Lawrence Cohen (talk | contribs) →CAMERA is still telling people to edit!!!!: Would it be better if we just banned both groups outright, then? |
Lawrence Cohen (talk | contribs) →Template: new motion |
||
Line 43: | Line 43: | ||
:::: Tarc: "I believe the difference between the two is that no evidence has been provided that "wikiforpalestine" ever planned to plant falsely non-neutral admins". what is the evidence behind your belief? wikiforpalestine was a closed group who membership of required an established pro-palestinian position in wiki editing. beyond that very little is known. what we do know is that DieWeisseRose openingly promoted this closed agenda driven group on wiki without consequences while members of the israpedia/camera group suffered consequences. what we also know is that no effort was made by administrators to question DieWeisseRose much less hold him/her to the consequences of her actions until mr future perfect made a belated request to which DieWeisseRose has yet to respond. what we also know is that there are 12 members of wikiforpalestine at wiki given wikiforpalestine's criteria for membership. it is not implausable that this wikforpalestine cabal are in the here and now at wiki doing what is necessary to promote their agenda. one might say wikiforpalestine is the embodiment of successful stealth![[User:Judadem|Davidg]] ([[User talk:Judadem|talk]]) 23:49, 9 May 2008 (UTC) |
:::: Tarc: "I believe the difference between the two is that no evidence has been provided that "wikiforpalestine" ever planned to plant falsely non-neutral admins". what is the evidence behind your belief? wikiforpalestine was a closed group who membership of required an established pro-palestinian position in wiki editing. beyond that very little is known. what we do know is that DieWeisseRose openingly promoted this closed agenda driven group on wiki without consequences while members of the israpedia/camera group suffered consequences. what we also know is that no effort was made by administrators to question DieWeisseRose much less hold him/her to the consequences of her actions until mr future perfect made a belated request to which DieWeisseRose has yet to respond. what we also know is that there are 12 members of wikiforpalestine at wiki given wikiforpalestine's criteria for membership. it is not implausable that this wikforpalestine cabal are in the here and now at wiki doing what is necessary to promote their agenda. one might say wikiforpalestine is the embodiment of successful stealth![[User:Judadem|Davidg]] ([[User talk:Judadem|talk]]) 23:49, 9 May 2008 (UTC) |
||
===[[User:Judadem]] and [[User:Dajudem]]=== |
|||
===Template=== |
|||
2) [[User:Judadem]] and [[User:Dajudem]] are the same user, and have acted patently disruptive, engaging in incivility and personal attacks since the CAMERA group was exposed. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/CAMERA_lobbying/Workshop&oldid=211404757 For example]. As they appear to be one user editing disruptively from one location, they are blocked indefinitely as a net loss to Wikipedia. |
|||
2) |
|||
:'''Comment by Arbitrators:''' |
:'''Comment by Arbitrators:''' |
||
Line 53: | Line 53: | ||
:'''Comment by others:''' |
:'''Comment by others:''' |
||
:: Proposed. Total noise and attacks only now, along with nodding at whatever Gni says. <span style="font-variant:small-caps"><font color="#800080">[[User:Lawrence Cohen|Lawrence Cohen]] § [[User talk:Lawrence Cohen|t]]/[[:Special:Contributions/Lawrence_Cohen|e]]</font></span> 05:02, 10 May 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:: |
|||
===Template=== |
===Template=== |
Revision as of 05:02, 10 May 2008
This is a page for working on Arbitration decisions. The Arbitrators, parties to the case, and other editors may draft proposals and post them to this page for review and comments. Proposals may include proposed general principles, findings of fact, remedies, and enforcement provisions—the same format as is used in Arbitration Committee decisions. The bottom of the page may be used for overall analysis of the /Evidence and for general discussion of the case.
Any user may edit this workshop page. Please sign all suggestions and comments. Arbitrators will place proposed items they believe should be part of the final decision on the /Proposed decision page, which only Arbitrators may edit, for voting.
