Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/CAMERA lobbying/Workshop

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&mdash;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.

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? &lt;eleland/talkedits&gt; 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  witchhunt inquiry.  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)


 * 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.
 * I would guess that would mean the good faith and NPOV shown by our prosecutors (ie you folks) as well? Juanita (talk) 04:31, 9 May 2008 (UTC)


 * 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."

http://209.85.173.104/search?q=cache:5cZUBPQ1NfwJ:groups.yahoo.com/group/wikiforpalestine/+wikiforpalestine&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us

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)


 * Are you two really still trying to put this red herring into play? No amount of half-cocked conjecture and projections of your own misdeeds onto another group is in any way relevant to this arbitration process.  No other group can or should suffer the consequences that Isra-Pedia has until and unless there is evidence brought forth to justify it.  Finger-pointing from the accused, with ZERO material to back it up, isn't winning anyone over here, it seems. Tarc (talk) 13:14, 12 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:
 * From two previous cases:
 * "It is rarely possible to determine with complete certainty whether several editors from the same IP or corporate server are sockpuppets, meat puppets, or acquaintances who happen to edit Wikipedia. In such cases, remedies may be fashioned which are based on the behavior of the user rather than their identity. The Arbitration Committee may determine that editors who edit with the same agenda and make the same types of edits be treated as a single editor."
 * Act like a duck and you'll get treated like a duck. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 23:05, 11 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * We are not the same user. Juanita (talk) 21:26, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The duck-treatment came prior to duck-behavior, sorry. Juanita (talk) 03:09, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 'total noise and attacks only now'-- that wouldn't be an expression of your personal prejudice POV would it? Am I to understand that you do not want us to participate in our own defenses? How can that be fair? Juanita (talk) 06:09, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * perhaps lawrence only wants the harmony of the likeminded. but to get there lawrence has to mis-characterize my position. i am absolutely against agenda driven entities, both known (israpedia/camera and unknown (wikiforpalestine). my efforts have been centered around the problem of the known unknowns such as wikiforpalestine and the unknown unknowns which infect the host wiki and work to subvert wiki. to say that they don't exist is to say that the 12 members of wikiforpalestine do not exist. i have also stated that dieweisserose openly advocated for wikiforpalestine without recrimination years before this israpedia/camera debacle. lawrence may succeed in terminating me but wiki will still have the stealth problem of agenda driven groups within the host wiki. harmony can only exist when discord is abolished and group-think takes over. Davidg (talk) 06:32, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * you can't uphold wiki principles by always attacking another group, if your group is the one being questioned. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 13:36, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * You know that both groups exist and both are presumably pushing their own agenda. Take a look at this pageand see if you don't get yet another group, clearly demonstrating their POV.  But the wiki group was private.  They may be innocent as the driven snow of anything but their POV edits on wiki. On the other hand, these 11/12 editors may be the very ones pushing for sanctions.  We know the group was/is following this discussion.  Why don't they come forward now and acknowledge who they are?  Let them prove that they are not our prosecutors.Juanita (talk) 05:06, 14 May 2008 (UTC)


 * "you can't uphold wiki principles by always attacking another group, if your group is the one being questioned. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 13:36, 12 May 2008 (UTC)"

steve, i am not nor have i ever been a member of israpedia. i have argued that even if wiki principles are imperfectly applied the members of israpedia should suffer the consequences of their actions. what i am saying here is that wiki is making a statement and the clarity of that statement is defined in the enforcement of principles. since wiki is imperfect it will make imperfect applications. wiki will define itself within the context of that imperfection. if there exist another 'agenda driven group' such as wikiforpalestine which was promoted by one DieWeisseRose within the body wiki and wiki choses to ignore that group then the wiki principles are not principles. principles preclude selective enforcement. if wiki is/was ignorant of DieWeisseRose's wikiforpalestine and punished israpedia alone, then the wiki principles, although imperfectly applied, remain true. and that is why i expose, not attack, DieWeisseRose's wikiforpalestine and have done so repeatedly. when the smoke clears will wiki see DieWeisseRose's wikiforpalestine in the mirror vis-à-vis Dorian Grey? Davidg (talk) 05:47, 14 May 2008 (UTC)


 * So far, you have not provided any reasons for lifting the ban on you, and have provided no justification for lifting your ban. It seems you are not even trying to provide any reasons. in fact, it sounds like you are encouraging us to keep the ban on you and Dadujem, since you are advocating a ban for wikiforPalestine, which you openly equate with CAMERA. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 14:52, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Steve, no evidence has been presented so i cannot refute that evidence. in fact it has been asked by an 'arb' to produce just such evidence. if you steve can produce an iota of evidence or source to that evidence please present it.

