Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/CAMERA lobbying

Other statements

Statement by Avruch

Until I have time to write a complete statement, I'll reproduce comments I've made elsewhere about this case. I think the Committee should take this case as well, if only to review the actions of the folks on the Board so that it can be pointed out where they are (I think) misguided. Avruch ^T 16:32, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

• I'll say again that I think the meager efforts of amateur sleuths above to connect editors to e-mail addresses, and to ban individuals because of an unproven association with an activist group like CAMERA, is disturbing and problematic. I'm as interested as anyone in keeping the Israel-Palestinian conflict articles neutral, but banning editors from one POV based on the "outing" efforts of an outside group and editors from the other POV doesn't seem to be the way to go about it. I'm sure that the efforts above represent a sincere and zealous effort to protect Wikipedia, but I think it is being done the wrong way. I invite anyone sanctioned on this page (now and as the hunt for perpetrators proceeds) to appeal their restrictions to the Arbitration Committee. Avruch ^T 15:39, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

• Sure, I'd like to see more eyes to evaluate the truth of this comment: Shocking McCarthyism. Where does one go for a hearing? I did not verify anything except that I was a member of this group that the Electronic Intifada has dug up some emails. As I said, as far as I know it was not a CAMERA group. But that aside. I thought in America we were all allowed to join any groups and were responsible only for our own words, not the words of others in a group. Ditto with our actions. I deeply resent and dislike this situation. I am being judged not for who I am or what I have written, but by people I don't know and for my membership in a group and for words that did not get written here. I have not tried to push any "agenda" but to see that my side is fairly represented. I don't know zeg and who he is, but he seems to have been banned for a year for something that he apparently denies. Now you people want to ban anyone who was a member of this group. Talk about unfair. Juanita (talk) 22:26, 22 April 2008 (UTC). I'm tempted to agree, just scanning through that long page. The siege mentality and the 'thrill' of the investigation displayed by some of the editors in that conversation is worrisome to say the least. Avruch ^T 23:34, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

• You reposted it here, and here it is. I think we judge each and every editor based on their actual actions on-wiki, not what we think they might have tried to do, assuming its them, off-wiki. If there is absolute proof that Zeq was orchestrating an "direct attack on Wikipedia" through "stealth admins" then maybe a topic ban is in order, but an indefinite (or equivalent) ban? How much of this "direct attack" actually made it on-wiki? Any evidence to suggest there is such a thing as a stealth admin? Moving past the Zeq block, the discussion is now all about ferreting out and blocking anyone else that might be involved - based on the "outing" done by a pro-Palestinian (and importantly - anti-Israel) web site. The search for clues to see who wrote some of the e-mails is creepy, and I imagine if you connect more editors to e-mail accounts there will be yet more calls to block or topic ban people without so much as a cursory evaluation of their actual edits. Avruch ^T 23:49, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

• Attack as in, maybe, taking Wikipedia down? Hacking the pages? When you say attack, do you mean something like that? Or getting a group of like minded editors together to edit a particular group of articles with the idea of changing the POV? The second isn't a good idea, but I'm not sure I'd call it an attack - Zeq's ridiculous phrasing of it as a war and an army notwithstanding. I'd be more comfortable with this if there were a long list of Zeq's edits saying "This one, this one, this one and THAT one violate this, this and that policy" rather than "See how it sounds like he wrote these emails where he organized a stealth attack against the home base and a sneaky infiltration effort to get enemies behind the front lines in positions of authority. We must circle the wagons and protect the fort!" Avruch ^T 00:04, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Merzbow

It is worth noting that still, as of yet, I have seen no evidence of any actual on-Wiki activity resulting from this alleged off-Wiki conspiracy. I see two questions that need to be answered here:

1) Should Wikipedia users in good standing be banned not because of anything they've done on-Wiki, but because they discussed, off-Wiki, plans for coordinating on-Wiki activities against policy?

2) If so, how wide do we extend the net of sanctions to other users connected to those users?

I can see a case being made for the ringleaders of such a conspiracy being subject to on-Wiki sanctions, at most. If Zeq and Gil can be judged as such, then perhaps they should be banned. But I see users losing all perspective here and suggesting that a witch-hunt be conducted, emails be trawled through, and that any other editor connected in any way to said group or ringleaders be banned as well. This, my friends, cannot stand; the potential for baiting and abuse here is substantial if such a precedent were to be set.

I remind everyone, for the nth time, of the Rama's Arrow incident, in which three users in good standing were indef'd based not on any on-Wiki evidence, but on a bunch of ambiguous emails. This case is not directly analogous to Zeq and Gil in particular, for if the emails already reproduced are valid, their words were anything but ambiguous. I bring it up to pre-empt any attempts to ban other editors whose names are now being thrown about as candidates for termination because of tenuous connections to the whole mess (as tenuous as the evidence Rama's Arrow produced against the users he banned). Given that, again, no evidence has been produced that said conspiracy resulted in any actual on-Wiki activity, I submit that any attempts to extend the net wider would be a hysterical overreaction.

Reponse to Charles

I think Charles has missed the point in his rejection. Three users have already been banned, and certainly their banning, an on-Wiki action, is under ArbCom's purview. - Merzbow (talk) 23:57, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved User:Folantin

I agree with ChrisO. I don't see what there is to arbitrate here. Some editors got busted for a blatant attempt to manipulate POV. The rules on WP:SOAPBOX are quite clear, if all too rarely enforced. As the policy says, there's plenty of opportunities elsewhere on the Net for this kind of thing: "You might wish to start a blog or visit a forum if you want to convince people of the merits of your favorite views". So off you go. --Folantin (talk) 19:19, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Kendrick7

I find highly disturbing the call by CAMERA to create "sleeper" administrator accounts. On page 6 of the leaked PDF, the organization explicitly sets out to WP:GAME the existing ArbCom sanctions (Wikipedia:ARBPIA) on Category:Israeli-Palestinian conflict ("additional restrictions") by encouraging their recruits to remain "uninvolved" in the topic, and "interact in a positive way with 100 wikipedia editors who would later be used to vote for you as admin." The ArbCom should consider whether the current sanctions need to be modified to address this. -- Kendrick7^talk 19:38, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Orderinchaos