Motions and requests by the parties
Motion to dismiss the case
1) Given that the matter has been adequately addressed elsewhere to the general satisfaction of the community, the case is closed due to lack of utility.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- We opened this case to consider the allegations and the response in certain quarters to the allegations. The case will hopefully provide a good opportunity to clarify policy and the application of policy in this area. Further, given that six users have been subject to heavy sanctions as a result of this situation, and particularly given that the sanctions were purportedly made under remedies in a previous arbitration, the more detailed consideration the situation is given the better, in my view. --bainer (talk) 03:58, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
- Comment by parties:
- Proposed. I fail to see what it is the arbitrators think they are arbitrating here. We've dealt with it already, in consultation with the ArbCom (in the form of FT2). So...what are we all doing here? I would have thought we'd spared the ArbCom a tedious case, surely something praiseworthy. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 09:42, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
- I'm agnostic about this arbitration, to be honest. I can't see it achieving much more than we've already done, and there certainly aren't any new facts to consider. I would just ask the ArbCom to try to deal quickly with this matter, so that the already extensive drama isn't prolonged more than it absolutely needs to be. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:18, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
- My god is this ever necessary. This so-called case has become nothing but a forum for an outright troll to malign and insult the entire WP community. Tell me again why somebody caught red-handed blatantly subverting the Wikipedia gets to have a whole ArbCom case essentially devoted to her appeal hearing, please? <eleland/talkedits> 10:11, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
- Explain again why even suspected serial killers get a hearing before being executed? I object to your characterisation of me and will only say the name-calling and bad faith shown me (and others) started on day one of this
witchhuntinquiry. On day 2, I was already banned. There is plenty of reason to reconsider this case, not merely on my own account but on account of the others that were banned/or blocked. We deserve a hearing. Apparently the arbitrators thought so as well, or they would have rejected it. Perhaps you will get lucky and all the blocks and bans will hold. Juanita (talk) 04:31, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
- Explain again why even suspected serial killers get a hearing before being executed? I object to your characterisation of me and will only say the name-calling and bad faith shown me (and others) started on day one of this
- Comment by others:
- Comment. I see no problem with ArbCom weighing in on some aspects of this, now that the case is open, as long as they don't simply duplicate prior work. the main page makes clear that there may be some issues which need to be settled. However, i agree that this proposal should be available as an option, if ArbCom finds that the prior actions are sufficient. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 13:44, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
- I'm on the same page as Steve and Chris. A firming up of the findings and actions by our brave trio of admins would be beneficial, and/or any additional guidance on how under existing policy we can deal with existing bands of users like this as they're uncovered. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 21:38, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
- I say let em carry on, in the give a person enough rope and they'll hang themselves with it sense. As far as I know, ArbCom can take into account behavior during the case itself when making their final decisions.
- the selective application of rules on one agenda driven group but not another agenda driven group is selective enforcement, if it can be demonstrated that both groups were known to engage in the same activity. if it can be demonstrated that one group initiated the same activity as another punished group before that group engaged in an activity and was openly promoted within wiki and met with no opprobrium, by a member in good standing, DieWeibeRose, who has yet to be held accountable, then we have at least on the face of it a double standard.
we know that wikiforpalestine operated in 2006 and eventually had 12 members who met the criteria: "In order to verify their status as both a Wikipedian in good standing and someone who is pro-Palestinian and anti-Zionist, those wishing to join this group will be asked to provide their Wikipedia user ID."
we know that DieWeibeRose actively promoted this agenda driven group: "The group is described as "for Wikipedians working to combat anti-Palestinian and pro-Zionist bias in the English language version of Wikipedia." Please spread the word"
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DieWeisseRose"
we know that there was no effort to enforce what was enforced upon israpedia/camera because no one has yet been held accountable for openly promoting wikiforpalestine agenda driven operation.
i have stated that the rules of wiki need to be applied even if imperfectly applied, but to selectively apply them opens a Pandora's box Davidg (talk) 06:49, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
- I believe the difference between the two is that no evidence has been provided that "wikiforpalestine" ever planned to plant falsely non-neutral admins into place to assist their editing, goad/cajole/wheedle editors on the other side of the fence into edit conflicts, or create attack articles that would be scooped up by google. Isra-Pedia did. Tarc (talk) 12:59, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
- Indeed there is no 'evidence' of that, though they may already have planted non-neutral admins since they have been here well over 2 years. That would mean that the only 'sin' of the Israpedia group is that they naively allowed themselves to be infiltrated. You are indeed opening up a Pandora's box here! Juanita (talk) 23:17, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
- Tarc is correct. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 13:57, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
- Tarc: "I believe the difference between the two is that no evidence has been provided that "wikiforpalestine" ever planned to plant falsely non-neutral admins". what is the evidence behind your belief? wikiforpalestine was a closed group who membership of required an established pro-palestinian position in wiki editing. beyond that very little is known. what we do know is that DieWeisseRose openingly promoted this closed agenda driven group on wiki without consequences while members of the israpedia/camera group suffered consequences. what we also know is that no effort was made by administrators to question DieWeisseRose much less hold him/her to the consequences of her actions until mr future perfect made a belated request to which DieWeisseRose has yet to respond. what we also know is that there are 12 members of wikiforpalestine at wiki given wikiforpalestine's criteria for membership. it is not implausable that this wikforpalestine cabal are in the here and now at wiki doing what is necessary to promote their agenda. one might say wikiforpalestine is the embodiment of successful stealth!Davidg (talk) 23:49, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
User:Judadem and User:Dajudem
2) User:Judadem and User:Dajudem are the same user, and have acted patently disruptive, engaging in incivility and personal attacks since the CAMERA group was exposed. For example. As they appear to be one user editing disruptively from one location, they are blocked indefinitely as a net loss to Wikipedia.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
- Proposed. Total noise and attacks only now, along with nodding at whatever Gni says. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 05:02, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Template
3)
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Proposed temporary injunctions
Template
1)
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
2)
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
3)
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
4)
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Questions to the parties
Proposed final decision
Proposals by User:ChrisO
Proposed principles
Adherence to policies