User:Davidg has no blocks, contribs, deleted contribs, nor log entries that I can find. Apparently it's never been used as an account at all, BUT User:Judadem signs himself as Davidg, as seen here. I've seen elsewhere on en.wiki, but can't recall where, and it's been confirmed that User:Judadem and User:Dajudem (obvious anagrams as mentioned already) edit from the same IP but use different computers. If meatpuppetry concerns existed or continue, present the evidence in this case. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:13, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

meatpuppetry!? where's the beef, steve? if you think a couple are by definition meatpuppets to each other then think Mary Matalin & James Carville and disabuse yourself of that view.Davidg (talk) 04:59, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I have no evidence against you, and I have no plans to collect or present any evidence on this item. my comments dealt mainly with the tenor of this ArbCom case. if there is no evidence, then that would be an important point here as well. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 14:10, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Template
3)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

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=

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:
 * Proposed. Applies to Gni and Zeq in particular. -- ChrisO (talk) 12:09, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
 * You can't have principles apply 'particularly' to certain individuals. They apply equally to all or not at all.Juanita (talk) 04:44, 9 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * targeted application of principles is to knowingly use selective enforcement toward one group and not another. is that or is that not a non neutral point of view?? in this case by an administrator!Davidg (talk) 02:45, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

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:
 * Proposed, in relation to Zeq's advocacy of the creation of attack pages as a means of getting them a high Google ranking. -- ChrisO (talk) 12:09, 3 May 2008 (UTC)


 * 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 parties:
 * Proposed. -- ChrisO (talk) 12:09, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Sure, how long is "over a period of time?" Should they be given any warnings first?  Should they be given notice of exactly what policy they are not conforming to? Should they be told just what behavior is non-conforming?  Should they be given information regarding how to appeal their ban along with their ban? What safeguards are in place to insure that administrators who edit in a contentious area are not applying sanctions only to people who do not share their POV?  These are all legitimate concerns. Juanita (talk) 07:00, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment by others:
 * as wikiworld evolves/devolves toward a uniformity, arbitrarily defined by some self-defined collective as neutral, a brave new world whose motif will be "conform or else"Davidg (talk) 00:05, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

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.

4.1) Contributors are expected to abide by Wikipedia's conflict of interest and take all challenges seriously with detailed and/or convincing denials. Failure to do so is bound to cast a shadow over their involvement in the article and related articles. Further mainspace edits in these articles should not be made if there is continued and reasonable suspicion of personal involvement.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Needs a lot more than originally provided - previous arbitrations seem to have justified a flat refusal to confirm or deny CoI/personal involvement. (And, incidentally, seem to have justified flat refusal to confirm or deny the operating of abusive sock-puppets). This kind of thing allows cheating editors to prosper, provided they're brazen enough about it (and cheating supporters harass anyone challenging them). At the risk of repeating myself, the community knew that User:Zeq was cheating and even joked about it. It's gravely unsatisfactory that he's only stopped because he got ridiculously over-confident and came to think he had total impunity. PRtalk 09:30, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

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:
 * Proposed as a generally applicable principle in cases of this nature. -- ChrisO (talk) 12:09, 3 May 2008 (UTC)


 * 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 parties:
 * Proposed. -- ChrisO (talk) 12:09, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
 * It only requires a fair reading of the evidence in sequence to see that in general the assumption of good faith, civility et al was not tendered to the members of the Israpedia group. The worst was assumed of anyone connected with it.Juanita (talk) 03:12, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * See Lack of Civility and AGF by fellow Wikipedians for a few examples demonstrated in the opening days of this discussion. More recently see the discussion page associated with this workshop.
 * Comment by others:

Harassment
7) Harassment of any editor is not tolerated on Wikipedia.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Proposed, in relation to Zeq's targeting of Tarc. -- ChrisO (talk) 12:09, 3 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Probably goes without saying that I am in support of this one, as well as #8. Tarc (talk) 13:29, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Personal attacks
8) Personal attacks are expressly prohibited.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Proposed, in relation to Zeq's targeting of Tarc. -- ChrisO (talk) 12:09, 3 May 2008 (UTC)


 * 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:
 * Proposed, in relation to Zeq's advocacy of getting other editors sanctioned by provoking them into edit wars. -- ChrisO (talk) 12:09, 3 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * It will be useful to pass this resolution, but we need a lot more. These are not unresolvable "content disputes", they're cheating. And the community isn't stupid, we know all about it - User:Zeq was clearly driving off really off good, scholarly editors - but was supported by other cheating editors and encouraged to laugh it off. There are solutions, but first we have to recognize that this small proposal targets a very large, serious and damaging problem. PRtalk 08:23, 12 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Essentially moot now since he hasn't been here in almost a year, but if ever returns, the entire Zeq-Zero relation should be reevaluated in the light of all this, esp. Zeq's editor-baiting.  IIRC, the last straw for Zero was the brouhaha over his deletion of Zeq's provocative Apes and Pigs article. Tarc (talk) 13:21, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

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 parties:
 * Proposed.-- ChrisO (talk) 12:09, 3 May 2008 (UTC)


 * 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 parties:
 * Proposed. -- ChrisO (talk) 12:09, 3 May 2008 (UTC)


 * 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)


 * This is pretty much the core of the problem, those that approach the Wiki with the explicit intent to stoke conflict. Tarc (talk) 13:28, 12 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:
 * Proposed. Overtly adversarial conduct is at the root of our problems with many nationalist conflicts on Wikipedia, and this case is no different. -- ChrisO (talk) 12:09, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Overtly adversarial? The contents of private emails were not 'overtly adversarial.'  The only way to get overtly adversarial is to look at individual edits. In no way have I treated Wikipedia as a theatre of conflict -- except in this adversarial setting where I have been accused.  Certainly the accusations that have been leveled at me and my email group have been heinous enough that to respond with some sort of passion should be readily understandable.  Whatever some people may think, as I had to say before, the members of Israpedia were all thinking individuals, with their own beliefs and principles.  We are not and never were a little bot army for CAMERA, marching into Wikipedia trying to inject the sin of zionism into the world's body, some stealth boogeyman, as has been implied (even insisted on)by some here. The very words of the Electronic Intifada were used to characterise our words and behavior.   Electronic Intifada "The Electronic Intifada (EI), found at electronicIntifada.net, publishes news, commentary, analysis, and reference materials about the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict from a Palestinian perspective. EI is the leading Palestinian portal for information about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and its depiction in the media." By accusing us with the words of EI, you have shown yourself guilty of what you are say we are.  You have become a party to its agenda.     I want the right to put my knowledge and experience into wiki just like everyone else, whether they are pro-Palestinian and anti-Zionist or anti-Palestinian and pro-Zionist.  Judge me by my edits, not by subjective criteria as above. Juanita (talk) 03:52, 12 May 2008 (UTC)


 * 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 parties:
 * Proposed. -- ChrisO (talk) 12:09, 3 May 2008 (UTC)


 * 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)

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. &lt;eleland/talkedits&gt; 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)
 * Sorry, a poor attempt at humour. It is gone.  Juanita (talk) 23:21, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The point was that there is no way that an anti-Zionist is going to edit for a Zionist, or vice-versa. An unrealistic concept at best. Juanita (talk) 05:53, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * O RLY? &lt;eleland/talkedits&gt; 04:17, 12 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)

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:

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:

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. There seems to be little reason for any advocacy group or lobbying group to send 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. The reason is that any member, activist or leader of any activist group is free to do any such edits themselves anyway. so why send anyone else here?

we really need to set a precedent. We could potentially be inundated by various lobbying groups. --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.


 * 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)


 * "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)
 * that would be fairer, but is not possible as one group managed to be considerably 'stealthier' (to use the words of the 'prosecution') than the other. Juanita (talk) 03:15, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * You are acting under some sort of ipso facto that the existence of wikiforpalestine itself automatically places them on the same table of guilt as Isra-Pedia, that all that is lacking is that they have not been "caught" yet. This is a ridiculous tangent to keep pursuing. Tarc (talk) 16:05, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Not at all ridiculous. Why would you think so?  The group required proof of anti-Zionist (POV) edits for entry. But they are not on trial here, just Israpedia. Juanita (talk) 04:45, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Template
2) {text of Proposed principle}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

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:

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:

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:
 * Nope. Off-wiki activities can have a deleterious effect on Wikipedia, and will be taken into account if necessary. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 16:45, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Dajudem -- One of those safety nets is in operation right now; that's why we're here. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 03:32, 10 May 2008 (UTC)


 * 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 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,User:Gni, you've no right to cry "witch hunt!" when you've been caught, metaphorically speaking of course, in a black pointy hat, stirring eye of newt and toe of frog into a bubbling cauldron. &lt;eleland/talkedits&gt; 06:41, 9 May 2008 (UTC)refactored 16:34, 11 May 2008 (UTC) : obviously the reference to being a "witch" is just a riff on the metaphor of a "witch hunt," and not meant to liken anybody to an actual occult sorcerer (!?) oh, and I might as well apologize pre-emptively for a quoting a well known antisemite with the newt and frog business... &lt;eleland/talkedits&gt;
 * What a nasty little 'refactoring' job. Even managing to get a little antisemitism into the apology. So clever, Eleland. Juanita (talk) 04:51, 13 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)
 * 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)

Sanctions 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 Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles, where y'all have been listed already. Tarc (talk) 16:59, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Tarc, you seem to misunderstand what I'm suggesting. Yes, there is already a list of banned users along with vague descriptions of their alleged misconduct. But this, for example, doesn't tell us anything. It says he was blocked (absurdly, imho) for being a meat puppet. Where are the diffs? Where is the relevant clause of the meat-puppet policy that the diffs violate? It is that type of detailed documentation that I think will encourage more thoughtful banning.Gni (talk) 14:36, 11 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)
 * To educate yourself now, just read over the previous dispute resolutions and policy pages. Talk to your room mate who has been editing since 2005. The fact that you were recruited to Wiki without a knowledge of the rules, but with a specific goal in mind, is one of the relevant issues I think..--69.210.8.93 (talk) 06:13, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * You don't have your facts correct. My roommate has not been editing since 2005, I have. It was I who joined the Israpedia group. It is not a fact that I was recruited to Wiki with a specific goal in mind. If you read my previous statements I never got involved with personalities nor arguments here.  My edits were verifiable and factual and in general no one took issue with me.  The reason I am not clear on what I am being charged with is 1)I was never warned, 2)I was banned for one thing on my talk page and another on the statement by the admins, 3) I was not presented with evidence of editing 'issues' or 'diffs' that violated any rules. It is basically clear that the admins banned anyone who was a member of Israpedia and made any edits during that time.   It strikes me that there could be a warning form that could be given that carries all the information regarding an infraction, like a traffic ticket. Bannings and blocks should provide even more documentation.  Juanita (talk) 06:35, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

"Evidence" must be reliable
3) Evidence that is not reliable enough to use for a Wikipedia article is not reliable enough to use as "evidence" toward sanctioning editors.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * This principle is self-explanatory and is hopefully self-evident. In this particular case, it should be clear that evidence provided by someone who is apparently employed by Electronic Intifada, an organization obviously hostile to Israel and CAMERA and thus with motive to play with the evidence, with no "chain-of-custody," and absolutely no way of knowing whether it has been doctored, cannot be considered reliable (just as it would not be considered reliable according to Wikipedia article standards). Gni (talk) 23:13, 15 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Is this a denial that CAMERA representatives, including Gilead Ini, who specifically referenced the failure of their project in the news media, wrote the offending mails? Lawrence Cohen § t/e 23:15, 15 May 2008 (UTC)


 * It's a proposed principle.Gni (talk) 22:56, 16 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Completely ignores the fact that the sanctions handed down by the 3 administrators was based on their viewing of the Isra-Pedia a mail archive in its entirety. The insinuation that this case is built solely on what EI published on its website is an ever-increasingly tired canard that has been repeated far too often around here. Tarc (talk) 00:38, 16 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually, Tarc, what you are saying is irrelevant to my point. The 3 administrators saw what an employee of Electronic Intifada claims is the entirety of the discussion. I'm sure the employee also assured you that the discussion was unaltered. My point is that there is absolutely no way of knowing if that's true, and that the source is suspect. Gni (talk) 22:56, 16 May 2008 (UTC)


 * No, what you are saying has no relevance, I'm afraid. From Zeq's revealing discussions of me personally to instances of an Israpedia poster saying "I'm going to edit this on this date, and lo and behold there's a corresponding wikipedia edit at that exact time, the e-mail dump provided is most certainly genuine.  These assertions of fraud or conspiracy on the part of those that exposed your group simply come across as a case of sour grapes, and have really done more to harm your defense in these proceedings than have helped. Tarc (talk) 03:34, 17 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Tarc,


 * With respect, the e-mails were exposed after the edit was done – not before.
 * The fact that they are written in future language does not mean they predict any future edit or behavior.


 * Similarly, any characterization or profiling of your edits could have done by any one reviewing your edit history.


 * Surly, an inelegant person such as you can see the problem of using such outside "evidence" from a source that have a vested interest in removing Zionist editors from wikipedia.


 * As much as this is a noble goal EI did a very big mistake by exposing it so quickly. They should have allowed this behavior to go on, they should have alerted some editors on edits before the edits actually take place and once a considerable collection of diffs would have been assembled – that would have been a convincing and convicting evidence against the zionists. As it stands now, there is reasonable doubt: it is enough that EI had the ability to "doctor" some parts of the e-mails to cast such doubt. --Southkept (talk) 04:57, 17 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Wouldn't it just be easier for CAMERA to admit that it made a mistake and work within the rules of WP?--72.243.237.122 (talk) 00:45, 16 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't know the answer to that question, nor am I personally convinced that CAMERA violated any rules.Gni (talk) 22:56, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

"Evidence" was provided by Bangpound, reportedly an employee of Electronic Intifada, and may be incomplete, inaccurate, or doctored
1) The following new evidence suggests that the evidence being used in this case was provided by a reported employee of Electronic Intifada, Bangpound, and likely does not accurately reflect the complete discussions in Isra-pedia.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

I am not Gilead.
2) I should say this before I'm permanently (and wrongly) banned. I'm not Gilead.


 * 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:
 * Absolutely. With more power comes more responsibility. Juanita (talk) 05:36, 9 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

Template
2) The evidence provided by Bangpound, a reported employee of Electronic Intifada, cannot be considered complete, accurate, or undoctored, and is inadmissable. As such, the findings should not be based on this evidence.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

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:

No diffs, no case
This case is based on publication of private e-mails from a non WP:RS source. No supporting evidence was found that include wikipedia diffs:

"'No diffs, no case. Arbitration is led by evidence of onsite bad editing behaviour, not perceived 'threats'. Be assured that with diffs, we would not be slow to act. Charles Matthews (talk) 21:20, 23 April 2008 (UTC)'"

No linkage between e-mails and wikipedia editing was proven
The appearance that the "threat" to wikipedia does exist was done by implying a linkage between the e-mail "evidence" to wikipedia diffs:


 * "'17. On March 28, Zeq posted a message concerning Hezbollah in which he claimed that an edit was a subtle example how the Hizbulah PR team works and that Clearly the hizbulla person who did this edit understand his target audiance in the left or neutral people in Europe and US. he does not go after the extreme right wing zionist he try to capture mindshre in the undecided ... User:Dajudem followed up by making two edits supporting Zeq's point of view: . '"

Careful examination of these two edits show factual and benign edits - no POV what so ever.
 * 1) edit add 3 countries to a list of countries.
 * 2) edit give the full name of a party.

Jumping into conclusions
The fact that Fut.Perf. present these two edits(section above) as "POV edits" and a proof to link between the perceived threat in the e-mails to actual editing in wikipedia is alarming: No such link exist in the small number of diffs presented in the case.

The case should be dismissed until such time when evidence in the forms of diffs can support the perceived threat in the e-mail evidence. Southkept (talk) 05:10, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

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 Arbitrators:
 * Standard. Kirill (prof) 12:36, 9 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * I do not feel that an editor editing as User:PalestineRemembered has signed up to an appearance of neutrality. The project expects me to honestly add good information based on good references. That's what I do. Not all editors have been doing this - lets hope the ArbCom take on this case, and learn to recognize and stamp on the various kinds of cheating (some of which are doing a lot of real damage). User:Zeq was doing this stuff for 3 years before his over-confidence and CAMERA's encouragement gave him away. PRtalk 21:05, 11 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Probably not germane to this arbitration, but "compromise between opposed points of view ≠ WP:NPOV" If that were widely understood/accepted, it would help cut the advocate-warriors off at the knee. Jd2718 (talk) 23:08, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

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 Arbitrators:
 * Standard. Kirill (prof) 12:36, 9 May 2008 (UTC)


 * 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:
 * Some people seem to forget this, unfortunately. Kirill (prof) 12:36, 9 May 2008 (UTC)


 * 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.

4.2) It is near-enough inevitable that many Wikipedia editors (amateurs in nearly all cases) edit with an agenda. The project has demonstrated that it's rather good at accepting and accomodating such "inbuilt bias". But problems arise when there is gang-like activity (leading some editors to a variety of cheating behaviors discussed elsewhere). CAMERA clearly set out to encourage these activities. Administrators worth their salt will blow the whistle when they see either cheating or gang-activities, and the ArbCom will pro-actively react to defend the integrity of the project. It is ridiculous that cheats can survive and thrive for 3 years before they are exposed - and are then only exposed due to their own over-confidence and assumption of impunity. PRtalk 20:50, 11 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Proposed. Kirill (prof) 12:36, 9 May 2008 (UTC)


 * 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)
 * Fair enough; is the new wording any better? Kirill (prof) 13:54, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree that it is possible that "some Wiki editors may be working to advance the agenda of various external groups, rather than in adherence with the purposes of the project..." It would seem to me that much would have to be established here. 1)Editor membership in the group (is person X at wiki also person Y at the group?), 2)what the actual 'agenda' of the group is, 3)is the agenda of the group at variance with the purposes of Wiki? 4)is the individual member actually working the agenda of the external group at wiki in a manner to undermine the purposes of wiki? Also I agree it would be nice if these things could be established in a polite manner instead of taking the form of ban first, ask questions later. Juanita (talk) 06:49, 11 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)
 * 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'm not going to argue with the sentiment underlying this, which has my wholehearted agreement, but may I point out that "loyalty oaths" and "public inquisitions" are hardly bankable phrases. If, like other ArbCom principles, they are brought up in future discussions, I would see these words being considered unnecessarily inflammatory, which would render them useless. -- Relata refero (disp.) 18:44, 14 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 Arbitrators:
 * Proposed; could be worded better. Kirill (prof) 13:17, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Works pretty well, though yeah, wording can be improved. It's a necessary and well-established princple; for example, we didn't ban all Freepers when some of them were being troublesome. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 02:42, 13 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * I like it. It doesn't leave things open to interpretations of intentionality. Less subjective. Juanita (talk) 00:32, 10 May 2008 (UTC)