I also agree with ChrisO - although arbitrators' guidance as to how to handle these kinds of matters in future may be helpful, as well as the points highlighted by Kendrick7 and others above. This seems a major organised threat to our community which fails any good faith test one could possibly set, and especially with sensitive articles or topics that ArbCom has already felt the need to rule on, these areas are problematic enough without the injection of offsite ideological warriors trained in the peculiarities of Wikicombat. Admins are trusted with the tools in order to protect the site, the blocking admin acted after considerable airing of community views, their decision in my view was in the spirit of protecting the site, and I think the decision was sound. In response to Merzbow, better to nip it in the bud while it's still fresh rather than allowing it to grow into a much larger problem later. Orderinchaos 20:26, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Haemo

The ArbCom can't ignore this — concerted attempts to use Wikipedia as a POV-platform organized by external groups designed to subvert and corrupt the community-based procedures on Wikipedia should not be waved off by claiming ArbCom shouldn't be looking at these kinds of off-site organizations. Ultimately, the behavior in question is on-Wikipedia behavior, and the conduct of these editors is fundamentally in disagreement with the purpose of Wikipedia. I strongly urge to acceptance of this case. --Haemo (talk) 22:16, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved MickMacNee

Arbcom needs to review the actions of one or more admins here. This was a case of wikipedia acting on evidence from a NPOV site in the name of upholding POV, an absurdity. And specifically banning before concrete evidence was given.

On the ANI sub-page, in the absence of specific neutral discussion of specific on- wiki actions, there was lots of rambling talk of threats, with no actual evidence presented that the conspiracy achieved anything, or a serious analysis even that there was a threat. It was a witchhunt, which end-runned the ban process, and was ultimately counter productive to upholding NPOV in the long run. And now we have our very own witchhunt template as a result. It looks as if somehow normal procedures and calm neutral discussion wasn't appropriate in responding to these serious allegations, and it was fine to throw around accusations of conspiracy on the basis of hunches and circumstantial evidence alone, before confirming one way or another if an offence had occured, and launching some sort of NPOV campaign, such as this arb case filing.

In the specific cases, the user zek was banned for a year [1] before it was anonymously confirmed (presumably beyond doubt, but not confirmed by anyone not involved as yet) that there was an email address link to this user committing him as the conspirator. Prior to this, his block notice above says he was charged with a serious breach sockpuppetry, which if before this email link was confirmed appears to have no basis that was shown. Further it refers to such ephemera as the articles he edits, a previous arbcom of unclear relevance to which offence accused, his writing style? and most shockingly, for apparently not submitting to a repeated interrogation which was a clear breach of WP:HARASS and WP:POINT.

The people claiming to have protection of wikipedia NPOV at heart on that sub-page, have used language just as POV and dare I say defamatory as those they accused. This was most definitely not a case of transparent even handed evidence based judgement, and the formatting and summarising of the discussion left a lot to be desired for anyone arriving late, as I think the arbitrators are going to find when looking at the sub-page, which is being given in reference in its entirety when explaining the background of the block of zeq, when by now that has been subsumed by the general hysteria and how to organise the campaign to destroy the campaign talk. MickMacNee (talk) 22:11, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Additionally, I think the arbitrators need to study the fall out from this poorly handled issue, namely the creation of a POV talk page template being defended in a Tfd by some on the basis of a previous arbcom precedent for such a thing. Also, the use of the ANI thread's existence to add POV material to both CAMERA and Electronic Intifada, see [2], on the basis of the evidence in the ANI thread and the primary EI source alone. MickMacNee (talk) 13:44, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved SilkTork

The disruption and loss of good will that would be generated by strip-searching and breathalyzing everyone entering Wiki from the direction of the pub because somebody smelled alcohol over there would be out of all proportion to the effort involved in clearing up the vomit of the occasional drunk. I understand Lawrence's concern, but I don't think potential arbitration is within the committee's care. And I'm uncomfortable with email evidence. SilkTork *^YES! 23:44, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Response to Dajudem by Hypnosadist

"Anyway, I initially forgot that the email went out at least appearing to come from CAMERA" Perhaps, but why did you not say so when you were reminded by me and others?

"Of course for all one knows it's possible that it was a fraud perpetrated by the Electronic Intifada on CAMERA stationary" So now its a fraud, you just admitted that you joined this group and were emailed from a camera.org web address. See this quote from the email

You will soon get via email an invitation to join a Google Group entitled Isra-pedia. Itis there that we'll discuss problematic Wikipedia pages, and how to improve them.

(page 3 of the second email page 4 of the pdf)

"except and unless they scan our private emails and determine guilt or innocence based on our leaked and private emails" So now its your real private emails, please make up your mind.

"Anyway, the call for an editing group at CAMERA went out very respectful of wiki" Not according to the emails, heres some quotes.

This encyclopedia is intended to be written and edited by individuals -not

by groups -- and that's what we'll do. At the same time, by having discussions within our group, we can learn about, discuss, and figure out how to overcome the challenges we each encounter as Wikipedia editors.

There is no reason to advertise the fact that we have these group discussions

(page 3 of the pdf)

We will go to war after we have build our army, equiped it, trained right now we do not have the needed number of people who have enough Wikipedia expiraince and deep knowledge of Wikipedia policies to use for articulating out oint from a "policy" precpetive. We also don't have any admins. admins can "close" a vote and declare a result. (Not as stright forward as it seems. I know alefty admin who wait until his bodies vote and close the vote soon after ) so please if you want to win this war help us build out army. let's not just rush in and achieve nothing or abit more than nothing.

(page 11 of the PDF)

"The subversive part had already been assumed by most editors on this wikilobby page and by the time I weighed in, they had already feathered and tarred Zeg, claiming he was Gilead or Israguy or someone at this list, and an evil being." No i read the evidence (the emails) from start to finish, then decided it was a subversive group. Also Zeg(sic) (leave it out its a three letter name no-one buys your so unfamiliar with it you can't spell it) was proved to be Israguy. For the information of the arbs Zeq is a shortend version of the name Issac, like Bob to Robert, people don't missspell Bob that often.

"First of all, the originating letter from CAMERA said nothing about 'secret'-- It merely said not to forward to the media" No see the quote above it says don't mention the group to other editors, that is Secret. See yet another quote and judge for yourself.

key is that being orgenized can be a big advantage but this advantage does not need to be seen as cordination.

(page 11 of the pdf)

"Infiltration" is simply used along with "secret" to put a sinister spin on an innocent enterprise" See the quotes about going to war etc.

"...to take over Wikipedia administrative structures 'to ensure these changes go either undetected or unchallenged." This quote says it all. Now its up to you Arbitrators to protect wikipedia. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 18:26, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Sm8900

One thing needs to be noted here. It appears to me that there is and was no conspiracy here by CAMERA. If there were, would they have assembled it by sending a mass email to their members, asking for volunteers, instead of gathering a few of trusted activists to do this? This has all the hallmarks of the ideas and initiative of one person, to do a pet project which went mosntrously awry. So all this talk of a CAMERA conspiracy seems extremely skewed. By the way, additionally, if this were a conspiracy, it would not have begun with a single editor editing the CAMERA entry from a CAMERA IP address, as it did. it would have begun with a whole group immediately. so this to me seems like one volunteer's brainchild and project, which went hugely awry. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 12:47, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Note re Dajudem by uninvolved party Nagle

Note that Dajudem (talk · contribs) and Wikipedia signature "Juanita" are the same editor. This causes some confusion, especially when searching with search engines. --John Nagle (talk) 19:17, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Note by uninvolved party Titanium Dragon

I feel that the action of banning the people involved in this, particularly its perpetrator, was entirely justified. I have no issue with banning any member of CAMERA who was involved in such a campaign, just as I would advocate the banning of anyone who was involved in meatpuppetry, encouraging meatpuppetry, encouraging a group of users to become admins in order to damage the integrity and neutrality of Wikipedia, and similar things. The primary user involved in this refused to deny his involvement, he was later confirmed to be the same guy who authored the message attempting to recruit people to become "uninvolved admins" who really existed in order to perpetrate a pro-Israeli POV, and the only defense I've seen of these people is "But the pro-Palestinian people caught us!" It doesn't work that way; it doesn't matter WHO caught you breaking the rules. If you engage in such activities, regardless of who you are or who caught you, you should be summarily banned. This is a clear case of a fallacious ad hominem argument against their accusers.

This behavior is intolerable and I think the summary bans were very appropriate given the circumstances and the evidence. There was nothing unfair about it. I don't really know what exactly you guys are going to be resolving, here, though; it appears it has already been taken care of, and unless you are thinking about making it harder to do this in the future/finding more CAMERA meatpuppets (or the meatpuppets of other organizations) I'm not sure what you're looking at doing here. Titanium Dragon (talk) 06:57, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment by DGG

I would have no problem at all banning those active in such an off-wiki group. The statement that one intends editing from a strongly limited POV in order to establish NPOV is not something to be taken at face value. DGG (talk) 18:20, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved party User:Avraham

First and foremost, Wikipedia's collaborative editing process requires, nay demands, openness and accountability. Off-line communication about wikipedia exists, and will continue to exist as long as any two people have the ability to communicate with one another, be it by voice, phone, fax, e-mail, snail mail, telex, telegram, ham radio, satphone, etc. However, there is a distinct difference between a communication that could have (and should have) been performed on wiki, and a calculated effort to manipulate the wikipedian process. The ultimately sad point about this debacle, in my opinion, is that I believe some of the editors responding to this call had their hearts in the right place, and wanted to work to build a more neutrally-based encyclopedia (as per WP:NPOV). However, the methodology selected was inappropriate. Furthermore, suggestions such as specifically targeting the RfA process to build a cadre of like-minded admins who would then inappropriately use the bit is completely and totally unacceptable.

While in my opinion it is highly likely that alternate, and opposite, minded groups perform the same activities, complete with off-wiki canvassing and private messageboards informing people about various RfA's or AfD's and how to opine, that in no way shape or form excuses the activities here.

I also believe that there has been some evidence of a lynch-mob-mentality here, and I believe that everyone involved in the process and procedure needs to take a step back, and separate the part of themselves that is interested in protecting the transparency of the project as best possible vs. the part of them that may be engaged in schadenfreude. -- Avi (talk) 06:53, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved Relata Refero

I hope that the Committee is aware of Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Statement re Wikilobby campaign. I strongly urge those members of ArbCom who have already expressed a desire to hear this case to consider what the utility of going into this again would be given the actions that have already been taken. --Relata refero (disp.) 14:46, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I have not much to offer to the proceedings, as I don't have access to the mail list evidence (and should not as a non-admin), but the actions and proceedings already under way need probably an official endorsement or the opposite given the scale, scope, and nature. Even if it's a fast open-shut case, this will provide tools and guidance for the community when the next group like this is found. This won't be the last time. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 15:26, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I would prefer to suppose that ArbCom will only be required to sanction it if it is first challenged by anyone, which does not appear to be the case.

I confess that the prospect of another ArbCom case with a convoluted and snappy workshop page ending in trite pleasantries all round leaves me cold. It is time that ArbCom realises that the negative act of not dealing sanctions out to those disruptive editors they are supposedly examining as has the positive effect of emboldening them; but since they as a body seem to still be some distance from that realisation, I would prefer that they stay out of it, as another quick in-out case in a contested area is unlikely to improve matters. --Relata refero (disp.) 15:42, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Dajudem has been loudly challenging this all over, as have other editors. The Arbs, in taking this on, need to do what they were elected to do, which is dealing with hard and difficult matters decisively. If they don't, and pass the buck here as have happened on other recent extremely difficult cases, I'd say it's no-confidence time. We need clear, up-and-down resolution (i.e., the arbs weigh in with a Proposed Decision that has balls), not milquetoast. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 15:58, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

this is getting way too convoluted, , in my own humble opinion, for a matter which never went further than a handful of people who ended up not doing anything anyway. but oh well, i guess we'll be going into arbitration on this anyway. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 14:20, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved party User:CasualObserver'48

[N.B. The following was written for this page, but it closed (27April) before I could post it. I have not modified it and post it here. It remains relevant.]

Whatever will be, will be…. but let’s watch it and fix it. As a specifically [article-]involved and POV’d editor, I have been hesitant to join this page, but this is definitely the time. If anything is actually decided here, as opposed to just discussed, these decisions must be based on facts and fore-warning. I have no trouble with a stated POV, particularly for those with whom I disagree. At least one knows where they stand: better the devil you know than the one you don’t. That seems honest and honorable, especially for any editor who actively contributes toward NPOV in the many ‘hot topic’ areas where opposing POVs are so strongly held.

I believe what we are talking about here is the exact opposite. It concerns both existing editors, but also CAMERA’s future stated plans. The specifics must be handled very forcefully by Wiki-crats, because this is an offensive move against the NPOV core of Wikipedia, a sneak attack, if I may, and it has been ‘outed’. Why would CAMERA do what they tried? CAMERA says it “is a media-monitoring, research and membership organization devoted to promoting accurate and balanced coverage of Israel and the Middle East.” Wikipedia, is definitely media of the NPOV-sort with which they openly disagree. “CAMERA fosters rigorous reporting, while educating news consumers about Middle East issues and the role of the media.” Wikipedia also tries to do this, but CAMERA has apparently tried to educate us, because NPOV disagrees with them. Simply stated, they do it because that is exactly what they do, what they live for and have found a place where they are already quite at home, as is their right and privilege, honorably. A question for honorable Wikipedians is what they think their role is concerning ‘rigorous reporting’ and ‘the role of th[is] media’ (Wikipedia). As an opposing editor, I think I’ve learned quite succinctly what CAMERA means by ‘rigorous’ and what they see as a role for me. Do not forget about the rest of the camera crew ^{[[[CAMERA#History|ref]]]} and its groupies.

As noted above, CAMERA says it is a "non-partisan organization" that "takes no position with regard to American or Israeli political issues or with regard to ultimate solutions to the Arab-Israeli conflict." I guess that does not say that they tend to oppose UN242 and the follow-on Oslo Accords, basically the “land for peace” formula, because that would be taking a position. Go figure.

Maybe I should WP:RS that some. Edward Tivnan, the author of, The Lobby, Jewish political power and American foreign policy (1987, p.208) states something very similar for an associated group.

AIPAC’s official stance is that it doesn’t play Israeli politics; the lobby, as Amitay and Dine are both on record as saying, simply supports the government of Israel. Yet by supporting the government of Israel, under Begin and Shamir [and since]--- and urging Congress and American Jews to do the same --- AIPAC was, in effect, supporting a particular Israeli ideology, and ignoring the views of a sizable portion of the Israeli parliament and electorate. By discouraging debate in the US on the issue of settlements on the West Bank, AIPAC was, as [Mordechai]Virshubski noted, supporting only half of the current government of Israel. Begin, it seems, had given the conservative tendencies of American Jews an outlet; AIPAC was now busily trying to transform the most progressive ethnic community in America into anti-Russian neoconservatives, at least on the issue of the Middle East.” [emphasis in original]

As far as their plans are concerned, we certainly shall see. But, I will note from my POV that the current status on Wikipedia indicates that we have already been under considerable pressure and currently stand far from RS-able NPOV. Now is the time to make decisions, or stick your heads in the sand; Make a decision. I will leave you with one apropos quote, this one from George Ball’s The Passionate Attachment, America’s involvement with Israel, 1947 to the present (1992, p.58).

Yet the ultimate lesson of the Liberty attack had far more effect on policy in Israel than in America. Israel’s leaders concluded that nothing they might do would offend the Americans to the point of reprisal. If American leaders did not have the couraged to punish Israel for the blatant murder of American citizens, it seemed clear that their American friends would let them get away with almost anything.

Are your antennae up? I’d say that the ball is in our court. Regards, CasualObserver'48 (talk) 06:54, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved party User:Wehwalt

I also believe this process displayed lynch mob mentality. Zeq was initially blocked for a week. When a small clique of editors on the Admin noticeboard started howling that this wasn't enough, the ban was upgraded to a year, and then indefinite, all without any requested input from Zeq.

There is a major question as to whether the proposed actions fit the definition of meatpuppetry or not. Read literally, they do not, they are not a call for people to join to advocate a position in a given debate, they are a call for sympathetic editors to get involved and even become admins. There is no statement that "Zeq will tell you what to do" or similar. I do not see any call for the editors to subordinate their judgment to another's. All that is being assumed, as well as an assumption that CAMERA's NPOV differs radically from everyone else's NPOV. Those assumptions are really why the bans are taking place. Basically, there is a fear that this was a proposal for WP to be taken over by the marching morons, with some puppet master in a spider hole someplace. No evidence was ever put forward for this proposition.

As far as I can see, Dajudem was topic blocked basically because the user was on the email list. The report indicates unspecified support given, and states that the user did a total of three edits allegedly following an expression of opinion by Zeq. This in areas where she has edited fairly continuously and has a long history, with a clean block log. It is unclear to me what good her topic ban does. I advocate lifting it. No doubt her edits will be carefully scrutinized.

I frankly believe WP has shot itself in the foot on this one. No one did anything, as far as I can see, other than talk in an off-WP forum which was gleefully posted by a non-RS with an agenda. WP has gone from being an encyclopedia that anyone can edit to being an encyclopedia that anyone can edit, see following exceptions*.

I should add that now, any edits unfavorable to the winning side (and yes, there was a winning side) bring accusations of being a Camera minion and following Zeq's lead. See [3]. This, I suspect, will become a long term problem, and add to the atmosphere of suspicion and hate that already permeates I-P conflict articles. As I have said, WP has shot itself in the foot.

I would lift these bans and topic bans, and consider well whether the definition of meatpuppetry needs to be revised, as well as whether there need to be rules for off-Wiki activity.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:16, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with some parts of this. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 19:18, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Agreed as well. I'm about to post my own statement but I think it just develops on this theme as is not specific to this dispute but more of a general issue about meatpuppery, off wiki action for wiki discipline, attempting to judge thought rather than actions, and finally the role of other stake holders (off wikipedia and perhaps acting on it as well) in manipulating WP for their own purposes that may or may not coincide with WP. I believe the admins acted in good faith but may have been played. I did just want to say I agreed, doh. 23:09, 6 May 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oboler (talk • contribs)

Statement by uninvolved party User:Zocky

IMHO, this has already been dealt with in a proper way, for which the involved admins should be commended. Just don't overdo it. Orchestrating a secretive POV-pushing, power-grabbing campaign and providing coaching for it are obviously bannable offenses that should be dealt with severely. Editing Wikipedia non-disruptively while being subscribed to such a list isn't. Zocky | picture popups 10:56, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved party User:Oboler

I posted a lengthy response elsewhere and was asked to reproduce it here. This is not verbatum (see the link for that) but is the key points I was trying to make.