1) Contributors are expected to follow Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Long-established contributors are expected to have made a reasonable effort to familiarize themselves with Wikipedia's editing requirements.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Attack pages
2) A Wikipedia article, page, category, redirect or image created for the sole purpose of disparaging its subject is an attack page. Deliberately creating or advocating the creation of attack pages as a tactic in promoting a particular point of view is prohibited.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Banning
3) Wikipedia users who demonstrate over a period of time that they are unable or unwilling to conform to Wikipedia policy may be banned.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by others:
Conflicts of interest
4) Contributors are expected to abide by Wikipedia's conflict of interest guidelines. Edits in mainspace where there is a clear conflict of interest, or where such a conflict can be reasonably assumed, are strongly discouraged. Significantly biased edits in mainspace are forbidden.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Consensus and transparency
5) Wikipedia is developed through a transparent process of open discussion and consensus-seeking among editors of all political persuasions. The coordination of editing via private forums restricted to adherents of a particular point of view is not compatible with this process.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Good faith
6) Wikipedia users are expected to behave reasonably in their dealings with other users and to observe the principles of assuming good faith, civility, and the writers' rules of engagement.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by others:
Harassment
7) Harassment of any editor is not tolerated on Wikipedia.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Personal attacks
8) Personal attacks are expressly prohibited.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Provocation
9) Editing in a manner so as to intentionally provoke other editors is a form of trolling and goes against established Wikipedia policies, as well as the spirit of Wikipedia and the will of its editors.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Role of administrators
10) Administrators are appointed by the Wikipedia community to help with maintenance. Seeking to recruit new administrators to aid one side in a dispute is highly inappropriate and is incompatible with the proper role of administrators.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by others:
Sock/meatpuppetry
11) The recruitment of new editors to Wikipedia for the purpose of attempting to give the appearance of consensus is strongly discouraged. It is considered highly inappropriate for contributors to advertise Wikipedia articles to their friends, family members, or communities of people who agree with them, so that they come to Wikipedia and support their side of a debate.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by others:
- it is commendable that tribal loyalty should give way to individual expression, but any effort toward enforcement will be countered by self-interested adaptation. there exist the danger of a 'star chamber' of like-minded individuals going on a vigilante hunt. the oxbow incident comes to mind.Davidg (talk) 00:26, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a battlefield
12) Wikipedia is not a place to hold grudges, import personal conflicts, or nurture hatred or fear. Making personal battles out of Wikipedia discussions or treating Wikipedia as a theater of conflict goes directly against our policies and goals.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
- a prime example are the swarming theatrics exposed in the present imbroglio we are engaged in. it would be nice if all this could be played out in a more controlled theater. ethnic/nationalist contentious issues will bring participation by interested parties. i believe it is indeed the root of the problem but i also believe adversarial positions are essential to the solution because it insures exposure that will not be found without passion in the issue.Davidg (talk) 00:42, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a soapbox
13) Wikipedia is not a soapbox or a vehicle for propaganda advocacy or advertising.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by others:
- Umm, I hate to cast aspersions on such a great quantity of work, but little is gained by simply an exhaustive list of the principles at stake here. If it were as simple as quoting principles, all we'd need to do is quote them in the initial talk pages. my impression is that most ArbCom proposals involving proposing some solution which deals with the specific facts of the case in an inventive manner, and which also addresses the underlying concerns of people on both sides. not trying to be nit-picky here, but I also don't want one set of proposals to become the main focus through sheer intensity or voluminousness. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 15:29, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Proposals by User:Eleland
Proposed principle
Writing for the enemy
1) Editing with a neutral point of view does not require an idealized unbiased editor. Users of all political stripes are welcome to contribute to Wikipedia in accordance with our policies and guidelines, and encouraged to write for the "enemy", explaining others' points of view as clearly and fairly as they can.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Proposed. Probably goes without saying but may be wise to underline this, given accusations of censorship, witch-hunting, or groupthink. <eleland/talkedits> 16:13, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
- "Sounds" good, but there is precious little of it done in contentious areas such as the middle east. 12 editors here had by their own admission been able to demonstrate "anti-Zionist" edits. Juanita (talk) 05:05, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
- Juanita/Dajudem...that comment is out of line. Refactor it or delete it yourself, or I'll delete it. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:18, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
- Comment by others:
- Finally, a proposal which deals with the actual facts here, and the actual dynamics of Wikipedia. of course, Eleland is right. this is the real pathway towards constructive and useful editing. it's important to remember that articles succeed through constructive discussion and balance between editors from a wide variety of concerns and points of view. not from some abstarct desire for a mythical, non-existent or hypothetical bland approach of total neutrality. editors from significant and relevant POVs are then able to add valid information in a fair and balanced way. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 15:31, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
- i would take issue with this: "it's important to remember that articles succeed through constructive discussion and balance between editors from a wide variety of concerns and points of view." because the truth/fact is not a variety pack medley of concerns/points of view. it is what remains after the chaff is blown away by argument because it is carries no weight. facts/truth is not some editorial average. weakness in argument will manifest itself when contending against strength in argument, if the playing field is level. if it is not level is when i would worry. if there was not some shadow of group think/witch-hunting/censorship we would not be here at arbitration. that we are here at arbitration speaks to at least some penumbra darkening wiki. i for one would like the shadow of guilt removed from me, especially when the powers that be chose to select the unevidence of coincidence and ignore the exculpatory evidence of my statement concerning agenda driven interest groups.
my question is what did the agents of my banning/blocking have in common when as a group the chose to ban/block me. how/why did it happen that those espousing a neutral point of view chose ignore my statement and impose upon me the verdict of guilty merely by an accidental coincidence of events and then chose to use only that evidence that which suited what seems ineluctably to be a prejudged position, thus accusing me of the sin they committed, the sin of non neutrality.Davidg (talk) 04:16, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Proposed findings of fact
Template
1) {text of proposed finding of fact}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
2) {text of proposed finding of fact}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Proposed remedies
Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.