 * 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)
 * That gets very touchy. The premise of CAMERA's creation was (quite arguably) NOT to violate Wikipedia policy.Juanita (talk) 23:57, 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 you knew that collaborators were planning to plant a bomb, you would certainly be in rights to sanction them. I don't see it as a bomb, myself.Juanita (talk) 00:24, 10 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)
 * 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)
 * to the point about 'jumping ship.' I stand by my principles. I'm staying here.  Spanish Inquisition or not.Juanita (talk) 04:07, 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)
 * All users here are required to not edit with a POV. You can be a crazed Hitler lover that wants us Jews all dead, or the most rabid Zionist of all Zionists of all time--and your edits to all Nazi or Jew articles should "read" and sound as neutral as some kid that doesn't know a Jew from a largemouth bass. That is NPOV. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 05:07, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * In answer to the question as to whether Wikipedia ever sanctions anyone for future violations; yes, such "sanctions" are supposed to be preventative not punative so at least in theory they are ALWAYS imposed with respect to anticipated future behaviour. Past actions are only relevant in evidencing the potential for future problems. 87.254.71.190 (talk) 13:26, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I found examples at the Noticeboard for Palestine-related topics that could be interpreted as requests for other editors to help edit articles, to help create consensus for articles, and  even suggestions to create articles essentially as attack pages.  Many of the complaints about Israpedia (not all) centered around these very issues, suggesting sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry.  Once you start looking with a jaundiced eye, everything looks jaundiced.  If I can find an example of someone suggesting an attack page or attacking an individual of another POV, shall we ban anyone who edited on the board?  Juanita (talk) 05:05, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Background
1) From the evidence presented, it is reasonable to conclude that an external group of individuals has, over a period of time, acted to affect Wikipedia content; and that the methods employed by this group were, in a number of cases, explicitly or implicitly prohibited by various Wikipedia policies.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * No need to rehash the entire affair here. Kirill (prof) 22:54, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Agree. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 02:46, 13 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Discretionary sanctions
2) All articles affected by this matter are subject to discretionary sanctions under the provisions of the Palestine-Israel articles case.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Noted. Kirill (prof) 22:54, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Yep. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 02:46, 13 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Sanctions imposed
3), , and imposed sanctions on a number of editors whom they concluded had been involved in the external group.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Noted. Kirill (prof) 22:54, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Yup. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 02:46, 13 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Hypnosadist
4) During the discussion of this matter, engaged in unprofessional commentary  and misrepresented key aspects of Wikipedia policy.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Proposed. Kirill (prof) 22:54, 11 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * Hynosadist has been goading me from day one. When I called him on one of his more heinous comments, he called me a liar:Some of what I would consider "unprofessional commentary" would be  He has reported my comments to admins,(in my view misrepresenting them), and here:  is participating in a discussion with other users targeting me for removal from wiki. Juanita (talk) 16:14, 14 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * I agree mostly, except, it seemed more unseemly than unprofessional. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:25, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Disagree. I understand the concern, but I'm not sure why this editor is being singled out. Some of these are edits within talk page discussions, and do not constitute edit warring or disruptiveness. This editor is not an admin. Also, they are comments in which Hypnosadist makes his views known directly and concisely, without hyperbole. this includes link #5 and 6. so why would this be a target of sanctions? thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 16:34, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Hrm, I'd only raise an eyebrow at #1 and #6; #2 thru #5 were sharp, but not out-of-bounds.  Perhaps  an unofficial type of message left on the talk page similar to what was given to Eleland, would've sufficed though, rather than have it be a matter of arbitration consideration? Tarc (talk) 16:45, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Allegations
5) Various allegations have been made that similar external groups exist and continue to operate.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Noted. Kirill (prof) 22:54, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Check. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 02:46, 13 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * Indeed, though this isn't really actionable without evidence as to what such groups are actually doing. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:04, 14 May 2008 (UTC)


 * 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.

Sanctions confirmed
1) The sanctions imposed by, , and are confirmed.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Proposed. Kirill (prof) 22:54, 11 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

General amnesty
2) 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.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Prevent any long-term witch-hunts here. Kirill (prof) 22:54, 11 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * Basically what we'd planned anyway. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 12:49, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Funny one. I am sure you "got" them all. Maybe even more. You can be sure you have done a terrific job scaring off the the newbies.  Juanita (talk) 02:58, 15 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Very good idea. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 16:41, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Community urged
3) 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.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Proposed. Kirill (prof) 22:54, 11 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * Definitely a good idea. Many of the tu quoques we've heard in this discussion have missed the obvious point that we need to have actual evidence before taking action against specific editors. -- ChrisO (talk) 17:56, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * This could all be avoided by dealing with people and their actual edits, instead of violating their privacy and email and sleuthing around and making assumptions about other users, generalizing and making negative and ugly assumptions, and insulting us as a bunch of venomous robots. (If I can be permitted my opinion.)Juanita (talk) 03:02, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment by others:

Administrators commended
4), , and are commended for their diligence in investigating and dealing with this matter.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Proposed. Kirill (prof) 22:54, 11 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * This is a bit off-topic, but personally I would take no pride in being "commended" by a group of people who at the exact same time can consider doing this. Under these circumstances I will much rather go without such a "commendation". Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:02, 20 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Indeed, a praiseworthy effort. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:30, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with all of the proposals up to here, excepting proposed principles 4 and 5 which I think need to be reworded (but I will make a suggestion for 4 at least). I'm not sure if the remedy below is enough here. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:39, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * You may want to draw attention to their decision to work in concert. That was a wise course, and added authority to a high-profile decision. Jd2718 (talk) 01:50, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * It is difficult to overstate how wrong any sort of commendation would be here, particularly for ChrisO. I point, specifically, to his flagrant violation of an arbcom injunction on the subject of Israel-Palestine matters,


 * It might be possible, of course, to go back and change the remedy to read “an involved administrator may act as long as he is quite certain he’s right.” I think ChrisO himself demonstrates how wise the original injunction was not merely in that he violates the appearance of impropriety – which, as some one who is heavily involved in editing articles with an anti-Israeli slant, he is – but that he chose, either with or without the involvement of the other editors mentioned in this “commendation,” to attack editors he had grudges against in the area of Israel-Palestine articles. Though I, as I’ve made clear elsewhere, think some sort of censure is in order for this, I understand if the arbcom, because they agree with his actions, wish to maintain a stony silence and/or averted gaze in the face of flagrant disregard for prior rulings… but commendation? That would be in order only if the arbcom wants to underscore that their decisions are strictly on a case-by-case basis, which is to say, not rulings at all but general, eminently violable, guidelines. IronDuke  01:03, 15 May 2008 (UTC)


 * For the record, the user above has just has an ArbCom filed against one of the admins declined. Tarc (talk) 01:16, 15 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Erm... yes, that's quite right, of course. I had thought the arbs were capable of remembering a case they had only recently just declined, but perhaps refreshment for others is in order: The case I filed was here . IronDuke  01:24, 15 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Even though the sanctions were listed under WP:ARBPIA, I don't believe they had to be. In other words, this would have been entirely sensible behavior by Chris O were that decision not to even exist. I don't believe that ruling is per se meant to hamstring out-of-control admins who make decisions anyone would think were otherwise reasonable, because admin misbehavior wasn't what that case was about, AFIAK. So per WP:IAR, and WP:BURO, and as it was done in conjunction with uninvolved admins, I think his behavior was fine. -- Kendrick7talk 02:14, 15 May 2008 (UTC)


 * With respect, I think you’re begging the question. If we’re quoting WP:NOT, I think we could look here: If Chris had not used his involvement with Zeq to bludgeon editors he disagreed with, you’d have a stronger case. I think the point is, if you avoid even the appearance of impropriety, you don’t run into these situations. If you act like an admin bit is a license to thwart your “enemies,” you’re likely to meet resistance when commendations are suggested.  IronDuke  03:30, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Can you link to evidence detailing the 'bludgeoning'? Because without it this interjection sounds weak. -- Relata refero (disp.) 07:28, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Relata, your failure to note my previous link to the evidence makes your point sound… less than strong ;). IronDuke  17:43, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I thought there was something other than what you'd presented to ArbCom already. Well, as I'm sure others will tell you, that's not really bludgeoning unless there's more of a pattern. I've been threatened with a block recently by an admin with whom I was in the middle of a dispute at the time. Now that's bludgeoning. -- Relata refero (disp.) 22:34, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
 * So because an admin who had been in some of these conflicts before (ChrisO), that invalidates all the work and research that they did, and discredits the others? It should be pointed out from looking at his edit history that Ironduke is not neutral in pro-Israeli matters. If someone is going to drag this into the gutter to discredit these three admins, it should be someone who doesn't spend time fighting in the gutters themselves. Like a neutral person. The Israpedia people got busted for gaming us to advance Israeli POV. Others have been caught doing things on smaller scales before. It doesn't matter. Does Ironduke support Israpedia's mission? When you're here, buddy, Israel and your religion is secondary. If people can't do that, don't touch those articles. That's the reason I don't touch these myself--I have my own strong views and opinions, which ironically are semi-inline with the people we canned for disruption and gaming of our systems. If I can be a cheerleader and defender of NPOV in the face of that, anyone can. If they feel like it. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 17:05, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Absolute support Kirill's proposal. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 17:06, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I would also add that the ad hominem attacks on me, some of them tinged with hysteria (Lawrence Cohen, I’m looking at you, “buddy”), would tend to undermine, rather than support, ChrisO: it is as if to say that while my contention is true, because of my religion (which is what again?) I am somehow suspect, and therefore perfectly valid statements about Chris – e.g., he has specifically ignored a crystal-clear arbcom injunction aimed in part at him – become untrue. It would be as if I suggested that because all of my detractors here have avowedly anti-Israel positions (or merely support those who do), their points cannot be valid. IronDuke  17:45, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
 * In my book, the suspects are only those that work to undermine NPOV or work to undermine those that work to uphold NPOV. If some people can't edit or work here without leaving their personal religious or political bias at the door, they shouldn't edit here, or at the least shouldn't edit the things they go crazy over. <font color="#800080">Lawrence Cohen § t/e 17:48, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Hypnosadist admonished
5) is admonished to maintain an appropriate level of professionalism at all times, and to avoid misrepresenting Wikipedia policy to other editors.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Proposed. Kirill (prof) 22:54, 11 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * "to avoid misrepresenting Wikipedia policy to other editors." Which policy and how? <font color="#000">(<font color="#c20">Hypnosadist )  23:12, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Your statement here substantially misrepresents the nature of Wikipedia policy, the level to which it is binding, and the requirement for compliance with (rather than loyalty to) it. Kirill (prof) 23:23, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok i've read your diffs and i'm not going to question the fact that you don't like asking a question until i get a straight answer you mentioned that (in passing). But i do object to saying that calling Zeq and his groups action trolling is wrong and in some way i should be singled out for doing that as lots of people have quite rightly commented that accusing people of ethnically cleansing wikipedia of jewish editors etc etc etc etc time after time is trolling. I also reject that saying people should obey the rules and spirit of wikipedia eg being LOYAL to those principles is some how wrong. That is in no way "misrepresenting Wikipedia policy" and wish that aligation totally retracted. Also i did not demand a loyalty oath of anyone. <font color="#000">(<font color="#c20">Hypnosadist )  23:27, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I did not use the word "Jewish" when I said that some anti-Zionist editors here were attempting to "ethnically cleanse wiki of a despised perspective." "Jewish" appears to be your own interpretation. I later struck the word 'ethnically' so there should be no confusion that I was talking about an Israel or Zionist perspective. You characterisation of my saying such things "time after time" is patently false.  As was your representation to one of the admins that I was accusing anyone of "genocide." In fact,  it was you who first added "race" here on the evidence page. Juanita (talk) 16:30, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I've not noticed a discussion on admonishing User:Hypnosadist and I find this proposed mini-sanction very odd. No policy is alleged to have been breached and I don't see him, or anyone else, being warned to back off. And - it's worse than that, because Hypno seems to have been attempting to get one of the absolutely prime things we're entitled to get (and admins should be demanding) before we can proceed further, a statement from the accused confessing to, or denying, the allegations. It could be that Hypnosadist is (only) being accused of acting above his pay-grade. But that would be very odd too, since we have much, much more serious offenders wandering the project causing, in some cases, quite serious chaos. PRtalk 15:33, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Hypno's wording seemed harsh at times and could be refactored, but this seems a bit harsh. I think an affirmation of WP policies and general reminder/warning about overbadgering might be more in order though.--69.210.8.93 (talk) 19:08, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree that Hypno probably crossed the line several times, and an admonishment that is ultimately only symbolic is not really that harsh. However, I would very much like to see Judadem admonished as well, as her incivility and massive assumptions of bad faith were considerably more disruptive. &lt;eleland/talkedits&gt; 05:13, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I suspect it might be redundant to admonish Judadem given that she has already been sanctioned in this matter. -- ChrisO (talk) 17:05, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Judadem is davidg. Not a she. Further, he had nothing to do with this.  This was between Hypno and me.  And of course you are so right.  Hypno is well within his rights just being a little over-zealous in persecuting prosecuting me.  I on the other hand should have 'resigned to my fate' long ago and accepted the ban without argument or defense.  Yup. I see how it works Juanita (talk) 21:44, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * you obviously don't see how it works, based on your convoluted approach to this discussion. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 22:49, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Template
1) {text of proposed enforcement}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

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)
 * I strongly suggest this receives ArbCom's nod. For the tactics employed in creating coatracks, see my submission at WP:Requests for checkuser/Case/Evidence-based, and the contributions of that sockfarm, especially those mentioned in my posts to BLP/N noted on that CU request. -- Relata refero (disp.) 18:37, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Template
2) {text of Proposed principle}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

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:

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:

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:

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:

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: