have no other course of action than to -- however courteously -- agree to disagree on this matter.
Respectfully,
--NBahn (talk) 09:10, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
"As the Sock puppet page says, "Keep in mind there can be multiple users who are driven to start participating in Wikipedia for the same reason, particularly in controversial areas such as articles about politics, religion"." I think you are misunderstanding what this section is trying to say. It is saying not to assume that just because someone turns up on the same page with the same POV in a short period of time that they are sock-puppets of eachother, because what caused one person to come and edit a given article (especially for the first time) could easilly cause two or more people to come to wikipedia "particularly in controversial areas such as articles about politics, religion". Of course this is not what happened here, what we had here was an group being put together to act as meatpuppets. (Hypnosadist) 13:48, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I heve to agree with Oboler. If it said "not allowed" or "constitutes sockpuppetry" or similar, than I could see a sanction. "Strongly discouraged", which is what the community wrote, just doesn't carry that sense of "if you do this, you will be banned for life."--Wehwalt (talk) 12:26, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Wehwalt Blocks, bans and perminent community bans are handed out under that wording day in, day out here. The fact both you and oboler are missing is how minor a sanction a topic ban is, even with IvP being such a large area the people topic banned can still edit over 95% of wikipedia. If they were interested in building this encyclopedia thats what they would do, go and edit some of the other 95% of wikipedia. (Hypnosadist) 13:40, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
People edit what they're interested in. If a major interest is taken away, why bother to edit? And why help out people who have screwed you? People may not be as altruistic as you'd think.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:08, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
"And why help out people who have screwed you?" Still getting this the wrong way round, they screwed us (well tried and failed). "People may not be as altruistic as you'd think" If they are just here to impose their POV on IvP articles its better for wikipedia they are gone. (Hypnosadist) 19:22, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
don't we have the 12 stealth diciples of wikiforpalestine hanging around with their augers which doesn't augur well for the unsuspecting. perhaps the 12 invisibles have been active putting a new dimension to being 'screwed'(using hypnosadist definition of the word) Davidg (talk) 06:26, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Jerusalem Post & UK Telegraph cover wikipedia on this issue

Digital World: Internet Independence Day and Wikipedia hosting Middle East tension. Carol Moore 15:04, 7 May 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

And now suddenly the right wingers are talking about wikipedia and child pornography and and alleging feds are after wikipedia for it.[4][5][6] Just a coincidence I'm sure. Like it's a coincide which article is featured today. Thank heavens I'm only a minor conspiracy theorist. :-) Carol Moore 15:59, 8 May 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}
I'm sure the Israel article is featured today on main page because it is a featured article and today is Israel Independence Day. Putting FA's on the main page to coincide with some event or anniversary is routine.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:05, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Wiki article says May 14; does it need changing? :-) Carol Moore 16:33, 8 May 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}
No, because it is determined via the Hebrew Calendar.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:42, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Well, fix that in wikipedia because it got me and surely others confused, esp when it and Al-Nabka also are celebrated by others on the 14th and even 15th.
Meanwhile, another article on the topic: The failure of Wikipedia. The argument being of course that CAMERA editors have been abused! Written by - surprise - Gilead Ini, Boston Senior research analyst Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America. The soap opera continues... Carol Moore 13:12, 12 May 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}
'Ordinary' Arabs to retake Internet: Wikipedia founder Not sure if there's some political message or otherwise relevant message between the lines. But this one definitely bad news. A 'Frozen' Wikipedia Could Be Better for College, Founder Says and open to abuse by partisans with lots of academic allies (especially if they want to keep their jobs). Carol Moore 22:43, 19 May 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}
Suggest you bring up issues regarding the holiday at Israel Independence Day.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:50, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Just what did the op-ed say?

"To understand why this accusation of "infiltration" is so poisonous one must understand the nature of Wikipedia. Its basic idea is that anyone can edit the on-line encyclopedia. How, then, how can anyone be said to be infiltrating it? " [7]

to think that interest groups are not at wiki is to render a blind eye to DieWeisseRose promotion of wikiforpalestine which required established pro-palestinian, antizionist position. wikiforpalestine had 12 members fitting the description: wiki editors with a pro-palestinian anti-israel bias. Davidg (talk) 04:27, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Jerusalem Post op-ed

Looks like a researcher from the organization "NGO Monitor" has compiled a dossier which alleges that the Wikipedia is biased against Israel; see [8], [9], and Jerusalem Post editorial at [10]. The methodology seems to be the same tired pedestrian tactics used by Andrew Schlafly; uncontrolled identification of perceived flaws or gaps in articles from only one side of an issue, paired comparisons of arbitrarily cherry-picked articles, etc, etc. One has to admire these folks in a way, they do their best to turn a defeat into a victory. Well, I'm going to go add this to Criticism of Wikipedia now, I guess... <eleland/talkedits> 18:09, 14 May 2008 (UTC) Refactored for incivility, no need to be calling people names. Sorry.<eleland/talkedits> 20:19, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Eleland, you have (a) mischaracterized the research, (b) misrepresented the conclusions, (c) made a rather random comparison to past Wikipedia incidents, (d) made up your own strawman methodology in order to knock it down. I must admire your skill at this. By the way, you missed a news report. Try Google News (I only just spotted it myself, so can;t fault your research on that). Also I wouldn't label this section "NGO Monitor", you may as well label it "Post Doctoral Fellow at Israeli (gasp) University". Or perhaps "Australian researcher", I guess it doesn't make the point you are aimign for though? I think "Additional Reporting" (as a header) would be the most NPOV way of introducing this (so I've changed it). I understand everyone is sick of this as tempers are high, (particularly amongst soem whose actions on Wikipedia are now being questions off wikipedia - funny given this issue started with off wikipedia stuff being examined on Wikipedia), but... try keep a cool a head mate. I don't believe anyone has accused you of doing anything wrong. (Well, other than me in this post!) :) Oboler (talk) 20:08, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Eleland... loooking at your comment again... I think there is actually very little critisism of Wikipedia itself in the sources. Some of them may want to be added else where as press on this incident... but while individuals have be critisized I think the articles were generally positive of wikipedia as a whole, but critical of how things may have been manipulated in this instance. Also [11], is not a useful reference. Try [12] or [13]
Some of which contradicts evidence given related to this case. Specifically that Wikipedians for Palestine was harmless and did not recruit outside Wikipedia / did not use the resources of a large campaigning organisation. Incidently, this also says something about the research methodology. Cheers. Oboler (talk) 20:16, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
It's amazing how much this material shows absolutely no awareness of or even any curiousity about the actual workings or numerous benefits of Wikipedia. It's incredible that the Jerusalem Post published this. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 21:09, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
In case you didn't notice, Eleland, Oboler wrote the articles that you quoted. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:24, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Interestingly, the Jewish Weekly article on this[14], which is reasonably balanced, refers to both CAMERA and Honest Reporting as "pro-Israel". There have been arguments over this issue in the past. At the moment, the CAMERA article says that organization is "pro-Israel", but the Honest Reporting article does not. So we have a new source for the "pro-Israel" classification. --John Nagle (talk) 05:37, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Chris, he is well aware of that. See my talk page talk where he appologised and we discussed this further. Eleland further stated that on second reading the article didn't say what he thought it said (and was reacting to). I suggest those that are interested check out both his and my talk pages. He felt Wikipedia was being attacked and was angry, he reacted, I responsed and pointed out what actually written and what I had said else where here on the topics concering him, he appologised, end of story.
Steve, wish you had seen those comments too. The article is about EI, not Wikipedia itself. The things you want included simply aren't part of the story. You could equally attack EI for the same fault in their report. Cheers. 15:41, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Outragous

I have read through the allegations that led to these severe sanctions, and find that there is no credible evidence that these editors conspired to violate any Wikipedia policies. In fact, the opposite seems to be true - they were looking to educate themselves and cooperate to more effectively counteract violations of NPOV. Perhaps it is questionable that they coordinate their efforts out of sight of the Wikipedia community, but (and please educate me if I'm wrong) there's no policy against that.

I also find it questionable that Chriso, who in my experience is a clear anti-Israeli POV warrior, takes it upon himself to impose such severe sanctions.

At a minimum, the admins should have raised the issue in a broader forum before acting. It's my opinion that their conduct constitutes gross abuse of admin power. --Leifern (talk) 00:01, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Spurious aspersions cast upon admins aside, this issue was raised in AIV and is now in Arbitration; how much broader can one get? Tarc (talk) 01:05, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Maybe provide links for those assertions, for those who'd like to lurk? Thanks. Carol Moore 01:11, 15 May 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}
I think it is a fair question to ask if ChrisO was really an uninvolved adminstrator. If he has a partisan history in I-P conflict articles, he shouldn't have imposed the sanction. But that is Leifern's burden to show.--212.180.72.98 (talk) 18:46, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
The above statement is mine; I wasn't logged in at the moment.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:49, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Block and protect?

Do blocks and page protection need to start being made in order to stop the trolling, incivility and personal attacks? — Rlevse • Talk • 17:43, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

While at this point I am content to sit back and wait for the ArbCom to act, I think page protection and blocks would be an overreaction unless they are actual personal attacks. And there should be warnings first.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:04, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] CAMERA/Israpedia wasn't the first, and probably won't be the last

It is interesting/disturbing to see just how long this sort of thing has gone on. Something from 6 months ago; an e-mail from someone to this solomonia.com website, imploring them to make a "call to mobilize" in the name of an old POV warrior (Lance6wins, well before my time), target specific editors, the usual rigamorole that is apparently developing into a trend. [15]. I'm not sure which is more flattering; Zeq's characterization of me as "the Hizbulla rep in wikipedia and as a key pro palestinian editor", or this anonymous person's "a Muslim and have strong anti-west, anti Israel, pro-Hezbollah views" description. Tarc (talk) 13:07, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

The first time I heard about the WP:Canvassing policy was when an Administrator who noticed it when I asked them a question spanked me for mentioning I didn't like how an article was being edited by partisans on my blog. Even though I did not explicitly or implicitly ask people to change the article (and was just generally grumbling) the Admin recommended strongly I take the mention off, which I did in quasi-mortal fear. So I like to see the policy evenly applied, especially to people who are actively canvassing! Carol Moore 15:40, 19 May 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}