| Revision as of 04:33, 9 May 2008 editJudadem (talk | contribs)68 edits →Statement Regarding Arbitration Case← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 17:02, 31 May 2008 edit undoGni (talk | contribs)387 edits ←Blanked the page | ||
| (3 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| ==Statement Regarding Arbitration Case== | |||
| '''Statement by Gni''' | |||
| I hope the Arbitration Committee will consider the following, very serious issues related to this case, and hope that this statement will inspire you to consider whether irresponsible banning is just as dangerous as, or in fact more dangerous than, off-Misplaced Pages discussion of articles. | |||
| The first important point is that I was banned based only on speculation of my identity. | |||
| The next question raised is hypothetical, but also important. What if, hypothetically, I actually were the offline person I'm accused of being? Is there grounds, even in that case, for a ban? Can a ban based on comments made off Misplaced Pages, or should any bans be based only on behavior ''on'' Misplaced Pages, as evidenced by editing history? | |||
| And then a further hypothetical question: Suppose that we did concretely know a real-world person's Misplaced Pages pseudonym, and that, hypothetically, it were reasonable to ban someone based on statements he made off Misplaced Pages. Do any of the statements made off Misplaced Pages by the person I'm accused of being, Gilead Ini, actually warrant a ban? | |||
| These issues and questions certainly tie directly to my case -- Moreschi wrote on my ban log that I was "Attempting to undermine Misplaced Pages's integrity by organising off-wiki meatpuppetry to push a nationalist agenda," though all of these points are dubious at best, and false at worst -- but they also are most relevant to Misplaced Pages's direction in general. | |||
| '''Ban on Gni Based Only on Speculation''' | |||
| It is shocking and dangerous that I was banned based on pure speculation about my offline identity, and nothing else. It's outrageous because the 'evidence' cited hardly proves that I'm Gilead Ini, and so does not warrant ban. It's dangerous because the precedent set of banning people based on vague interpretations instead of facts, and for the unrestrained McCarthy-like atmosphere that it has the potential to encourage (and indeed has encouraged). | |||
| The supposed evidence that 'proves' Gilead Ini is Gni is non-existent. Moreschi asserts in his statement that the evidence against me is "clear cut." But he cites no clear cut evidence, and I see no clear cut evidence in Electronic Intifada's files (whether accurate or not). | |||
| Bans of other editors appear also to be problematic, and the rational for these bans give the impression of an unrestrained and irresponsible purge: Someone named Jamesegarner is banned, according to the Statement by Moreschi , for no reason other than that he "is mentioned" and is "clearly part of the same crowd." In that same statement, Judadem is banned based on the following: He apparently "does not come up in the Israpedia archives but, judging from his contributions, is obviously another disruptive meatpuppet." | |||
| I ask the Arbitration Committee to consider this key question: What is the burden of evidence needed before banning someone? In this case, are the bans based on sufficient evidence? And even if so, shouldn't the banned parties be presented with this evidence? (Screen stalker also raises this concern on his talk page: ) | |||
| I also hope you will consider that the mere allegation that Gni is Gilead Ini, especially when based on such flimsy 'evidence,' seems to be an overt and flagrant violation of the basic policy described as follows on the conflict of interest page: "Revealing the names of pseudonymous editors is in all cases against basic policy." (Some of the attempts to publicly accuse Gni of being Gilead Ini are here and here .) | |||
| A piece of 'evidence' on the adminstrators noticeboard was that I was barred from editing the CAMERA article due to a perceived conflict of interest. Please note that I had intended to appeal that ban, which disregards the COI policy in that this policy makes clear that in the end, it's the edits which determine whether someone is influenced by a conflict of interest. More importantly, even if that ban were legitimate, it still hardly suffices as evidence that I am Gilead Ini. | |||
| Bans Are Not Based On Misplaced Pages Contributions | |||
| For the above reasons alone, I believe my ban should be overturned and that administrators should be reminded that they should not lightly choose use their banning powers. | |||
| But let's say, for the sake of argument, that guessing the identity of pseudonyms based on amateur and sleuth work, and that banning according to these guesses, is actually reasonable. This would then leave the question of whether bans should be doled out based on offline activity; or conversely, if they should actually be based on the one concrete and relevant body of evidence: Edit histories. I would guess, and established Misplaced Pages policies suggest, that it is the latter. | |||
| As you surely realize, the importance of this question cannot be understated. Allowing things other than edit history to determine whether an editor can participate in building the encyclopedia is most dangerous. Consider the potential consequences of this precedent. What is to prevent someone from then banning a pseudonym because his offline identity (or alleged offline identity) does not have a NPOV? And yet, of course it's true that all real world people have points of view. And so it shouldn't be the fact that they have a point of view that is grounds for banning. It must only be the content of their edits. | |||
| '''The Actual Content of Offline Discussion Does Not Warrant Ban''' | |||
| As noted above, it seems clear that the ban is problematic 1) because it is based on flimsy 'evidence' that fails to concretely tie Gni to Gilead Ini, and 2) because regardless, there is nothing in my edit history that warrants a ban. | |||
| But, again for the sake of argument, let's assume that you deem editors can be banned based on offline activity, and that there is proof that the editors being banned are indisputably part of this activity. The question would remain: what did these people do offline to warrant a ban? | |||
| First, let me address the accusations being tossed around that the offline forum is an example of "meat puppetry" and some sort of attempt to "subvert" Misplaced Pages. Nothing in the Electronic Intifada files suggests that anyone is guilty of meat puppetry. There is nothing showing that any edits were made "on behalf of or as proxy for another editor." It is not meat puppetry, it was discussion, and it was discussion organized based on a clear urging by the organizer that participants in the discussion they should adhere to Misplaced Pages policy and guidelines, and based on the belief that if more people edited according to these guidelines, encyclopedia articles about the Middle East -- which the organizer clearly believed were skewed in one particular direction, would be more accurate, reliable and fair. | |||
| The discussion, indeed, might not be all that different some off-Misplaced Pages discussions shown in this Youtube documentary about Misplaced Pages: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WMSinyx_Ab0 | |||
| Shall everyone shown here be tracked down and banned for discussing or instructing about Misplaced Pages offline? Obviously not. | |||
| Perhaps this offline discussion isn't exactly analogous to what is shown in the video. And perhaps we all feel, looking back over this issue, that there are better ways to try to remedy what one sees, rightly or wrongly, as a skew in Misplaced Pages articles. But even if it isn't something that one believes to be ideal, the off-Wiki forum is far from what some frenzied editors and/or admins made it out to be in the discussion pages. It isn't some nefarious cabal out to "undermine" Misplaced Pages. | |||
| '''Guilt by Association''' | |||
| Another point is that, while it is possible that one or more contributors to the off-Wiki discussion violated some sort of policy, it seems clear that this person's behavior is being unjustly used to smear other contributors who, it's appropriate to presume, sought nothing but to talk about and improve Misplaced Pages in line with its policies. | |||
| '''Admins are not Immune to Mideast Partisanship''' | |||
| A final point is that this whole discussion, and that on the admin notice board, make clear that administrators can't be expected to be immune from the partisanship that plagues Middle East issues. I hope you will seriously consider, along with the above points, requiring administrators, before or while banning somebody, to log in explicit detail the diffs which caused them to decided on the ban, and a clear explanation of how these diffs violate any specific policies. That way the community can more easily hold admins accountable for their most serious decisions. ] (]) 13:35, 7 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :Hi. dadujem apparently disagrees with you, on penalizing people for activites outside of Misplaced Pages. See this talk page: ]. --] (]) 14:36, 7 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :: i think steve has had an identity crisis and attributed his 'interpretation' by judadum to another party dajudem. i also believe steve's "penalizing people for activities outside of Misplaced Pages" demonstrates ignorance of what i said with his interpretation of what i said. but this is your page Gni and i apologize for the intrusion.] (]) 04:33, 9 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ==Hello message== | |||
| Hi, I noticed some of your edits. | |||
| '''Welcome!''' | |||
| Hello, {{PAGENAME}}, and ] to Misplaced Pages! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| I hope you enjoy editing here and being a ]! Please ] on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out ] or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! ←]] 04:32, 12 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Deleting sourced information in ] == | |||
| Please don't delete sourced information like you did in the ] article. Since you work for CAMERA, deleting sourced criticism of your organization is a serious conflict of interest. The material you deleted without explanation is:<blockquote>Journalist and author Robert I. Friedman wrote in 1987 that "CAMERA, the A.D.L., AIPAC and the rest of the lobby don't want fairness, but bias in their favor. And they are prepared to use McCarthyite tactics, as well as the power and money of pro-Israel PACs, to get whatever Israel wants."<ref>Robert I. Friedman. ''The lobby: Jewish political power and American foreign policy.'' ''The Nation'' 244.(June 6, 1987).</ref> | |||
| </blockquote> ] <sup>'']''</sup> 21:19, 24 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| You've gotten nowhere with your ], except to state that on a minimal number of occasions I had edited from a computer with the same IP address that CAMERA apparently uses. This is hardly evidence of COI, and I will repeat yet again, there is no conflict of interest. I suspect that your continued allegations both here and in discussion pages and forums might eventually be regarded as harassment and incivility. | |||
| That said, I'll reinsert your criticism in the criticism section, which will be below the praise and testimomial sections. ] (]) 21:57, 24 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :Are the following comments about your behavior by admins (not me) "harrassment and incivility"?: | |||
| *"But his protestations about not promoting Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America don't appear convincing. The evidence already presented at WP:COIN seems to show that he (Gni) edited Misplaced Pages from a computer in CAMERA's offices." | |||
| *"it certainly appears that you are merely hunting through EVERYTHING that Boodles has done and everything he does in the hopes of finding some sort of "impropriety" that you can make "stick". Look, stop trying to seek revenge against him because you consider him some sort of enemy. This is stalking and is wrong. Instead, return to editing articles, though I would avoid editing the CAMERA article, or any articles related to that one, as your edits there have gotten you into some trouble in the recent past." | |||
| *"The tie connecting the IP edits (discussed more clearly at COIN) to the CAMERA organization is clear." | |||
| *"The evidence for promotional editing on the articles listed at COIN is so strong that we should be warning the COI-affected editors about possible blocks if they don't desist. Coyness about personal identity sounds incongruous when it comes from the advocate of a political action group that is extremely forceful in putting its own views forward." | |||
| :You can keep your head in the sand about this if you wish, but ultimately its going to turn out negatively for you, and give your organization a black eye to boot. ] <sup>'']''</sup> 00:32, 25 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| First and foremost, none of the admins seemed to be convinced enough to bar me from editing, and for good reason. As the source of more than one of the above quotes admitted on your talk page, "One option is to designate a specific set of COI-affected editors who we request not to touch the CAMERA article. That would certainly take a lot of evidence, since it most cases we don't have proof of COI, we just have the record of past edits that may be considered promotional in nature. Someone has to go and dig up those edits, if you expect the COIN report to get any traction with administrators." Obviously the COIN report didn't get real traction with administrators. Again this was for good reason. | |||
| But to answer your vexatious question: Are the above statements harassment and uncivil? Let's see... | |||
| On bullet point one, the admin says that evidence seems to show that I edited Misplaced Pages from a computer in CAMERA's offices. I'd say that's rather close to a statement of fact, except I'd stop just a bit short of what he/she said -- the ''fact'' is that I had, on very few occasions, edited from that IP address, which is not necessarily the same as editing from the CAMERA office. | |||
| Bullet point two I would definitely describe as a) outrageously wrong, and b) unfairly assuming bad faith. | |||
| Bullet point three seems to be a rather straightforward observation. There seems to have been an overlap of IP addresses on very few occasions. | |||
| Bullet point four is rather prejudicial, and not very thought out in my opinion. | |||
| Of course, the difference between all the above -- those that are more fact-based and even those that I disagree with especially strongly -- and your behavior is your ''pattern'' of aggressive, uncivil comments and behavior toward me, and your reflexive reverting, often without discussion, of almost any edits I make. | |||
| So perhaps you keep your threats to yourself, and maybe even think about your own behavior. ] (]) 01:12, 25 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == 3RR == | |||
| You should probably read ] before you report people for violating it. Please don't harass me any more with bogus complaints. ] <sup>'']''</sup> 03:13, 25 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Email == | |||
| Hello Gni. If you are willing to discuss issues by email, please change your account preferences to add an email address. Receipt of incoming email does not endanger your privacy. You can reply on-wiki if you wish, which avoids the need to send any outgoing email. Thanks, ] (]) 20:08, 25 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :Gni, I've replied ] to your message there. --] (]) 12:32, 26 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Notice of editing restriction == | |||
| Based on discussion at the regarding a possible ], I'm going to restrict you from editing the article ]. You are free to discuss issues on the talk page, and to pursue ] over content issues, but if you edit the article directly your account will be blocked. The basis for this restriction is that you have an apparent conflict of interest and are editing in a problematic way, as exemplified by . I would additionally urge you to be circumspect about editing related articles in a way which advances the interests of CAMERA at the expense of Misplaced Pages's content and conduct policies, as such actions may lead to further restrictions. | |||
| If you would like to appeal this restriction, which is effective immediately, you may post a request for review at the ] or ]. Any sanction may be reviewed by the ], though other means should be exhausted first; to request a review by the Committee, you may place a request at ]. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 16:49, 27 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ==Notice of discussion== | |||
| Here -> http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents/Wikilobby_campaign | |||
| == FYI - arbitration on Israeli Wiki Lobbying == | |||
| I have filed an arbitration request in regards to the Israeli Wiki Lobbying and attacks uncovered: ]. <span style="font-variant:small-caps"><font color="#800080">] § ]/]</font></span> 16:18, 23 April 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Unblock == | |||
| I've unblocked you to allow you to participate in the arbitration case. For the time being, please don't edit other pages. ] (]) 21:58, 29 April 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ==]== | |||
| An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located ]. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, ]. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, ]. | |||
| On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, <span style="font-family: verdana;"> — ] • ] • </span> 22:49, 29 April 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ==Great Statement== | |||
| As Oscar Wilde was supposed to have said to Whistler, regarding something Whistler had said: "I wish I'd said that." And Whistler's answer: "You will, Oscar, you will." There is nothing in it that I don't agree with 100%! I hope (for Wiki's sake as much as anyone's) that the arbitrators take your words to heart. All best. ] (]) 16:22, 7 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :Given that CAMERA has sponsored such delightful lovefests to promote intercommunal harmony as ], I find ]'s question to Joe McCarthy a more apt quote: ""You've done enough. Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last? Have you left no sense of decency?" ] <sup>'']''</sup> 16:31, 7 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::Thanks, Boodlesthecat, for continuing to demonstrate your utter disregard for the Wikipedian principle -- and societal principle -- of civility. I hope you're very proud. ] (]) 03:11, 8 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::hey, just another "Jewish defamer" callin' em as I see 'em. :) ] <sup>'']''</sup> 03:14, 8 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Wow. Three minutes after I post a comment on my own talk page, and you reply. I kindly request that you stop leaving these unwanted and hostile messages on my user talk page, Boodlesthecat. Thanks for complying. ] (]) 03:20, 8 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| Similarly, hostile and sarcastic comments by anonymous user 64.230.95.56 are not welcome on my talk page. They have been removed, and seem to run counter to Misplaced Pages's guidelines. ] (]) 22:06, 8 May 2008 (UTC) | |||