Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:17, 28 May 2008

I am not Gilead.

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. Gni (talk) 13:35, 7 May 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, EdJohnston (talk) 20:08, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Gni, I've replied here on my talk page to your message there. --Coppertwig (talk) 12:32, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

My Email to EdJohnston

For the record:

Hi EdJohnston,

Although I strongly deny any violations of Misplaced Pages policy, guidelines, or spirit, I am certainly open to compromise. (I notice, though, that attempts to impugn me on various forums are proceding swiftly.)

Let me start by elaborating just a bit on the first part of my opening sentence. I honestly don't think I am "COI-affected," and I don't see how such a conclusion can be reached based on the facts. The facts a) are that I seem to have posted only a couple of times from an IP address tied to CAMERA, and b) that I've been involved in an extremely contentious content dispute with Boodlesthecat, in which -- if cited and notable additions to articles must be classified into artificial groups -- my additions (or rather, attempts at additions) have tended to relay information that might be described as positive, whereas his seem to be exclusively geared toward casting the organization in a harsh light. But my attempted additions to this article are in no way 'promotional,' are not spam, and seem to fit well within the bounds of reasonable, legitimate edits. (Please do study the history if you haven't yet.) I closely read the COI page, and don't see that I've violated its provisions at all. I am not editing on behalf of CAMERA.

The other possible issue is whether my edits have been disruptive. Here, I say with equal confidence that they have not been. If anything, Boodlesthecat's behavior on this page has been much more disruptive than my own. The article currently reads according to his knee-jerk reverts of my contributions. In other words, I've backed off, he hasn't. He has refused my request that the Mediation Cabal weigh in. He uses the discussion page as a soapbox in violation of Misplaced Pages policy (..."McCarthyism" to bully their positions into the public psyche are (as McCarthyism always has been) an indication of weakness of position. What else are we to make of such efforts as "Jewish Defamers of Israel", if not, at bottom, an indication that one's attempts at indoctrination are threatened from within, especially among a younger generation...") He's attempted to publicly guess and 'out' my identity in utter violation of Misplaced Pages policy. He's ignored the substance of much of the discussion, and even ignored the few rare and precious moments when statements by his allies have concurred with my own statements. And he has admitted to not even reading a detailed discussion before he reverted one of my edits. Again, please look at my contributions to the discussion page, and the article. Keeping in mind the context of dispute, are they not exactly the type of discussion that Misplaced Pages encourages? Are any of my edits outrageous? Not at all (with the possible exception of one edit I made, and maybe shouldn't have, in an attempt to prove a point about inconsistent logic).

The record of my edits and discussion is clear. At some point, when the smoke hopefully clears, neutral admins, mediators and arbitrators will look at this record and judge by it.

But enough of that. Onto the second half of my email. I am open to compromise. But a solution in which I refrain from editing and Boodlesthecat is able to continue his (what I see as) bullying edits and censorship is not something I can agree to. And my willingness to give up certain rights is in no way an admission to wrong-doing. The above comments should make that perfectly clear. Any concessions are instead a willingness to compromise for the sake of Misplaced Pages's sanity, and for the sake of preventing myself and several others from behaving like 6th graders and to avoid Lord of the Flies-type behavior.

That said, here is one possible proposal for your consideration -- and please keep in mind that I'm going to type this spontaniously, train-of-thought-like, so I reserve the right to refine and rethink the proposal. Also, I'm putting this forward in good-faith, as an honest attempt at a middle-of-the-road solution, and not in an attempt to set an "opening position" from which to negotiate. I don't want it held against me, then, if Boodlesthecat counters with a unconciliatory proposal. Here is my thought:

• I will avoid editing the CAMERA article if and only if Boodlesthecat also avoids doing so.
• The open content disputes between us -- including but not necessarily limited to the dispute over the Koch quote and the praise/criticism section -- will go to mediation or arbitration.
• He will not assert as fact anywhere on Misplaced Pages the unproven speculation that I have a COI. (I say anywhere on Misplaced Pages because he appears to be watching my every move, and following me into various pages that I edit.)
• I will avoid adding CAMERA citations to articles if he avoids removing CAMERA citations from articles.
• I may continue to edit articles related to the Middle East conflict with good-faith, bold edits. He may do so as well. Future disputes between us on content in these various articles will be civilly discussed on the discussion pages, and failing the resolution there, both parties will agree to mediation, either by the Cabal or via formal mediation.

I look forward to your reply,

Gni

Notice of editing restriction

Based on discussion at the administrators' noticeboard regarding a possible conflict of interest, I'm going to restrict you from editing the article Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America. You are free to discuss issues on the talk page, and to pursue dispute resolution 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 blocks for edit-warring and block evasion. 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 admins' noticeboard or incidents board. Any sanction may be reviewed by the Arbitration Committee, though other means should be exhausted first; to request a review by the Committee, you may place a request at the requests for arbitration page. MastCell  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: Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration#Israeli Wiki Lobbying. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 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. Sam Blacketer (talk) 21:58, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/CAMERA lobbying

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/CAMERA lobbying/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/CAMERA lobbying/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, — Rlevse • Talk • 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. Juanita (talk) 16:22, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Given that CAMERA has sponsored such delightful lovefests to promote intercommunal harmony as Israel's Jewish Defamers], I find Joseph Welch'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?" Boodlesthecat 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. Gni (talk) 03:11, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

hey, just another "Jewish defamer" callin' em as I see 'em. :) Boodlesthecat 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. Gni (talk) 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. Gni (talk) 22:06, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Final decision in CAMERA lobbying arbitration case

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. 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. Sanctions previously imposed are confirmed. An amnesty is extended towards any editors who may have been involved in this external group and who have not been sanctioned for their participation in it. This is coupled with an expectation that these editors will not participate in similar efforts in the future. Members of the community who may have information regarding similar efforts by external groups to unduly influence our content are urged to forward that information to the Committee for review. Hypnosadist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is admonished to maintain an appropriate level of professionalism at all times, and to avoid misrepresenting Misplaced Pages policy to other editors. For the committee, — Rlevse • Talk • 20:17, 28 May 2008 (UTC)