Summary:

The judgement is being made based on Wikipedia:Sock puppetry, it should be based Wikipedia:Meat puppetry (I release that page doesn't exit, the point is that it should). Even if based on Wikipedia:Meat puppetry as described in the Wikipedia:Sock puppetry page, it is only something to be discouraged and the penalty is spelled out giving the same penalty to the meat puppets as to that of the organiser.

Full explanation:

The report says:

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

The idea of a "a serious violation" and harsh sanctions comes about because on Sock puppets it says

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

However the seciton of the policy quoted is not actually about sock puppets. It is about meat puppets, where it says

"While Wikipedia assumes good faith especially for new users, the recruitment of new editors to Wikipedia for the purpose of influencing a survey, performing reverts, or otherwise attempting to give the appearance of consensus is strongly discouraged." - My bold.

The penalty for being a meat puppet is:

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

The section quoted speaks about creating a false impression of consensus. It does NOT speak about the use of off wikipedia mediums to discuss work on wikipedia. There is still a gap between recruiting editors to be meat puppets and recruiting editors and suggesting they don't need to do more than a bare minimum in order to vote. The difference is the one is getting people involved in Wikipedia... and what anyone says about their level of activity from there forward is just an opinion. Given this, the charge against some of the people blocked for a year boils down to the fact that they tried to get new users (who may have the same political views as them on some topics, but not others) involved in Wikipedia.

The penalty here has been applies for attempting to recruit meat puppets, something "strongly discouraged", but which has been treated the way one would expect a Sock puppet incident (with real damage) to be treated. Now part of that can be blamed on the fact that the meat puppet section is in the sock puppet page. The text itself, however, makes it clear that meat puppets and sock puppets are not the same. That something is "strongly discouraged" puts it at a much lower level of offense than something that is "forbidden". Doing something that is "strongly discouraged" is perhaps not grounds for a year long ban.

Had they used the list to push people to vote in certain way, and had some accounts that matched the actions they urged then voted, then there would be evidence of a violation. The crime is recruiting to create a false impression of concensus, not attempting to recruit like minded people. If wikipedia admins give the impression that some groups of people (for example of a particular ethnic group... which is how this was first raised in Wikipedia) are not welcome as editors, and are doubly not welcome if they are told about Wikipedia by organisations who say their goal is to remove bias... that gives a worrying impression of wikipedia. It also assumes bad faith on the part of the new editors and assumes they won't learn how things work on wikipedia. Surely that is the wrong message?

Evidence against the intentions of one user also surely can't be used as evidence of the intentions of all of them, and what is the basis for banning someone for their intentions as expressed off Wikipedia? Intentions which if fullfilled, would according to the policy only result in the penalties being applied across the board to those involved as meat puppets - providing their edit record showed they were only meat puppets and hadn't got involved in Wikipedia themselves except as directed (if they had done substantial other editing, good faith would need to be assumed).

I believe this sets a precident that is (a) based on intentions stated offline - not actions online (b) uses a broad brush with a quick trigger finger and assumes bad faith based on association (c) interprets the sock puppet rule in a way that confuses meat puppets and sock puppets, and may have an effect of discouraging people to get others involved in the Wikipedia. As the Sock puppet page says,

"Keep in mind there can be multiple users who are driven to start participating in Wikipedia for the same reason, particularly in controversial areas such as articles about politics, religion".

Again even Zeq's action could have resulted in new wikipedia editors, and some might agree with his opinion some of the time, but that could still be left as "Zeq had a bad intention, it wouldn't have worked anyway, and... wikipedia is now better for the contributions of these new editors." And Zeq will have learnt that this doesn't work.

To sum up: The penalty even for Zeq should be in keeping with a penalty for doing something "strongly discouraged". To pick a higher penalty because of where he works, who he associates with, or any personal characteristic that is not related to his behavior as an editor... is problematic. It might be justified if there was an large threat to wikipedia... but the concensus seems to be that there is not. The penalty is more in keeping with the hype that initiated this case (another partisan group that admits its purpose is to push POV online) than with the details of the case.

Really sorry for the super long statement :( Oboler (talk) 00:11, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Correction, I said "highly discouraged" a number of times when the actual text is "strongly discouraged". I've correct this now. Oboler (talk) 19:13, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

the real problem here is not meatpuppetry, POV pushing, or anything else. the real problem is that we have a bunch of people here who have done nothing but attack and disrupt ever since they got here. they show no understanding of Wikipedia whatsoever. Frequently, their posts don't even make any sense in regards to the topics at hand. for this reason, it's better to make a strong statement, just to keep Wikipedia from getting out-of-hand and annoying. they themselves complain of POV-pushing, yet do little to solve any problems. so gestures like these are some of the best weapons against some problems which they themselves identify. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 21:56, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Steve, there is no evidence that "we have a bunch of people here who have done nothing but attack and disrupt ever since they got here". At least none I've seen presented. The general concensus (as I understand it) is that this was exposed before anything much happened on wikipedia itself.

The people sanctioned were here and actively contributing well before this incident. They happen to contribute in an area that is of interest to them and that happens to be full of strong opinions. Both sides then are pushing POV in these articles, though both sides would claim they are removing POV. It may be that people on both sides are acting in good faith and believe their POV to be the truth. This is the problem when you start talking about naratives rather than history. The best solution (in anumber of articles) has been to seperate the narratives into two seperate articles. IMHO this is the only way to deal with this on the broad scale as there is (at present) no concensus in the world at large on these matters.

That would not be cause for any sanctions at all, let alone such harsh ones. If sanctions were applied for being disruptive, POV pushing etc, they should be examined on a case by case basis and both sides should be examined (for on Wikipedia actions). Oboler (talk) 10:16, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I complete disagree, though I do appreciate your reply. I do feel that your post shows too much of an adversarial-based approach to this, and does not show a huge amount of experience with how Wikipedia works. not trying to be accusatory, just trying to state some practical data here. there is no basis for examining "both 'sides'" on this. frequently the way we reach consensus here is by direct discussion between those very sides. you would know that if you had dealt with any Palestinian editors directly. this whole affair shows a complete desire to make Wikipedia a battleground, and no desire to foster debate. furthermore, it shows no underlying sense of interest or curiosity about Wikipedia whatsoever.

it shows an approach which I'm sure is quite valid and consistent in other realms; namely the approach of writing letters to Congress, going to rallies, signing petitions; namely, that of ongoing activism and advocacy. such an approach is completely acceptable in the public sphere. it is completely out of place at Wikipedia, for reasons which I've given up on trying to explain. Suffice to say that the most successful pro-Israel editors here do not go looking continually for places to advance their views; they are simply gauging the progress of articles, and making incremental edits when needed. so purely for the reason of preserving the overall tone and general atmosphere, I favor retaining much of the sanctions. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 14:53, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Steve, thanks again for the reply. I agree that we have a disagreement. :) I do however take exception to the accusation that "I do feel that your post shows too much of an adversarial-based approach to this, and does not show a huge amount of experience with how Wikipedia works." That is both an insult and a personal attack. Neither of which have any place on wikipedia. If you think I am wrong about this (and that personal attacks and insults are welcome) you will ofcourse correct me.

To the substantive issue however... you explain how a lobbying group works and say this is not how things work in wikipedia. Fact, but not relevant unless you have make a huge assumption. The assumption is that advocacy groups use wikipedia as a form of lobbying with no regard to what wikipedia is. This shows a bad faith assumption, specially given the lack of damage done to wikipedia in this case. In this case specifically it also confuses a watchdog group with an advocacy group. The goal of removing POV is a valid one if done properly. There are plenty of people, projects, etc on Wikipedia who have this as a goal. It could infact be considered a good contribution, unless done wrong and in that case the evidence must come from the edits made on Wikipedia and the behavious of individual wikipedians.

As for saying "there is no basis for examining "both 'sides'" on this", that sort of statement looks like advocacy (whether or not it is intended as such). Your comments else where show that you have it in for CAMERA [Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/CAMERA_lobbying&diff=prev&oldid=211132257 | see here]. You are advocating for strong penalties because you want to make a statement. Not because there is justification for such strong penalties. You mention that your views have been cristalised in discussion with other parties. It makes me wonder who those parties were and what their agenda was.

A final thought... the idea that this case is a first is a little exagerated [Politicians], [| Department Homeland security], [Fox News], [more Fox News]. A PR firm that was actually guilty of editing (/writing) Wikipedia articles for a fee was banned for 10 days by Jimmy Wales [Jimmy Wales cited on this]. This was considered a very serrious case, and the penalty (for the actual editing) by an organisations whose business was managing public image, was considered appropriate. A year long ban or perminent ban is upping the penalty substantially, and in a case where no damage was actually done on Wikipedia and the concesus is that the approach would not work anyway. In this case such strong penalties being pushed suggests those pushing them have a personal agenda. I don't point the finger at yourself, your views on this have changed over time, but who has caused that change? It is perhaps something for you to consider and either take note of, or dismiss as you see fit.

If you have further comments on the incident here and the evidence, happy to hear it. Any discussion that does not relate to the facts of the case is however not productive discussion. Wanting harsh penalties (and note how 10 days is considered harsh by Jimmy) is not sufficient. There must be grounds for it as well. If not, wikipedia itself is undermined. Oboler (talk) 23:43, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved party Ken Arromdee

To quote my post on the administrator's noticeboard:

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

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

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

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

It also seems to me like a lot of this witchhunt is related to dislike of CAMERA, which is leading people to read every statement from anyone associated with them in the worst possible way. If you look at what they're actually saying (again, aside from the admin-stacking), almost all of it amounts to a statement that they want to stop POV-pushers who are pushing the opposite POV of their own. It's just being read as POV-pushing on their own parts. Even the actual quotes from CAMERA above support this; look at CasualObserver48's section above--it's entirely composed of quotes by CAMERA about their intent to be fair, along with commentary about how that's obviously a lie since nobody who is actually fair could favor Israel that much. Ken Arromdee (talk) 20:26, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

What do you mean???!!!! what happens if every lobbying group sends its people here to edit. we could be in trouble. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 21:39, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Steve, (sorry this is the third time I'm replying to a comment by you on this page... but you have made the same assumption in 3 places,) if 20 different monitoring groups with different areas of concern and different perspectives all monitor wikipedia entries for bias... that is 20 times more expert eyeballs. If you assume for a second that everything Ken Arromdee says is right (you haven't argued that it is not, you have just disagreed with the resulting outcome) then wikipedia can only benefit. If you think some of the people from these 20 different organisations with different views will be bad editors (and don't assume until they exist and are proven to act in bad faith) then... so what? There are plenty of vandals, people of bad faith, etc. New users join all the time and not all of them get wikipedia, and not all of them are good editors. That a few of them happen to belong to organisations is neither here nor there. That good and expert editors may also join off sets this significantly. Locking down wikipedia and preventing growth is not the answer. Oboler (talk) 00:06, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Sm8900

CAMERA is still telling people to edit.

CAMERA is still telling people to edit! It is STILL doing so. There is absolutely NO reason for any advocacy group or lobbying group to be sending ANYONE here to edit anything.

CAMERA: How and Why to Edit Wikipedia May 3, 2008 by Gilead Ini

There is no reason, for any advocacy group to send anyone here, to do any edits, for any reason, ever. The reason is that any member, activist or leader of any activist group is perfectly free to do any such edits themselves anyway. so why send anyone else here? This has to stop, and it has to stop now.

Arbitrators and Wikimedia Foundation need to contact CAMERA. this is getting media coverage. we really need to set a precedent!!! We could otherwise be inundated by every lobbying group under the sun. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 21:34, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't find anything facially offensive on that page. It seems appropriate information, and facially NPOV.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:38, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

This is unbelievable. This is unbelievable. they're recruiting people who will read that notice because they're activists for CAMERA, not because of any Wikipedia expertise. we are already being inudndated by people who have no idea what the hell they're talking about. there is no reason to be adivisng community activists, retirees, and sweet housewives to stop writing their letters to the US congress, and instead to come here and harass the hell out of us. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 21:41, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

If they follow what it says on that page, they will be good editors doing good edits. What you are afraid of is that they will come here, throw that page into the recycle bin, and go to town on us. I think they're having some fun with us by giving neutral and appropriate advice while causing certain people to freak out (present company, for example!)--Wehwalt (talk) 21:45, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

So far we have not had one editor come here through them and start doing "good" edits. we have several who have come here and started attacking everyone and everything. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 21:55, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

"freaking out" means reacting strongly to something which the average person would not find even mildly disturbing. so if i'm the only person who expresses this, then yes, i will simply have been "freaking out." --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 21:52, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Wow, Steve, I'm surprised to find you more worried than I am about this! Maybe you could go back and remove some of those "!!!s" :-)

Seriously, I agree that it's unfortunate, but I don't see it as an enormous problem. If they follow standard operating procedure they will show up, make a few biased edits, scream antisemitism and bloody murder when they're reverted, and quit either on their own or after a few polite suggestions. What's worrying to me is co-ordinated lobbying, and I'm afraid that it has probably been going on in this topic area long before CAMERA's troop of shlemiels (Gershom Gorenberg's term, not mine) got involved. <eleland/talkedits> 22:09, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Eleland, thanks. however, you're wrong. you said: "What's worrying to me is co-ordinated lobbying, and I'm afraid that it has probably been going on in this topic area long before CAMERA's troop..." no, it hasn't been going on. just like Wikipedia could potentially collapse at any moment if any group of 100 extremists decided to suddenyl deluge us. but they haven't. why not? because that's just the way humans are. that's the great leap of faith which jimmy Wales took, and which succeeded. Right now, I'm looking at the prospect of a whole slew of respectable, well-meaning activists, reading the CAMERA advisory, and with the aura of respectability which that confers, coming here on any off-night spent surfing the web, and deciding to make a few edits.

My feeling on this wasn't brought home to me until my recent colloquies with some of the involved parties. people are being directed here to edit, with a fully articulated encouragement to edit on behalf of their viewpoint, and worst of all, there is nothing to tell them that it is not the respectable thing to do. you aren't reacting the way I am, becayuse you don't see the intrinsic difference between something which receives the endorsement of a respected community group, and something which does not. I do see that distinction. this is going to get that huge silent mass of uninvolved citizens, who normally would never make their way over here. CAMERA appears to be the first generally-accepted, community-endorsed group to try that. I do not want them to be the first of several others. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 22:27, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

We've had many influxes of partisan single-topic editors before, almost always of a nationalist bent. Every time something like the Bronze Soldier of Tallinn riots go down — let alone an actual war — it happens. Sure the partisans make a temporary mess but it has always been cleaned up well enough in the past. Our policies on POV-pushing are pretty weak, but these outside partisan POV warriors almost always indulge in personal attacks and editwarring, which is more easily identified and dealt with. (This might be a distasteful thing to say, but it also helps that they are rarely 100% literate in English, which makes them easier to recognize.) Moreschi and ChrisO tend to be point-man admins on these nationalist POV-wars and I'm sure they can explain the issues more authoritatively. <eleland/talkedits> 22:44, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

It looks like a "Wikipedia for Dummies" book to me. Other than being on a certain web site, it does not seem to be blatantly push one view or the other, or did I miss something? — Rlevse • Talk • 22:35, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

the fact that it's on a website is the problem. the specific problem is what the website is. it is a respected website for a cohesive community group, linked to a specific American community. due to this, it will have an established consituency, and will reach a wide cross-section of perfectly respectable, articulate and somewhat functional people. we do not want an idea to enter the American mainstream, that citizen activists are perfectly free to come to wikipeduia and to use it as a vehicle or canvas for political advocacy/lobbying campaigns. everyone is free of course to come and edit whatever may interest them. however, we cannot let the idea of concerted, orchestrated, advocacy campaigns at Wikipedia start to become acceptable in the political mainstream of ideas.--Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 22:48, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Steve, Relax mate! As already pointed out by others this is not new. Further it would be very naive to assume people don't already come to Wikipedia when groups interested in a topic point out that the information on their topic is wrong on Wikipedia. See also my link above about Public Relations firms editing Wikipedia. The more respected wikipedia gets, the more this will happen. That's just how it is. Wikipedia has procedures to deal with editors who don't play by the rules. It likewise has procedures for dealing with vandals. Finally, there is always the review of information by other editors. Anything that is wrong will hopefully not last too long (unless it is at a page no one looks at... in which case the damage is minimal and the page is likely to be deleted eventually). If you really want to panic go have a look at the facebook groups encouraging vandalism and the falsification of information on wikipedia (done just for kicks). Oboler (talk) 23:55, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Rlevse, I believe you did miss something and Steve explained one aspect of it; they are already a specific community, which has a specifically definable POV, and their members are activists pushing that POV. Another thing to consider is what CAMERA doesn’t say to their readers/members. Where is any mention of NPOV, the Five Pillars, AGF and all the other Wiki-nuts and -bolts that make any particularly POV’d editor into a good Wikipedian? If they had mentioned what Wikipedia tries to be, NPOV or most-POV-inclusive, that would have been fine. And what about what Wiki isn't? CAMERA basically told their minions that editing is fine and easy, and just sitting there ready to be edited as their members saw fit. That, IMO, is an attack at the core values of Wikipedia. They have a right to edit and collaborate in the proper Wiki-ways, but what they may not do is just edit what and how they want, and that is what CAMERA has most recently indicated with this Wiki-specific post. Frankly, they don’t give a damn about our core Wiki-values, they are out only to push a specific POV and see no qualms about what that may do to Wikipedia's NPOV credibility. That verges on the disgusting, because it is fighting not only other views, it is dead-set against what 'NPOV Wikipedia' is supposed to be. CasualObserver'48 (talk) 05:24, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, regardless, it is up there, and I doubt there is any legal basis to make them take it down (good luck suing in Israel, by the way). I'm afraid WP doesn't have a whole lot of leverage with CAMERA right now, after all, what are we gonna do to them, ban them?--Wehwalt (talk) 12:20, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

They're based in Boston, and the employee who pasted it pretty much was banned. That it's being posted in the open without calls to stack voting is good though.--69.210.8.93 (talk) 13:54, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

"If they had mentioned what Wikipedia tries to be, NPOV or most-POV-inclusive, that would have been fine." From Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents/Statement_re_Wikilobby_campaign:

We note that Gilead advocated "working within the Wikipedia guidelines" and "remain[ing] civil when arguing ideas", which we regard as commendable advice. However, we also note that other actions by Gilead were seriously problematic. In particular, his injunction to keep the group confidential:

From the emails themselves:

"The good news is, individual volunteers can work as 'editors' to insure that these articles are free of bias and error, and include necessary facts and context. Assuring accuracy and impartiality in Wikipedia is very important."

I think they did.

Ken Arromdee (talk) 14:26, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok, fair enough. they also implied that Wikipedia is full of bias and error which would be unaddressed unless CAMERA activists did some editing. i am unclear as to where this bias is.

Here is a quote:

A central shortcoming described by Citizendium is that "[Wikipedia] is part anarchy, part mob rule. The people with the most influence in the community are the ones who have the most time on their hands—not necessarily the most knowledgable—and who manipulate Wikipedia's eminently gameable system." To make matters worse, Wikipedia seems to be regarded by many as an authoritative source of information. Some readers might be thrown off by the fact that many articles are accurate, fair and well-written. Robert McHenry, a former editor-in-chief of Encyclopædia Britannica, acknowledges this, but quickly adds that, on the other hand, "there’s also some very, very bad stuff, and there’s no way to tell the difference." In short, Wikipedia, though a fascinating experiment, is broken. And it isn’t clear how, or even whether, it can be fixed.

Nor is it clear whether newer rivals to Wikipedia — such as Scholarpedia or Citizendium — will, once built up, be more accurate than, and as popular as, Wikipedia.

...many of the administrators — who can be thought of as "editors with friends" since they are elected by other editors to a position of more power and authority — selectively use these policies to promote their own biases. And unlike the mainstream news media, where careers and reputations are staked on adherence to professional codes defining ethical journalism, pseudonymous Wikipedia editors are likely to feel comfortable ignoring the rules. Nevertheless, more editors following the policies could potentially lead to more accuracy and fairness on Wikipedia.

To that end, we encourage fair-minded editors to work toward improving Wikipedia. Here is how:

This is precisely how to send dozens of people here, all of them assuming that Wikipedia is already biased without any prior knowledge, and start editing furiously to fix a non-existent problem. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 15:26, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Steve, Wikipedia DOES contain bias. It is called POV here. The fact that so many people are working to fix it means the wikipedia community knows it is a problem. It is for Wikipedia part of life. The idea is that wikipedia expands in two directions at the same time. One if the breadth of the content (new articles), the other is the depth of articles (one aspect of which is NPOV and attention to detail). Edits to remove bias can only logically be made in places where see bias. Again contributions of new editors are welcome - regardless of how those editors get to Wikipedia. If they don't learn how wikipedia works they will leave, if they do learn they make the community stronger. Wikipedia is not an exclusive club, and people must be treated on their own merits. To assume people on the mailing list of an organisation are robots that do what they are told is very bad faith not only in potential new wikipedia editors, but also in humanity and the intelligence of individual people. Oboler (talk) 16:19, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I see. I do appreciate your reply, and actually it is rather helpful. However, I'm not sure that i would agree with the phrase that Wikipedia is "broken". thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 16:26, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I think the major issue would be the past campaign. If they come here openly and now without bad intentions, then I think that would be very encouraging.. Every new user has to learn the rules.. --69.210.8.93 (talk) 18:10, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Everyone missed my point above, which is that that's what their past campaign was too. They basically said "there are Palestinian groups trying to bias Wikipedia, and we can stop that". It just kept getting misread over and over again, mostly by editors who don't think anyone could sincerely want to prevent pro-Palestinian bias. Ken Arromdee (talk) 14:43, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't think anyone missed your point. you have a valid point, but that also happens to be what anyone would say in order to justify an agenda-driven campaign. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 14:51, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi Steve, just wanted to correct something you paraphrased me on above (given another user just did the same thing else where). I said Wikipedia has problems which it knows about and works to fix. you paraphrased tht as "I'm not sure that i would agree with the phrase that Wikipedia is 'broken'". There is a huge difference between have problems and being broken. To not admit wikipedia has problems (from vandals to personal dipsutes that get out of hand) is worship Wikipedia as perfect. We all have problems. For some it is asthma, for others arthritis. The point is, there are ways of coping with problems, but that doesn't mean they aren't there, and coping with them doesn't mean they are zero risk long term. All the best, Oboler (talk) 21:13, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Except for a very few comments by one or two members, on the whole the discussion wasn't much different from discussion that can be found on the Notice Board for Palestine-related topicsJuanita (talk) 22:08, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Your reference to a legitimate Wikiproject is kind of out of place here. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 22:31, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Steve, IMHO that was a little rude. A reference to any part of wikipedia is not out of place if it is relevant to the discussion. I'm not clear why all the discussion is on your item though... maybe just because it is last. :) Oboler (talk) 23:39, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Discussion of organization

i would argue that the wiki model, based upon the 'pillars'; consensus and a neutral point of view, is unworkable/broken in that those goals cannot be acheived. as an open 'encyclopedia' with a world audience, there are interested groups wanting to influence what is displayed. in contentious issues there will be vying interests. we now have the known 'knowns', at least claimed as such, which now includes Electronic Intifada (bangpound)[4], CAMERA [5] and known unknowns wikiforpalestine(DieWeisseRose) who has openly promoted that organization on wiki which states that: "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" [6] Thanks to Lawrence Cohen i now have to depend upon a third party screen drump. band-aids and ointments will not solve this problem. Wiki will have to accept a battleground status for certain contentious issues. Wiki could generate a cosmetic consensus disfigured by a selective process that some could call cleansing. Davidg (talk) 03:40, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

that gif shows the organization has had a total of 28 posting in 2006, 13 in 2007 and 3 in 2008 through April. It claims 11 members. Small though it is, I'm not sure I like it either. DGG (talk) 13:12, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Keep in mind that there was activity, as one member resigned, an action which followed the scrutiny the group has been receiving. Note also that members may have found it more convenient, and quiet, to communicate via email.

Hi guys, I don't think it proper to restate certain things here, however I would refer you to three links where there is further research (mine) and further screen shots. This is a selection of the research the Honest Reporting report is based on. [7] [8] [9]

I do feel this conversation has moved away from comment on Steve's post... so if someone has a solution so we don't keep adding to Steve's statement... that would be appreciate. Oboler (talk) 16:21, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok, i fixed it by creating a new section break. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 16:32, 15 May 2008 (UTC)