Template
1) {text of proposed remedy}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
2) {text of proposed remedy}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Proposed enforcement
Template
1) {text of proposed enforcement}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
2) {text of proposed enforcement}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Proposals by User:Sm8900
Wikipedia is WP:NPOV
No advocacy group of any sort should ever send anyone here to edit, for any reason, ever. The reason is that any member of that group who feels that the edits are needed can simply do so themselves. So no group should ever mount any grassroots campaign to edit Wikipedia, for any reason, ever.
CAMERA is still telling people to edit!!!!
CAMERA is still telling people to edit!!!! It is STILL doing so!!!! There is absolutely NO reason for any advocacy group or lobbying group to be sending ANYONE here to edit anything!!!
CAMERA: How and Why to Edit Wikipedia May 3, 2008 by Gilead Ini
There is no reason, for any advocacy group to send anyone here, to do any edits, for any reason, ever. The reason is that any member, activist or leader of any activist group is perfectly free to do any such edits themselves anyway. so why send anyone else here????!!!! This has to stop, and it has to stop now!!!
Arbitrators and Wikimedia Foundation need to contact CAMERA. this is getting media coverage. we really need to set a precedent!!! We could otherwise be inundated by every lobbying group under the sun!!!!! --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 21:21, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
- Don't panic Steve, they're here already! And have been for some time. The precedent was set in 2006 with the wikiforpalestine email group . You don't make an 'example' of some people; or only punish one side. You make a fair and verifiable rule and apply it equally to all. By the way, members of CAMERA are not little automatons to be sent out to do anything. We are people with a particular point of view, not a little wind-up zionist army with The Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting as the Big Boss. It really is an insulting and condescending insinuation, IMHO Juanita (talk) 05:25, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
- you seem like a nice person, but your posts are getting a bit irrational. There is no comparison between CAMERA and wikiforPalestine. CAMERA is a respected, well-known community group, with numerous connections and activities. wikiforPalestine is just a bunch of people with a Yahoo group. the two are not the same.
- Don't panic Steve, they're here already! And have been for some time. The precedent was set in 2006 with the wikiforpalestine email group . You don't make an 'example' of some people; or only punish one side. You make a fair and verifiable rule and apply it equally to all. By the way, members of CAMERA are not little automatons to be sent out to do anything. We are people with a particular point of view, not a little wind-up zionist army with The Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting as the Big Boss. It really is an insulting and condescending insinuation, IMHO Juanita (talk) 05:25, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
- So I would gently suggest that you please stop answering my points about CAMERA by saying "but wikipforPalestine did it first." thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 13:55, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
- I agree that the comparison between CAMERA and wikiforPalestine is a false one. It should be between Israpedia and wikiforPalestine. The other comparison would be between CAMERA and Electronic Intifada . We do not know who started the Yahoo! group, unfortunately. The CAMERA group was initiated by CAMERA but was joined by individuals, and it took on its own life as individuals interacting. Perhaps wikiforPalestine was started by Electronic Intifada or Hezbollah. I guess we will never know... Juanita (talk) 23:36, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
- So I would gently suggest that you please stop answering my points about CAMERA by saying "but wikipforPalestine did it first." thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 13:55, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
- "Arbitrators and Wikimedia Foundation need to contact CAMERA. this is getting media coverage. we really need to set a precedent!!! We could otherwise be inundated by every lobbying group under the sun!!!!! --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 21:21, 8 May 2008 (UTC)"
Arbitrators and Wikimedia Foundation cannot contact Wikiforpalestine thus proving that stealth works and that 12 members of Wikiforpalestine can operate as bona fide wikians injecting their points of view in the body of wiki. that means a known unknown is operating with impunity and that perhaps unknown unknowns have also taken up in the wiki host. but we shall make an example of a known known. i am not impressed. Davidg (talk) 04:42, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
- Would it be better if we just banned both groups outright, then? Lawrence Cohen § t/e 04:58, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Template
2) {text of Proposed principle}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Proposed findings of fact
Template
1) {text of proposed finding of fact}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
2) {text of proposed finding of fact}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Proposed remedies
Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.
Template
1) {text of proposed remedy}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
2) {text of proposed remedy}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Proposed enforcement
Template
1) {text of proposed enforcement}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
2) {text of proposed enforcement}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Proposals by User:Gni
Proposed principles
Sanctions should be based on diffs that violate policies
1) Sanctions against a Wikipedia editor must be based on demonstrable violations of Wikipedia policy. This in effect means that specific diffs must be shown to conclusively violate specific policies for before a user is sanctioned.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- I think this principle should apply to this case; but more importantly, to Wikipedia as a whole. In order to improve the content of this encyclopedia, one must also improve the way things are handled behind the scenes -- not least of which the banning and other serious sanctions. A few questions (but hardly the only ones) that might be relevant to the above concept is: Can somebody violate the rules of this online community when they are away from their computer? Can they be sanctioned for what they say while playing basketball? While drinking wine at a bar and chatting? While at a conference or discussion forum about "Web 2.0"? Should an editor be sanctioned based on the behavior of other editors with whom they have spoken or associated with? More basically, shouldn't this community use the only truly relevant evidence -- diffs -- to make 'judicial' decisions? Gni (talk) 23:39, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
- Even accepting as true that off-wiki activities may have a deleterious effects on wiki; and I agree they might well, isn't it best to develop safety nets within wiki to catch these activities through actual activity on wiki than to try to police the whole 'net and beyond? Juanita (talk) 03:16, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
- @jpgordan. I agree with that. The structures I was thinking about are at a lower level than this one. This is an important part of the process, but the idea is to help create structures that make this process less likely, as it is time-consuming and contentious. That's why I think Gni's ideas about documentation are so relevant. As it stands, there are some users here whose sanctions will be over before their case is considered. They would have done "time served" guilty or not. Documentation would help move the process along. Juanita (talk) 03:49, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
- Rather than answer questions which "might be relevant," I feel that we ought to examine questions which certainly are relevant, such as: "Is the operation of a secretive mailing list designed to co-ordinate an activist Wiki-lobbying campaign in any way compatible with WP's core values - especially when the list was founded by an official from a fringe ethno-political organization which as been described as 'McCarthyite,' after his promotional and self-interested edits to that organization's WP article were rejected by the broader community?"
- Gilead Ini's first e-mail went out on 13 March, and specifically mentioned the article on CAMERA as an area of concern. This was the only article which he specifically named as a problem. Examining the history of the CAMERA article, we find that User:Gni had began some fairly questionable editing there on 5 March and was shot down; a week later Gilead Ini puts out his call for trustworthy allies. Straightforward Wikipedia:Canvassing and WP:MEATpuppetry. This is without even examining the further content of the mailing list archives, which just make Gni/Ini come off worse and worse.
- And after all this, do we get an apology, or even an expression of regret? No, we get Wikilawyering, non-denial denials, and vague accusations of persecution. Mr. Ini, you've no right to cry "witch hunt!" when you've been caught in a black pointy hat, stirring eye of newt and toe of frog into a bubbling cauldron. <eleland/talkedits> 06:41, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
- I resent Eleland's continued references to me being Ini. I resent it because it's baseless, getting old, and it feels like harassment at this juncture. I'm most surprised that, while attempting to goad me into revealing my own real-life identity, Eleland also feels comfortable -- here on a forum used by arbitrators -- describing "me" (in his/her version of reality) as a witch. If this isn't lack of civility or worse, I don't know what is. As far as I can tell, the fact that I stand accused of something does not give anybody the right to be insulting and uncivil. If disagreements can't be sorted out civily here, then there's little hope that on other pages people will abide by this requirement. I expect Eleland to redact or delete the offending statements above, and if not, I pray that an arbitrator or other editors will make clear that this type of hostility must end. Gni (talk) 23:29, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
- I think this principle should apply to this case; but more importantly, to Wikipedia as a whole. In order to improve the content of this encyclopedia, one must also improve the way things are handled behind the scenes -- not least of which the banning and other serious sanctions. A few questions (but hardly the only ones) that might be relevant to the above concept is: Can somebody violate the rules of this online community when they are away from their computer? Can they be sanctioned for what they say while playing basketball? While drinking wine at a bar and chatting? While at a conference or discussion forum about "Web 2.0"? Should an editor be sanctioned based on the behavior of other editors with whom they have spoken or associated with? More basically, shouldn't this community use the only truly relevant evidence -- diffs -- to make 'judicial' decisions? Gni (talk) 23:39, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
- Comment by others:
- I agree with principle, and feel that it occured in this instance (see previous attempts at dispute resolution, administrator statement, ArbCom evidence page, etc). On the other hand, Wikipedia does not exist in a bubble shut off from the outside world; therefore, allowing verifiable and reliable content from outside Wikipedia is an obvious.--69.210.8.93 (talk) 14:53, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
- This must be rejected; there must be a severe and certain downside risk to attempting to WP:GAME the system, or else everyone will do it, as the likelihood of ever being caught is so slim. Trying to argue that the community can't protect itself against such ploys suggests that the gaming hasn't ended yet. -- Kendrick7talk 16:18, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Sanctioned and their rational should be centrally documented
2) Administrators must document, on a special Wikipedia 'Sanctions Documentation' page, all relevant details every significant sanction they impose on a member of the community. Most importantly of these details would be the specific policy that is being violated, the specific diffs that violate that policy, and an explanation of why the edit demonstrated by the diff is a violation of the cited policy. Administrators who are judged by the Arbitration Committee to have misused their powers can lose their privileges.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Perhaps this should apply to all articles, or perhaps it should apply only to controversial Mideast articles. (If I understand it correctly, admins had been granted more leeway to impose sanctions on Mideast articles(?). If so, there should be more accountability demanded of them. Moreover, it seems wholly insufficient for an administrator to justify a ban by vaguely asserting only, for example, that an editor has been disruptive. Which specific edits violated which specific policy? This principle is essentially about accountability. It might discourage administrators from using their powers lightly, as it would allow the community -- editors, other adminstrators, and arbitrators -- to quickly and conveniently understand and scrutinize the use of sanctions powers. Accountability is central to all positions of power, and it should be no different here. What constitutes a "significant sanction," and what constitutes misuse of powers would obviously need to be determined. Gni (talk) 23:39, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
- Comment by others:
- Er, we already have this, and it is where we are right now. See for example Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles, where y'all have been listed already. Tarc (talk) 16:59, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
- No, the idea is to develop policies that make arbitration unnecessary, or at least less necessary. It must be that the banning criteria is fair, balanced, and understood. No fair banning people for ignorance of the rules. At least warn and provide some criterion along with the warning, and a page that tells the user how to appeal the decision. I never got a warning and was initially not even told what my offense was - or else it changed in the final rendering. Nor did I have any idea of how to appeal the decision or that appeal was even possible. Even now trying to understand the charges against me and others here is like trying to nail currant jelly to the wall. Juanita (talk) 03:37, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
- Er, we already have this, and it is where we are right now. See for example Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles, where y'all have been listed already. Tarc (talk) 16:59, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Proposed findings of fact
Template
1) {text of proposed finding of fact}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
2) {text of proposed finding of fact}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Proposed remedies
Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.
All behavior relative to this case could be examined
1) Any editors found to have edited articles in violation of Wikipedia policy should be warned or sanctioned in reasonable proportion to the violation. Any administrators who have violated Wikipedia policies, or who have exceeded the reasonable use of their sanctioning powers, should be themselves sanctioned in reasonable proportion to the violation. Based on their higher authority, administrators should be held to a higher standard with regard to civility, assumption of good faith, and all such principles.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
2) {text of proposed remedy}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Proposed enforcement
Template
1) {text of proposed enforcement}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
2) {text of proposed enforcement}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Proposals by Kirill Lokshin
Proposed principles
Purpose of Wikipedia
1) The purpose of Wikipedia is to create a high-quality, free-content encyclopedia in an atmosphere of camaraderie and mutual respect among contributors. Use of the site for other purposes, such as advocacy or propaganda, furtherance of outside conflicts, publishing or promoting original research, and political or ideological struggle, is prohibited.
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Decorum
2) Wikipedia users are expected to behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously in their interactions with other users; to approach even difficult situations in a dignified fashion and with a constructive and collaborative outlook; and to avoid acting in a manner that brings the project into disrepute. Unseemly conduct, such as personal attacks, incivility, assumptions of bad faith, trolling, harassment, disruptive point-making, and gaming the system, is prohibited.
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Good intentions
3) Inappropriate conduct undertaken in the service of a noble cause is still inappropriate conduct.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Dealing with external groups
4) It is apparent that some Wikipedia editors may be working to advance the agenda of various external groups, rather than in adherence with the purposes of the project. Editors are expected to respond to this in a professional manner; paranoid conduct, such as demands for loyalty oaths in any form—including demands that editors publicly renounce some agenda—is prohibited.
4.1) It is apparent that some Wikipedia editors may be working to advance the agenda of various external groups, rather than in adherence with the purposes of the project. Editors are expected to respond to this in a professional manner, and to avoid unseemly conduct, such as demands for loyalty oaths or public inquisitions.
- Comment by parties:
- I certainly agree that something about hysterical reactions could be useful here. But "demands for loyalty oaths"? Is that based on some finding of fact; has anybody done that? I'm aware of quite a bit of disruptive behaviour on both sides, but this is one I must have overlooked. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:00, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
- It may be a matter of degrees, I suppose; but, yes, I do have someone in mind here. Kirill (prof) 13:17, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
- Just make sure, if you're gonna go through with such a proposal, to make it very well grounded in facts. Actually, you might want to reconsider your wording in any case. "Paranoid conduct" is a very very strong charge; in fact, it could be construed as quite a heavy personal attack. Golden rule of arbcom, anyone? Even you arb guys ought not to be saying things about other users that you wouldn't be comfortable for normal users to be saying about each other. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:36, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
- It may be a matter of degrees, I suppose; but, yes, I do have someone in mind here. Kirill (prof) 13:17, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
- I certainly agree that something about hysterical reactions could be useful here. But "demands for loyalty oaths"? Is that based on some finding of fact; has anybody done that? I'm aware of quite a bit of disruptive behaviour on both sides, but this is one I must have overlooked. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:00, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
- Comment by others:
- What about asking people to confirm if they are the party x from the outside group? We need to have some manner of leeway to deal with hostile, malicious, or disruptive outside forces. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 12:46, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
- If done professionally (and ideally in a low-key manner), I'm fine with that; but it shouldn't cross the line into McCarthy-style questioning. (Where said line happens to be is admittedly open to interpretation; but I am mostly concerned with gross violations here.) Kirill (prof) 12:50, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
- OK. Just out of curiosity (you can be blunt, I wave NPA if you want to really smack me down, since I really trust your opinion in particular--was my asking Gni and Zeq, "Is this you?" and then concluding that it indeed was them when they refused to even simply say "No" and danced around the answer and all but accused me of all people of being a Jew hater a bad move, or bad faith on my part? I meant what I'd been saying, that barring later evidence totally contradicting their denial I would have believed them. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 12:56, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
- I think the question and the conclusion are both fine. Your repetition of the question, when it's clear that it's not going to be answered, is somewhat more questionable, in my view—it verges on badgering rather than real attempts to elicit information, at that point—but it's not so bad that it needs be looked at as anything other than getting caught up in the heat of the moment, I think. Kirill (prof) 13:17, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
- OK. Just out of curiosity (you can be blunt, I wave NPA if you want to really smack me down, since I really trust your opinion in particular--was my asking Gni and Zeq, "Is this you?" and then concluding that it indeed was them when they refused to even simply say "No" and danced around the answer and all but accused me of all people of being a Jew hater a bad move, or bad faith on my part? I meant what I'd been saying, that barring later evidence totally contradicting their denial I would have believed them. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 12:56, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
- If done professionally (and ideally in a low-key manner), I'm fine with that; but it shouldn't cross the line into McCarthy-style questioning. (Where said line happens to be is admittedly open to interpretation; but I am mostly concerned with gross violations here.) Kirill (prof) 12:50, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
- I don't think the current wording qualifies it as a principle - more of a finding of fact. I'll give an attempt later. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:50, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
- I agree that Lawrence Cohen is free to conclude whatever he wants based on a refusal by a pseudonymous editor to answer questions about his/her real-life identity. But is this conclusion really warrented on a "Wikipedian" level? This type of questioning leaves a bad taste in my mouth, and if I refuse to answer, it's because I believe Wikipedia makes clear it's a space where anonymity is welcome, and because I conclude from this that it shouldn't and wouldn't be held against me if I don't want to discuss, or even begin to discuss, my real-life identity. If I am totally off base, would somebody please propose a principle that talks to this anonymity question? Gni (talk) 23:38, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
- The principle might begin with interest conflicted users sharing relevant information, specifically if being asked after making edits which are perceived as tedentious. Continuing to make tedentious edits might even be considered ill-advised in such a policy, especially once a user is given notification of a concern.. This principle could be very similar to WP:COI. --69.210.8.93 (talk) 01:14, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
- I agree that Lawrence Cohen is free to conclude whatever he wants based on a refusal by a pseudonymous editor to answer questions about his/her real-life identity. But is this conclusion really warrented on a "Wikipedian" level? This type of questioning leaves a bad taste in my mouth, and if I refuse to answer, it's because I believe Wikipedia makes clear it's a space where anonymity is welcome, and because I conclude from this that it shouldn't and wouldn't be held against me if I don't want to discuss, or even begin to discuss, my real-life identity. If I am totally off base, would somebody please propose a principle that talks to this anonymity question? Gni (talk) 23:38, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
- What about asking people to confirm if they are the party x from the outside group? We need to have some manner of leeway to deal with hostile, malicious, or disruptive outside forces. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 12:46, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Collective guilt
5) Mere membership by an editor in some external group that has been involved in violations of policy is not actionable without evidence that the editor has some personal involvement in said violations.
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
- Generally agreeable, but there should be exceptions for a case where the premise of an external group's creation is to violate Wikipedia policy. Tarc (talk) 13:55, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
- I question what would happen in instances where there is reasonable evidence that specific members of a group have agreed to participate in future violations of policy. The 'evidence' would not be implied by membership in the group, but rather by a separate acknowledgement..--69.210.8.93 (talk) 14:48, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
- Has ArbCom ever sanctioned someone for future violations before? That doesn't sound like a very good precedent to be setting... 170.149.100.10 (talk) 16:04, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
- If substantial evidence of collusion exists, then could you clarify what the issue is?--69.210.8.93 (talk) 17:23, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
- Has ArbCom ever sanctioned someone for future violations before? That doesn't sound like a very good precedent to be setting... 170.149.100.10 (talk) 16:04, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
- Traditionally a conspiracy (crime) has some element of collective guilt shared among the co-conspirators. For example, the get-away driver in a bank heist gone wrong is always going to claim he thought his friends were just using the ATM. But when you can place him in the room when the heist was being planned, and he insists he was there but was only listening to his iPod, it starts to look pretty bad for him. Is there any sanctioned editor who made no edits whatsoever in response to the discussions on that list? Otherwise in common law, committing any act in furtherance of the larger conspiracy makes collective guilt kick in. -- Kendrick7talk 18:01, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
- Hold on, the accusation of a "conspiracy" is a new one. A conspiracy doesn't send out public emails to its mailing list. To suggest not to share with media is hardly proof of a conspiracy. Anyone could join and did, including members of Electronic Intifada, and be privy to the emails. There was no generalized intent to conspire to break wiki rules. In fact, I was not even aware of some of these 'rules' until this 'story' broke. To this day I am not sure what specific rule I broke except that I made a couple of edits after having discussed them with someone off-wiki. If there was talk about a bank heist, I missed it.Juanita (talk) 00:24, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
- Agreed. And this wouldn't be to disqualify any member of the group, just one who was demonstrated to be participating.--69.210.8.93 (talk) 18:12, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
- Only those 'participating' in a particular 'crime.' If the participants are all planning a bank robbery, sure. But if they are planning on having a teach-in, maybe not so much.Juanita (talk) 00:28, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
- Maybe you didn't know our rules, that doesn't lessen your culpability; as the Romans used to say "ignorance of the law is no excuse." But certainly by now you should be able to look over some of these proposed principles and understand the ways in which this conspiracy -- and I think that's a fair label -- was out to undermine the project. But as the conspiracy (law) article says, "repentance by one or more parties does not affect liability but may reduce their sentence." This isn't the Spanish Inquisition, but you might want to stop cheer-leading for Gni, and take the opportunity to jump ship. -- Kendrick7talk 01:53, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
- I reject your characterisation of me as cheer-leading. I agree with Gni and think his ideas are excellent and useful. The desire of people here to ban me despite the fact that I never had a warning or problem since Jan '05, for reasons which are nebulous at best, possibly says more about you-all than it does me. Juanita (talk) 03:57, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
- Wikipedia has a long sad history of private parties trying to manipulate content for their own desired scientific, sociological, political, or religious tastes. Sometimes they have succeeded, for a time, but in time they were all stopped. Nothing, nothing gets our fury risen up than manipulation of our only sacred cow: our content. The success of WP is based on editors working alone in a sense, "manufactured" cliques or gangs of editors would have unearned power they have no right to wield over others, and must be stopped. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 04:02, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
- Of course it does. Because everybody has their own "scientific, sociological, political, or religious tastes" or some might say POVs. "Manipulating content" is what happens on wiki. That is the essence of wiki. Hopefully it is manipulated to the good. What happens if one side of an argument is under-represented at wiki? What if the Turkish-Kurdish areas of conflict are in the main Turks, for example? Will the articles be likely to develop NPOV? If not, would the Kurdish side be reasonable in wanting more of a voice under those conditions? How would you deal with it if you were a Kurd? I say that wiki structures need to be developed to enable a NPOV even if an area is inundated by only one side. Not easy, but necessary. Will not be achieved by the slash-and-burn method but by building up new structures through positive interaction on both sides (ie good faith).Juanita (talk) 04:32, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
- I reject your characterisation of me as cheer-leading. I agree with Gni and think his ideas are excellent and useful. The desire of people here to ban me despite the fact that I never had a warning or problem since Jan '05, for reasons which are nebulous at best, possibly says more about you-all than it does me. Juanita (talk) 03:57, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
- Maybe you didn't know our rules, that doesn't lessen your culpability; as the Romans used to say "ignorance of the law is no excuse." But certainly by now you should be able to look over some of these proposed principles and understand the ways in which this conspiracy -- and I think that's a fair label -- was out to undermine the project. But as the conspiracy (law) article says, "repentance by one or more parties does not affect liability but may reduce their sentence." This isn't the Spanish Inquisition, but you might want to stop cheer-leading for Gni, and take the opportunity to jump ship. -- Kendrick7talk 01:53, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
- Only those 'participating' in a particular 'crime.' If the participants are all planning a bank robbery, sure. But if they are planning on having a teach-in, maybe not so much.Juanita (talk) 00:28, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Proposed findings of fact
Template
1) {text of proposed finding of fact}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
2) {text of proposed finding of fact}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Proposed remedies
Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.
Template
1) {text of proposed remedy}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
2) {text of proposed remedy}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Proposed enforcement
Template
1) {text of proposed enforcement}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
2) {text of proposed enforcement}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Proposals by User:Kendrick7
Proposed principles
Biographies of Living Persons
1) Creating a wikipedia article on a living person for the purpose of smearing their reputation in retribution for the person's criticism of, or disagreement with, your personal ideology is contrary to the spirit of WP:BLP, and is an especially egregious violation of WP:SOAP. Encouraging other editors to create attack biographies on perceived shared enemies shows a blatant disregard for the WP:BLP guideline.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
- Proposed as a principle which Zeq's instructions on the mailing list violated. I found this particularly distasteful , in light of the community's flailing over BLP issues lately, that any editor would encourage this. Like throwing gasoline on a fire, in my opinion. -- Kendrick7talk 16:43, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Template
2) {text of Proposed principle}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Proposed findings of fact
Template
1) {text of proposed finding of fact}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
2) {text of proposed finding of fact}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Proposed remedies
Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.
Template
1) {text of proposed remedy}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
2) {text of proposed remedy}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Proposed enforcement
Template
1) {text of proposed enforcement}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
2) {text of proposed enforcement}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Proposals by User:Z
Proposed principles
Template
1) {text of Proposed principle}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
2) {text of Proposed principle}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Proposed findings of fact
Template
1) {text of proposed finding of fact}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
2) {text of proposed finding of fact}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Proposed remedies
Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.
Template
1) {text of proposed remedy}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
2) {text of proposed remedy}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Proposed enforcement
Template
1) {text of proposed enforcement}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
2) {text of proposed enforcement}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Analysis of evidence
Place here items of evidence (with diffs) and detailed analysis
Template
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
General discussion
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others: