Anyone, whether directly involved or not, may add evidence to this page. Create your own section and do not edit in anybody else's section. Please limit your main evidence to a maximum 1000 words and 100 diffs and keep responses to other evidence as short as possible. A short, concise presentation will be more effective; posting evidence longer than 1000 words will not help you make your point. Over-long evidence that is not exceptionally easy to understand (like tables) will be trimmed to size or, in extreme cases, simply removed by the Clerks without warning - this could result in your important points being lost, so don't let it happen. Stay focused on the issues raised in the initial statements and on diffs which illustrate relevant behavior.

It is extremely important that you use the prescribed format. Submitted evidence should include a link to the actual page diff in question, or to a short page section; links to the page itself are insufficient. Never link to a page history, an editor's contributions, or a log for all actions of an editor (as those will have changed by the time people click on your links), although a link to a log for a specific article or a specific block log can be useful. Please make sure any page section links are permanent. See simple diff and link guide.

This page is not for general discussion - for that, see the talk page. If you think another editor's evidence is a misrepresentation of the facts, cite the evidence and explain how it is incorrect within your own section. Please do not try to re-factor the page or remove evidence presented by others. If something is put in the wrong place, leave it for the Arbitrators or Clerks to move.

Arbitrators may analyze evidence and other assertions at /Workshop. /Workshop provides for comment by parties and others as well as Arbitrators. After arriving at proposed principles, findings of fact or remedies, Arbitrators vote at /Proposed decision. Only Arbitrators may edit /Proposed decision.

This is a convenience link to the page where we have already outlined our conclusions after investigation of e-mails from the "Israpedia" group provided to the three of us in private:

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Statement re Wikilobby campaign

The original e-mail material has also been submitted to the committee (via FT2). Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:23, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Extra point[edit]

It may be worth noting that Dajudem (talk · contribs) (signs as "Juanita") and Judadem (talk · contribs) (signs as "Davidg") seem to be a disruptive meatpuppet partnership: Future Perfect's block of Judadem caught Dajudem in an autoblock. Apparently they live in the same house - which probably means that from now on we should treat them as the same person. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 14:11, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Further[edit]

It's worth noting that no Israpedia member has come forward with a concrete example of EI faking anything ("no, that's not the email I sent, this is"). Had EI faked the emails or altered some, the Israpedians would have pointed this out immediately with definite evidence. Certainly I would have done so, as would any logical person.

Apart from this, another reason as to why there's no case to suspect duplicity on behalf of EI is that the writing style of the Israpedians matches very well up the writing style of the corresponding Wikipedia accounts, particularly in the case of Zeq, whose style is especially unique. Further, the way in which the Israpedians' mailing list posts correspond so well to their Wikipedia activities would be something virtually impossible to fake. Occam's Razor is worth applying here. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 20:45, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing else to add[edit]

While this statement may not qualify as evidence, I have nothing to add. If the arbitration committee has access to the email archive that I provided to the three admins (Fut.Perf. ChrisO and Moreschi), there's nothing else I can contribute. Of course, I'm happy to answer questions from the committee, but I've already given all the evidence I have. Bangpound (talk) 12:53, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could I see the Evidence?[edit]

I have said pretty much all that I have to say. What concerns me most is that I have still not seen the alleged evidence of my participation (the post that says "I have a discussion"). Could someone send that to me? Screen stalker (talk) 15:51, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, you know what, if there is any sort of evidence, posting it would just require more oversiting. Since I figure I'm kind of done with editing wikipedia anyways, I'll just let that point go. I guess that means that I have nothing to add. Screen stalker (talk) 18:02, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oversiting[edit]

I know some oversiting has taken place, and I would like to thank hypnosadist for that. I think someone should notify ********@**.*** that the email has been oversited (or that it was exposed in the first place). Also, oversiting might be useful here, here and here. Screen stalker (talk) 15:51, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Apparent false denials of Wiki-involvement by CAMERA[edit]

I assume it is generally agreed that Gni is CAMERA's Gilead Ini. In this exchange, Gni/Ini flatly denies working for CAMERA. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 19:46, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rebuttal to Gni[edit]

The article says "staff member," not employee. As opposed to Ini, who is a bona fide full time paid employee of CAMERA. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 00:33, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I reject the characterisation of ElectronicIntifada that CAMERA was orchestrating a secret, long-term campaign to infiltrate Wikipedia, to rewrite Palestinian history, or pass off crude propaganda as fact. Nor do I accept that CAMERA or Israpedia members intended to take over Wikipedia administrative structures to ensure these changes go either undetected or unchallenged. The case against me and others is premised on this the argument applied to all members of Israpedia. The premise itself is faulty as well as biased. Every member of the group has been smeared by the assertion of a group whose very nameIntifada implies violence. Wiki's own entry for EI refers to the leaked CAMERA emails as "particularly insidious in that stealth and misrepresentation are presented as the keys to success," though guilt has yet to be determined through the appeals process here. This was added by user 68.72.46.218 who has been anonymously editing the CAMERA page before and since the controversy began. The Intifada movement has been quick to put their spin to this and wiki seems to be in lockstep with them.

For a secretive group, CAMERA certainly chose a rather obvious name, "Israpedia", and was really rather open about it, accepting members without question, unlike the Wikipedians for Palestine who require proof of prior "anti-Zionist" edits for acceptance. Arbitrators will note that there is now a reference at their Yahoo! group site directed to me personally, regarding this very controversy, and attempting to argue the case from their group page. There are at minimum 11 editors with a demonstrated "anti-Zionist" bias who are editors (and possibly administrators?)in good standing at wiki . Not knowing who they are, they may be the very Wikipedians prosecuting this case.

When I tried to point out that a fellow Wikipedian who had weighed in against "Israpedians" had actively recruited members for Wikipedians for Palestine, those posts were deleted and I was threatened with a block. First post can be seen here, deleted with the following comment: " rmv irrelevant trolling. Dajudem, you are walking on salted ice"

Second attempt to point out the problem and its signicance to this case here deleted with the following comment by Moreschi ("ArbCom might buy the sob story: that's their purpose. But this does not belong here. Revert me and you will be blocked")

Referencing this, Moreschi commented to another editor on his talk page:

"And the argument [of bias] would be tenuous anyway, because I'd never come across him before this whole CAMERA affair. His best hope, as I'm sure he realises, is to portray me as a horrible anti-Semitic pro-Palestinian nutter, but I'm afraid that's a non-starter :) Moreschi (talk) (debate) 20:32, 30 April 2008 (UTC))

In another case, Moreschi deleted a denial I made to the suggestion that I admitted participated in a discussion regarding the banning of Palestinians, which I did not.

I have been an editor in good standing at wiki since 2005 with never a warning or complaint. Yet on April 22 I received this on my talk page:

Please review this, and weigh in here Lawrence Cohen § t/e 19:19, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I did indeed weigh in, attempted to defend myself, after discovering that mine, and others', private correspondence had been leaked and characterised in an ugly fashion, and was swarmed with negative comments both there and at my talk page.

Less than 24 hours later I was summarily banned.

Three days later, I saw I had been banned for Wikipedia:Sock puppetry, though not informed at my talk pagerather discovered at the : joint statement

The first part of my defense/evidence is to reject the original premises presented in "Background" as biased - to suggest that proper procedures were not taken, that good faith was not assumed, that the evidence and indeed the very thesis of the case was taken from a hostile entity (EI), that private email addresses were named and/or pointed to - thus violating our privacy, that negative assumptions were made and that members were sanctioned for what others in the group may have said. I have put put up evidence of the Wikipedians lack of civility and non-AGF by fellow editors here in just the first two days of my participation, which includes one overtly racist comment by an editor who went on to complain that Israpedia members were "playing the race card".

I will say only that I originally joined the Israpedia group in part because I believe in concepts like this one, taken from the original recruiting letter pg. 1: "The good news is, individual volunteers can work as "editors" to ensure that these articles are free of bias and error, and include necessary facts and context. Assuring accuracy and impartiality in Wikipedia is extremely important."

I made this point many times in discussion as well as in the emails, but it seems to have fallen on deaf ears here at wiki. Unlike Wikipedians for Palestine, I believe that being pro-Israel, or even pro-Zionist, is not necessarily to be "anti-" Palestinian. I consider this conflict detrimental to both sides, and believe a solution should be found in which neither side is the loser.

On the charges of sockpuppetry; I have never made an edit at anyone's behest. Although I have not read all the emails, I am confident that no one in the group acted as proxies for anyone else. Each of us are individuals, thinking and acting for ourselves. During the entire time that I was part of the Israpedia group, I made perhaps a half-dozen (minor) factual edits made from my own knowledge and experience. I no time did I "infiltrate...Wikipedia" [having been a member since January, '05] ..."rewrite Palestinian history", or "pass off crude propaganda as fact." Nor did I ever make any attempt to "take over Wikipedia administrative structures" in order "to ensure these changes go either undetected or unchallenged."

To the specific edits/charges mentioned in the administrators' statement against me, I have written a short rejoinder to each which can be seen on my talk page

Thank you for your patience in hearing me out. Juanita (talk) 04:10, 2 May 2008 (UTC) ---[reply]

I used this forum for answering the charges as presented on the statement page. Now other users are chiming in with new accusations against me (below). As I have used my 1000 words and not sure where to respond to the new charges. Unless instructed differently, I will post them on my talk page under the name of the 'accuser.' Juanita (talk) 16:01, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In regard to others' private email addresses. All of my emails were to the group not to individuals. Because I did not have private correspondence with anyone in the Israpedia group, I have no idea whether anyone of them is who he or she is accused of being. I am basically fighting my own fight here, acknowledging that I was a group member and that some of those emails were mine. Any guilt you put on me should be for what I did, not what anyone else did, and vice-versa. Juanita (talk) 04:04, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Huldra (talk · contribs) has put together the evidence presented below, which she posted at Hypnosadist (talk · contribs)'s page, encouraging others to post it here, since when she tries, she is somehow logged out resulting in her IP showing. So here it is:

A case study[edit]

The one editor that I know is Zeq, and he has apparently written the following:

• Every time you see a Hamas person makes an outragous statements (like Jews came from apes or kill the jews) you write a small article about that peroson (google his name to find more ) and bring the quote from memri. why doing all that ? because google is wikipedia friend - 3 days after you created the article google the person's name again and voila your article will be the #1 in google for that name.

Now, take a look at the article Muslim Association of Sweden, started by Zeq on 28 April 2006. First; notice that it is indeed #1 when you google for the name. Secondly, I remember the story well, it dominated the news in Scandinavia (where I am) for....a whole afternoon, April 28 2006, before it was "killed off".

The news/outrage was that the Muslim Association apparently demanded special laws for Muslims in Sweden. The story was "killed" when it turned out that it was "only" the leader who had made this suggestion (in a letter) *without* support from the members. And all other Muslim organisations, including the umbrella organisation, the Muslim Council of Sweden, distanced themselves from the letter. In the Swedish article, http://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sveriges_muslimska_förbund, it states that that the leader was forced to withdraw his proposal as members of his own association went against it. (Based on this ref: [1]). But no such information on the English WP! Even though, when you look at the refs in English there is clearly inf. that all other Swedish Muslims (except his wife!) disagreed with him. And now the case, I assume partly based on the WP article, lives happily ever after in the blog-sphere, and is used as an example of the danger Islam is to Western countries.

Wikipedians for Palestine[edit]

Regarding Wikipedians for Palestine; I went over there to look, and somebody has updated the page there. I´m copying it here:

In light of the recent CAMERA/Isra-pedia scandal [] and seeing that Dajudem/Juanita wants to compare this group to the CAMERA/Isra-pedia effort she was involved in let us point out some key differences:

• 1. This group never recruited neophytes to edit Wikipedia; only editors already in "good standing" were allowed to join.
• 2. Unlike the Isra-pedia group, the existence of this group has never been hidden. It has always been public and purposely so (Yahoo does permit "unlisted" groups).
• 3. Unlike the Isra-pedia effort, this group has always been explicitly committed to NPOV.
• 4. This group has always been independent and never bankrolled and backed by any organization, let alone one as well staffed and funded as CAMERA.
• 5. This last point may help explain why Isra-pedia had more message traffic in one week than this group had in the last seven months.

Regards, Huldra (talk) 09:49, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is a rebuttal to Dajudem/Juanita. As such, I hope that this is the proper forum. If this is not, then please accept my humble apologies.

Rebuttals[edit]

• "For a secretive group, CAMERA...was really rather open about it, accepting members without question...."
  

I believe that a careful reading of the listserve postings will show that efforts were made to limit membership to those people who had expressed an interest at CAMERA's website. Specifically, it is my understanding that one needed to be invited to join the listserve in order to receive listserve membership -- no invitation, no membership.

Also, please note that the listserve was shutdown shortly after Electronic Intifada publicized its existance.

• "I...was swarmed with negative comments both there and at my talk page."
  

1. Last I checked, the user's talk page was hardly "swarmed".
   
2. As far as that AN/I goes, Dajudem/Juanita was at first denying the evidence, and then minimizing it (although, to be perfectly fair to him/her, s/he was not the only person engaged in such deceptive behavior).

Rebuttal to Dajudem[edit]

I don't feel Dajudem mentioning me is relevant to this arbitration case, but I felt that it was necessary to reply to Dajudem since my name was mentioned.

This incident has been reported by The Register, El Mundo, Wikinews, and others. The edit Dajudem complains about is sourced and attributed with proper contextual information. I note I have made other noncontroversial edits as well [2] [3] (and added a CAMERA response). I feel the edit Dajudem refers to is just one more reaction relevant to the incident.

Thus, I feel the edit Dajudem mentions is benign and irrelevant to this arbitration case. --68.72.34.126 (talk) 19:12, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gni working for CAMERA[edit]

Apart from a previously filed COIN report and matching timelines across documents, I just wanted to point out that on the CAMERA talk page Gni said he would look for founding CAMERA documents and then five days later they were posted on the CAMERA site so they could be sourced in Wikipedia. This is benign, but relevant to his identitity for matters before the Arbitration Committee.--69.210.8.93 (talk) 14:23, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since Judadem has been blocked by Admin Fut.Perf. for meat-puppetry (and banned him for 2 months from Israel/Palestine articles) for the Israpedia group he has requested me to put up a few words in his own defense:

Speaking to the Extra Point in the Statement:

It may be worth noting that Dajudem (talk · contribs) and Judadem (talk · contribs) seem to be a disruptive meatpuppet partnership: Future Perfect's block of Judadem caught Dajudem in an autoblock. Apparently they live in the same house - which probably means that from now on we should treat them as the same person. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 14:11, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

response: first i would like to thank you for engaging in a dialogue about me while i have been banned from responding in a timely manner.

i do believe my only contribution to wiki was to clarify that in the hezbollah/israel/lebanon 'war' that hezbollah initiated the conflict with a cross-border attack for the purpose of capturing idf soldiers and that the lebanese military was not involved thus a more appropriate naming of the war was hezbollah war. and that was not done as an 'edit' but merely part of the discussion.

all the rest of my contributions were in the discussion section of articles where i bandied about the difficulties of generating a consensus/neutral position on contentious issues. to assume that i am a member of israpedia was an error. i do wish that the 'extra point' did not depend upon assertions conditioned with words like 'may' and 'seem' and 'apparently'. i would like to note that the divining powers ignored this statement:

"i state here that the members of any agenda driven group exposed should suffer the consequences even when other agenda driven groups escape exposure. that goes even if the pro palestinian/anti israeli group is never found. i also state that that is an existential flaw in the wiki model because the presumption of neutrality cannot be judged from within, an essential condition of wiki world. i do not believe in god thus i do not believe in perfect knowledge. Davidg (talk) 00:33, 27 April 2008 (UTC)"

which came before the puppeteering charges. one wonders where my position statement fit in the scheme of things. why would an israpedia 'meatpuppet' assume a position condemning members of that 'agenda driven group' to punishment even if other 'agenda driven groups' were not punished. if those judging me adhered to the 'good faith' principle and held a 'neutral point of view' surely some recognition of that exculpatory statement should have been considered. but none were. which begs the question why? which i will answer when my block is lifted. unless of course this 'discussion' is closed or my 'block' is extended. Dajudem for Judadem/DavidgTalk

This evidence is from the first two emails from Camera only, those two emails HAD to be read in order to join israpedia so this evidence applies to all Israpedia editors even those that claim they did not read the emails of a group they just asked to join.

Evidence that Israpedia was a Camera group[edit]

a)The first email from l**g****@camera.org (note the Camera issued email address) to the CAMERA E-Mail Team asking "CAMERA seeks 10 volunteers to help us keep Israel-related entries on Wikipedia from becoming tainted by anti-Israel editors", this has a Camera banner at the top so all readers know this is offically from Camera.

b)The second email sent to those members of the CAMERA E-Mail Team who replied also comes from a Camera.org email address and is entitled "Wikipedia and Camera" The final thing this email says is "When you get the invitation to a Google Group called Isra-pedia, accept the invite!" Because israpedia was an Invite only group.

c)The Israpedia group was run by Gilead Ini Senior Research Analyst CAMERA.

Evidence of the Bias/POV warrior nature of Israpedia[edit]

The constant use of terms like "antiIsrael partisans" to discribe those who do not share Camera's POV.

Evidence that Israpedia was designed to Game the system right from the start[edit]

a)Telling members to hide their POV by "after setting up your account, avoid editing Israel-related articles for a short period of time; or in the very least, try to edit articles unrelated to Israel more than articles related to Israel. This isn't a bad idea, not only to avoid the appearance of being one-topic editors,"

b)Telling members to hide their POV by "When signing up for a Wikipedia account, you might also want to avoid, for obvious reasons, picking a user name that marks you as pro-Israel"

c)Telling members to hide the group from the view of other wikipedians by "There is no reason to advertise the fact that we have these group discussions. Anti-Israel editors will seize on anything to try to discredit people who attempt to challenge their problematic assertions, and will be all too happy to pretend, and announce, that a 'Zionist' cabal (the same one that controls the banks and Hollywood?) is trying to hijack Wikipedia."

d)The setting up of an "Action Items page" to organise Co-ordinated editing of those pages.

e)The intention to slow revert war using a numerical advantage supplied by working as a group "That said, I'll also point out that improving articles sometimes require patience and persistence. Fortunately, patience and persistence between 40 people is a good bit easier than patience and persistence by one person."

Evidence of the last line of defence, the Race Card[edit]

As the quote above says the last line of defence after hiding has failed was racial slurring of other wikipedia editors. So Zeq uses terms like "The email Protocols of the elder of Camera" to deligitimise the criticism he is getting. Other editors connected with Camera use words like "collective punishment" and "Salem witch trials", "the Holocaust (was just a response to Jewish "aggression")", "Japanese internment", "McCarthyism", "post-9/11 Islamophobia" to discribe the action of the Admins in this case. But this comment [4] that editors are "responsible (in part or in total) for ethnically cleansing wiki of a despised perspective." My bolding, is beyond any possible measure of Civility.

The following is essentially the same as the statement I emailed (due to an editing ban) to the arbcom address. I'm pasting it here as my evidence. Adittionally it is rather disturbing that at least one user who contributed to the atmosphere against the accused here is affiliated with an off-wikipedia pro-Palestinian group that demanded its participants be "anti-Zionist." DieWeisseRose disingenuously suggested that there are other pro-Israel groups off Wikipedia[5], but she (or he) herself had advertised the off-Wikipedia anti-Zionist group to others on Wikipedia. [6][7]. I do not, however, advocate banning DieWeisseRose because, as I detail below, I believe bans should be based only on Wikipedia edits that violate policy and rise to the level of a ban. I would finally like to emphasize the last of my points below. Even if it is felt for whatever reason that I should no longer edit Wikipedia -- and I believe this would be a bad decision -- my point about Admins remains important. There seems to be a lack of accountability and a haphazard use of the banning power by certain administrators. This power should not be taken lightly. Thus, I propose that there should be a central page in which admins are forced to clearly and persuasively justify significant blocks or bans, using diffs, reference to specific policies that have been violated, and a clear connection between the diff and the violation of that policy. This page should be scrutinized -- by Arbcom? -- and admins that ban without sufficient reason should lose their privileges.

Ban on Gni Based Only on Speculation[edit]

It is shocking and dangerous that I was banned based on pure speculation about my offline identity, and nothing else. It's outrageous because the 'evidence' cited hardly proves that I'm Gilead Ini, and so does not warrant ban. It's dangerous because the precedent set of banning people based on vague interpretations instead of facts, and for the unrestrained McCarthy-like atmosphere that it has the potential to encourage (and indeed has encouraged).

The supposed evidence that 'proves' Gilead Ini is Gni is non-existent. Moreschi asserts in his statement [8] that the evidence against me is "clear cut." But he cites no clear cut evidence, and I see no clear cut evidence in Electronic Intifada's files (whether accurate or not).

Bans of other editors appear also to be problematic, and the rational for these bans give the impression of an unrestrained and irresponsible purge: Someone named Jamesegarner is banned, according to the Statement by Moreschi , for no reason other than that he "is mentioned" and is "clearly part of the same crowd."

I ask the Arbitration Committee to consider this key question: What is the burden of evidence needed before banning someone? In this case, are the bans based on sufficient evidence? And even if so, shouldn't the banned parties be presented with this evidence? (Screen stalker also raises this concern on his talk page: [9])

I also hope you will consider that the mere allegation that Gni is Gilead Ini, especially when based on such flimsy 'evidence,' seems to be an overt and flagrant violation of the basic policy described as follows on the conflict of interest page: "Revealing the names of pseudonymous editors is in all cases against basic policy." (Some of the attempts to publicly accuse Gni of being Gilead Ini are here [10] and here [11].)

A piece of 'evidence' on the adminstrators noticeboard [12] was that I was barred from editing the CAMERA article due to a perceived conflict of interest. Please note that I had intended to appeal that ban, which disregards the COI policy in that this policy makes clear that in the end, it's the edits which determine whether someone is influenced by a conflict of interest. More importantly, even if that ban were legitimate, it still hardly suffices as evidence that I am Gilead Ini.

Bans Are Not Based On Wikipedia Contributions[edit]

For the above reasons alone, I believe my ban should be overturned and that administrators should be reminded that they should not lightly choose use their banning powers.

But let's say, for the sake of argument, that guessing the identity of pseudonyms based on amateur and sleuth work, and that banning according to these guesses, is actually reasonable. This would then leave the question of whether bans should be doled out based on offline activity; or conversely, if they should actually be based on the one concrete and relevant body of evidence: Edit histories. I would guess, and established Wikipedia policies suggest, that it is the latter.

As you surely realize, the importance of this question cannot be understated. Allowing things other than edit history to determine whether an editor can participate in building the encyclopedia is most dangerous. Consider the potential consequences of this precedent. What's to prevent someone from then banning a pseudonym because his offline identity (or alleged offline identity) does not have a NPOV? And yet, of course it's true that all real world people have points of view. And so it shouldn't be the fact that they have a point of view that is grounds for banning. It must only be the content of their edits.

The Actual Content of Offline Discussion Does Not Warrant Ban[edit]

As noted above, it seems clear that the ban is problematic 1) because it is based on flimsy 'evidence' that fails to concretely tie Gni to Gilead Ini, and 2) because regardless, there is nothing in my edit history that warrants a ban.

But, again for the sake of argument, let's assume that you deem editors can be banned based on offline activity, and that there is proof that the editors being banned are indisputably part of this activity. The question would remain: what did these people do offline to warrant a ban?

First, let me address the accusations being tossed around that the offline forum is an example of "meat puppetry" and some sort of attempt to "subvert" Wikipedia. Nothing in the Electronic Intifada files suggests that anyone is guilty of meat puppetry. There is nothing showing that any edits were made "on behalf of or as proxy for another editor." It is not meat puppetry, it was discussion, and it was discussion organized based on a clear urging by the organizer that participants in the discussion should adhere to Wikipedia policy and guidelines, and based on the belief that if more people edited according to these guidelines, encyclopedia articles about the Middle East -- which the organizer clearly believed were skewed in one particular direction, would be more accurate, reliable and fair.

The discussion, indeed, might not be all that different some off-Wikipedia discussions shown in this Youtube documentary about Wikipedia: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WMSinyx_Ab0

Shall everyone in the be tracked down and banned for discussing or instructing about Wikipedia offline? Obviously not.

Perhaps this offline discussion isn't exactly analogous to what is shown in the video. And perhaps we all feel, looking back over this issue, that there are better ways to try to remedy what one sees, rightly or wrongly, as a skew in Wikipedia articles. But even if it isn't something that one believes to be ideal, the off-Wiki forum is far from what some editors and/or admins made it out to be in the discussion pages. It isn't some nefarious cabal out to "undermine" Wikipedia.

Guilt by Association[edit]

Another point is that, while it may be possible that one or more contributors to the off-Wiki discussion violated some sort of policy (though I can't see which), it seems clear that this person's behavior is being unjustly used to smear other contributors who, it's appropriate to presume, sought nothing but to talk about and improve Wikipedia in line with its policies.

Admins are not Immune to Mideast Partisanship[edit]

A final point is that this whole discussion, and that on the admin notice board, make clear that administrators can't be expected to be immune from the partisanship that plagues Middle East issues. I hope you will seriously consider, along with the above points, requiring administrators, before or while banning somebody, to log in explicit detail the diffs which caused them to decided on the ban, and a clear explanation of how these diffs violate any specific policies. That way the community can more easily hold admins accountable for their most serious decisions. Gni (talk) 14:10, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: Key New Evidence, May 14, 2008)[edit]

A comment to an article by Gershom Gorenberg about this affair, apparently by someone who was part of the Isra-pedia discussion group, alleges that Electronic Intifada selectively published certain posts while other posts were left unpublished. The poster, named "a member of the secret cabal," writes, inter alia: "Another question that should have been obvious would be: Are they revealing the whole discussion? Or are they leaving out things that contradict the message they, as anti-Israel activists, want to impress upon people. As my byline here suggests, I was signed up to the forum Gershom criticizes. And since I had access, I know that EI didn't publish the entire back and forth between members." The commenter points out that in this way, Electronic Intifada could manipulate the actual content of the discussion. (That comment can be found by scrolling down here [13]. This was always an obvious possibility, and raises questions about whether Electronic Intifada's 'evidence' should be accepted.

This point is hammered home by the following, even more compelling new information, published in New York's Jewish Week newspaper. An article notes: "The report reveals that Wikipedia user “Bangpound,” who first expressed concern about CAMERA’s subversive Wikipedia uses, is an Electronic Intifada staff member..." The sentence goes on to provide the staff member's name, which I will leave out here. But this certainly seems to be relevant and compelling evidence, and raises serious questions about the admissibility -- and accuracy -- of Bangpound's evidence. Evidence provided by an employee of a pro-Palestinian anti-Israel advocacy organization that harbors clear hostility toward CAMERA cannot be assumed to be complete or undoctored or accurate. The Jewish Week article can be found here [14]. Gni (talk) 03:28, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eleland objections below to the above information completely miss the point. Bangpound, the individual who provided the base "evidence" to administrators, is apparently an Electronic Initifada employee. I find it hard to believe Eleland is seriously trying to convince us that Bangpound would need to impersonate Zeq and hack CAMERA. Obviously not. All it would take to warp the evidence is the selective elimination from the record of several posts, and maybe the changing of one word here and there. There is obvious motive for an Electronic Intifada employee to do so. (Just as the organization itself apparently posted a doctored version of the discussion on its website.) This "evidence" -- some scanned documents that appeared out of nowhere provided by a pseudonymous individual who turns out to be an employee of an arch-rival organization -- would be laughed out of a courtroom. Gni (talk) 13:34, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have been accused of being a stooge (sockpuppet) for Zeq.

THIS IS UNTRUE[edit]

I have only entered a couple of grammatical edits in topics that have some interest to me. I only represent my own personal interests. I believe that wikipedia has the technical ability to determine that I am not this other person and I don't even have the same interests. I am not proficient at using this modality and I apologize if I am not doing this correctly. Please determine that someone who uses the name RolandR has been harrassing me in this faulty claim and clear my record. If I understood how to link to his information -CORRECTLY- I would do it. Jersmum (talk) 12:57, 8 May 2008 (UTC) jersmum[reply]

Zeq enganged in similar bahavior outside Wikipedia before[edit]

I had some e-mail communications with Zeq a while ago, and he suggested similar things to me. I repeatedly tried to tell him that this is not how WP works, but apparently he didn't listen. In any case, I hope other editors will not suffer for something Zeq wrote, as almost happened in Rfa:Zeq, where I was close to getting banned from an article in which I didn't make any significant edits, and certainly nothing controversial. (the mistake was realized and corrected after some heavy whining on my behalf). -- Heptor _talk 10:27, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

before using the last evidence template, please make a copy for the next person

Gni's "key new evidence" is spurious[edit]

Gni fails to distinguish between the e-mails which were published on the EI site itself and the full mbox archive which was not published, but distributed privately to the "Admin triumvirate" and the ArbCom. Having reviewed both, the 3 admins acknowledged that EI selected the more incriminating e-mails and excluded "fairly banal" exchanges, mostly related to the technical aspects of Wikipedia editing. This is not new evidence.

Given the nature of the e-mail archives, it was obvious from the beginning that they had been obtained by an EI employee or EI sympathizer who had surreptitiously joined the Isra-Pedia group in order to gather incriminating evidence on its members. In other words, we already know that the archive passed through EI's hands at some point. This is not new evidence.

Accuracy of published portion of list archive is supported by multiple lines of evidence[edit]

1. The e-mails by Zeq, who was the group's self-appointed strategist, showed detailed and specific knowledge of Wikipedia disputes he's been involved in, and they matched his fairly "unique" writing style to a T.
2. The editing discussed in the mailing list matches the activity going on at WP at the same time. When somebody says "I just signed up yesterday, and I corrected X and article Y," you find that yes, a new user account was created at that time and fixed X on article Y. I was personally involved in some of the disputes which the "e-mail Zeq" cited, and he wrote exactly what I would expect the "Wikipedian Zeq" to write.
3. WP editors who were identifiable in the CAMERA e-mails were asked point-blank: is this you, are the emails accurate? -- and none of them gave a straight answer. "Zeq" in particular was asked about 20 times and he only gave vague, general statements and counter-accusations about how he was being persecuted.
4. The user "Gni" is known to have edited from IP addresses registered to CAMERA, and is almost certainly Gilead Ini. The CAMERA call for volunteers went out March 13th, a week after Ini had started making questionable, promotional edits to the Wikipedia article on CAMERA, and most of his changes had failed to gain wider support. The introductory e-mails specifically mentioned this article as one of Ini's areas of concern. Most of the initial discussion on the list regarded this article.
5. Thus, to believe these e-mails were not authentic, we would have to believe that someone with very intimate knowledge of obscure Wikipedia politics put together an exceptionally well-crafted fraud, somehow spoofed CAMERA IP addresses or hacked CAMERA computers in order to make incriminating edits, and targeted at least one long-time pro-Israel user (Zeq) who even though he was the victim of this insidious conspiracy, ever denied writing the e-mails which were forged in his name, despite being asked about them repeatedly, and that even though it brought bad press to his organization, Mr. Ini for some reason refused to deny it either.

Case was itself an instance of lobbying Wikipedia[edit]

This case was pushed by a Wikipedia user who worked for an advocacy organisation.

Penalties based on over-reaction[edit]

The story by EI gave an alarmist view of the problem. This cased a degree of panic and a rush by some users to advocate penalties as harsh as possible in order to curb the imminent threat. There was in short a mass hysteria. This resulted in the initial penalties that were applied being increased. One of the admins had stated a preference for such penalties ahead of being involved in the investigation [15] . Admins who had not already become involved should have examined it.

sock puppetry, meat puppetry, good faith recruitment mixed up[edit]

I provided a detailed statement at [16]

I believe the charges of sock puppetry that are the justification for certain penalties are in some cases misplaced. The actions undertaken could at worst be described as attempted meat puppetry, something which is only discouraged not banned. The idea I assume being that even if people are recruited to "help" in a meat puppetry way, they will either learn how Wikipedia works, or leave. Wiki Project Palestine page noted the dispute and it could be said was directing partisan views into the dispute resolution [17].

Misleading evidence (Rebuttle)[edit]

It is asserted in the evidence above "Evidence amassed by Huldra and presented by Tiamut" that there are a number of differences between the CAMERA group and the Wikipedians for Palestine group. I find these distinctions misleading. Comments are below, the sources for these various statements can be seen at [18] and [19].

* 1. This group never recruited neophytes to edit Wikipedia; only editors already in "good standing" were allowed to join. - The group did say it would only take existing editors, but this was based on the need to check them out before hand. Only people who were both pro-Palestinian and anti-Zionist were allowed to join.

* 2. Unlike the Isra-pedia group, the existence of this group has never been hidden. It has always been public and purposely so (Yahoo does permit "unlisted" groups). - The group's name and description were available, the messages were not. When asked by an admin examining the camera case for access to verify they did nothing wrong, the group and archives were deleted.

* 3. Unlike the Isra-pedia effort, this group has always been explicitly committed to NPOV. - The Isra-pedia effort publically said the same thing. We have no idea what was said in private in Wikipedians for Palestine. We do know that insisting on anti-Zionist views amoungst editors shows a POV position.

* 4. This group has always been independent and never bankrolled and backed by any organization, let alone one as well staffed and funded as CAMERA. - This is an accusation about "powerful Jews", I personally find it offensive. Given there are no costs involved in such activities, it is also an irrelevent point. Finally there is evidence of organiations far larger than CAMERA being used to promote Wikipedians for Palestine.

5. This last point may help explain why Isra-pedia had more message traffic in one week than this group had in the last seven months. - Another interpretation would be that a new group generally gets lots of messages. An old group tends not to. We don't know the traffic this other group got when it started in Dec 2005, nor do we know how many people it had at its peak back then. The level of traffic only shows people were talking alot. The measure of disruption (or improvement) on Wikipedia is measured by edits.

Rebuttle to CJurrie[edit]

CJCurrie seems to be attacking me in any way possible. I don't have space for this. It is partially covered below.

Request for considered in arbitration[edit]

Originally raised at User_talk:Rlevse#Advice.3F, added here as suggested. The original version, if needed, is at [20] this is as short as possible.

CJCurrie has been conducting a campaign against me and I'm request help as this attack seriously undermines Wikipedia and my desire to continue editing here.

Remedies:

• The damage done to Wikipedia needs to be undone. CJCurries recent edits need to be reviewed.
• False accusations against myself and my site need to be settled. One resolution is to create a page on Zionism On The Web. CJCurrie should be resticted from editing it.
• CJCurrie’s attempt at POV and censorship should result in some sort of penalty. It relates to the Israeli Palestinian conflict, already under general sanctions.

False charges against me (done in bad faith)[edit]

On his evidence (below) CJCurrie made a groundless accusation that another user and myself were the same person. I supported his call for a UserCheck. I think this can be conclusively settled [21].

His activity on the Admin discussion board [22] led to JzG's adding it to his personal list of targets, saying ZOTW is “At best a polemical site unsuitable as a source or external link, at worst, a copyright violating hate site” [23]. I would like it removed and JzG warned about making allegations. The references removed show the site is neither of these things. We do republish some material, but have standing permission from a number of key primary sources.

Attempt to stir up Wikipedia editors against me (harassment)[edit]

This can be seen here [24]. Disagreement with a published op-ed is POV commentary on off Wikipedia content. The outing likewise was not on Wikipedia and in fact that page (at the time) didn't actually go that far.

NPOV, unfair accusation, witch hunting[edit]

The third allegation at [25] by CJCurrie (and the only one related to Wikiepdia) was that “Dr. Oboler once had a habit of adding "Zionism on the Web" links to sites that he visited” the links provided are to the article New Antisemitism (changes) and AUT boycott (changes).

My site is about combating antisemitism. The Academic Boycott Resource Center is part of the site. One of the links remvoed went to an article written by an academic in the field for my site. At the second page he lists I had added two links to my site and one to a news article. The links to my site go to the Resource Pages – the most complete collection of primary material on the boycotts, and to the “Protest against the boycott”, a section with original primary source material (speeches, photographs, etc). The protest was a significant item of news, see the picture and caption here, and the bottom of the JPost article reposted here.

CJCurrie argued at one point that there were too many links in Wikipedia to my site given its level of press coverage. Further exmaination (below) shows my site was the primary source for a number of article added to Wikipedia by a number of well respected editors. A site does not need to be notable to be a source (as discussed with CJCurrie). That the site may now be notable is another seperate issue, discussion at [26].

Vandalism complete removal of source[edit]

Despite the discussion on the admin page [27], CJCurrie removed all reference to Zionism On The Web (ZOTW) from en.wikiepdia. This campaign was an extreme effort at POV. As ZOTW holds copies of historic documents and references not elsewhere available, these edits degraded Wikipedia. Many of the links he removed had been included for over 2 years without complaint.

Examples of removal: (NB: Comment is CJCurrie's comment to his edit)

1. Comment: “Cancellation of boycott: removed dodgy statement from equally dodgy source” [28]

This removed reference to the peace vigil (as mentiond above).

2. Comment: It's not immediately clear why AJ6's criticism would be as notable as the ADL's or Brian Klug's [29]

Content removed is about a statement by AJ6, a movement that represents British Jewish students in their final years before university. Their statement expressing the specific concern of these pre-university students in light of an academic boycott are relevant, topical and not able to be substituted. This is removal of a relevant POV.

3. Comment: I doubt this is the best possible source that one could find on "dhimmi" status [30]

Content removed is a reference to an on topic article by Dr Denis MacEoin written for ZOTW.

4. Comment: remove non-notable essay [31] As above.

5. Comment: Here -- I'll add a more notable pro-Israel site in its place. I'm not against the inclusion of this perspective, just of the specific site in question. [32]

This is a clear statement of his intent in the comment.

The content change: Adds a link to Jewish Virtual Library, this is following a complaint after he removed a link to source documents on Zionism stored at Zionism On The Web here.

There can be no grounds for removing that links as it is provides references to key documents on the topic. His extra link is not a substitute.

Removal of links that started some Wikipedia pages Blatant removal of links to sourced material at ZOTW. The removal is commented by CJCurrie as:

6. Comment: “Removed "Zionism on the Web" link. This site has been spammed onto other article pages.”

The pages shows these to be links that were often there from the creation of the page. ZOTW was a primary source. The "spam" came from different users in an effort to build an encyclopedia.

6.1 Vaad Leumi had the link since creation, it was added by an Admin, Humus sapiens [33] it was there for years until CJCurrie remove it [34].

6.2 Judah he-Hasid, added [35] removed [36]

6.3 British Mandate of Palestine removed [37]

Removal of content example:

7. Comment: The source documents are useful, but the slanted intros are more than a bit problematic. Does anyone know of other sites offering the originals, without editiorial comment? [38]

The source document is no longer linked and Wikipedia is the poorer for it, this was clear POV editing.

8. Ber Borochov Comment: (none) [39] If an online source is available, then it should be cited. What possible grounds can there be for removing this?

Other examples of removal, definition of Zionism: In this instance (Jew) he went to some lengths to eliminate the link to the set of definitions of Zionism compiled at Zionism On The Web. [40]

And at anti-zionism eliminating a link to the definition of Zionism.

9. Comment “Removed "Zionism on the Web" link. This site has been spammed onto other article pages, and there's no way it deserves to be referenced in the intro” [41]

One editor has gone to some trouble to undertake a massive manipulation of Wikipedia outside of the formal processes, and inspite of discussion on the admin noticeboard.

The discussion at the admin notice board and his accusation against me here as well as user:JzG's description of my site feel like bullying, however this is only damaging to me personally. The attempt to wipe reference to ZOTW out of Wikiepdia (despite admin discussion saying this would be going too far and despite this being the best and sometimes only source for information) is damaging to Wikipedia. The references to ZOTW have been placed by many known editors and admins who have found it a reliable and useful source. That CJCurrie has a POV objection to a source is not sufficient grounds for undoing their work over the years. Oboler (talk) 17:33, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefully, I can shed some light on the recruiting effort by "wiki for Palestine" yahoo group (now hastily deleted after at first all the 2008 e-mails were removed from it's archive):

1. An invitation to join this group appeared in the al-awda mailing list.

2. When I attempted to join the "wiki for Palestine" group by providing my e-mail I was asked to prove that I am already an editor in wikipedia. Furthermore, I was asked to provide my wikipedia user ID to the organizers of the list so that they can specifically review my previous contributions to wikipedia to demonstrate that my editing in wikipedia is pro-Palestinian POV. ( I guess this is what Tiamut and Huldra call "good standing" wikipedia editor.)

3. Next, the organizers, who were very concerned about infiltration into their group – they feared that exactly what EI did to CAMERA will be done to them – have demanded that they receive a proof that the e-mail from which I attempted registration to the group indeed belongs to the wikipedia editor User ID who's edits are "pro-Palestinian" .

4. To ensure the identity they provided me (via e-mail) with a code word - which looked benign. I was asked to edit wikipedia and insert this code word into my edit so that my wikipedia contribution page will show then that the exact code word send to my e-mail .

Since I was not actually editing wikipedia at the time I lost interest in the group. The process shows that they do view wikipedia as a battle field and were highly concerned about infiltration and "espionage".

In fact, if one look at hat EI and CAMERA was able to accomplish, it is exactly this: They have brought into wikipedia the battle field which they have with each other. While CAMERA failed, EI was successful in using wikipedia for their own propaganda that they got double milage out of it:

1. Bad press for CAMERA (which got what it deserve I might add) 2. Removal of editors who balanced the EI pro-Palestinian POV.

While it is clear from this that wiki for Palestine members (like Tiamut and Huldra?) have performed hundreds of edits – while being members of an out side pressure groups ("al-awda" and "wiki for Palestine") - I am stressed to see what the CAMERA group have actually was able to accomplish other than present itself as fools.

Best that wikipedia can do at this point is to keep this battle off wikipedia instead of taking sides embracing one side in this propaganda war while crucifying the other in the name of keeping wikipedia clean from outside influence. This outside influence is already here to stay an better be dealt with by focusing on keeping the content pure and true to wikipedia NPOV policy. -- Southkept (talk) 19:44, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rebuttle to Fut.Perf.[edit]

quote from Fut.Perf. :

"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: ([42], [43]). "

1. Review of the two edits mentioned in the diff show them to be completely benign edits. They have nothing to do with the so called "Zeq's point of view" (as it is quoted from the EI letters)
2. The list of diffs in the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Statement re Wikilobby campaign is limited to 3 articles: One is the CAMERA article itself, another is the name of the 2006 war and the 3rd are those two benign edits to the Hezbollah article: [44], [45]
3. None of those edits show any significant violation to wikipedia policies – especially in light of the accusations made by EI that there was conspiracy to re-write history.
4. None of the edits support the assertion by the 3 admins that there was a long-term threat on wikipedia
5. None of the edits seems to correspond to the pattern of edits that EI claim the group was operating on. There is no one that was shown to make edits in non Israel-Palestine articles in an attempt to become an admin, there are no edits that targeted Trac (as the EI document seems to suggest) --Southkept (talk) 19:17, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is at least one factual error in User:Oboler's "rebuttle".

He writes: "Another interpretation would be that a new group generally gets lots of messages. An old group tends not to. We don't know the traffic this other group got when it started in Dec 2005, nor do we know how many people it had at its peak back then. If it had less [sic] people it may be due to the careful vetting process they had (and high rejection by them of potential candidates, and by those they tried to recruit of their idea). It may also be that they too moved else where [sic] and there is now no public listing (conjecture). The level of traffic only shows people were talking alot [sic]. The measure of disruption (or improvement) on Wikipedia is measured by edits."

However, Oboler's own off-Wiki evidence indicates that the group was formed on January 31, 2006: http://www.zionismontheweb.org/internet_warfare/Wikipedia_palestine1.jpg. (Check out the left side column.) This means that his screenshot conveys the entirety of the group's activities: 47 posts over the space of a year and a half.

I don't believe there's any need to address Oboler's conjectures. There's no evidence that this group had any on-Wiki influence whatsoever, and I suspect that most people had never heard of them until a few weeks ago. I certainly hadn't, and I've been active in this field for some time. CJCurrie (talk) 05:13, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Request for checkuser[edit]

Could I please request that a checkuser be done for User:Oboler and User:Southkept?

These users have similar writing styles, and have made complementary arguments on this evidence page. They have also been in communication with one another on their user pages, supporting each other's work and providing updates on their recent activities ([46], [47], [48], [49]). In and of itself, none of this would prove that they are one and the same user ... but I find it difficult to believe that two different users with the same perspective and writing style would misspell "rebuttal" as "rebuttle" (for evidence, see this edit and Oboler's edit from 16:22 17 May 2008, the original diff for which has been deleted though the misspelling is still visible on this page).

Please note that I am not making this request lightly. I recognize that this could possibly raise privacy issues for the involved party/parties, but I strongly believe that this concern is more than counter-balanced by other factors:

a) This case has been plagued from the start by "cloak and dagger" behaviour from various parties. If it turns out that one party to this case is using a sockpuppet account to provide additional "evidence" (and participate in workshop discussions: see for instance [50], [51]), this can hardly be said to improve the situation.

b) The only off-wiki "evidence" -- or, more accurately, conjecture -- of misbehaviour on the Palestine mailing list comes from Andre Oboler, who has openly identified as User:Oboler. I rather think that his take on the matter would be seen in a different light, if it transpires that he was actually trying to infiltrate the group in 2006.

c) User:Oboler's edit from 16:22 17 May 2008 almost seems to be a pre-emptive defense of this sort of sockpuppetry, albeit not (IMO) a very convincing one.

d) Perhaps most importantly, the similarities between these two users strike me as quite obvious, and I doubt I'm the only person who has noticed. If someone has to "bell the cat" by asking for official proof, I suppose it might as well be me.

I apologize in advance if this turns out to be a misunderstanding. CJCurrie (talk) 00:20, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rebuttal to Oboler[edit]

Concerning this, I can only respond that Oboler's interpretation of events is not shared by all parties. While I welcome his call for an IP check, I will note that (i) these scans aren't a foolproof method of identifying socks, and (ii) the odds of two like-minded editors misspelling "rebuttal" in the same distinctive way strike me as quite remote. CJCurrie (talk) 17:58, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Further response to Oboler[edit]

I would request that arbitrators reject Oboler's remarks toward me (above) as unworthy of their consideration. CJCurrie (talk) 22:04, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it evident that Southkempt is really Dajudem, as he defends her edits so well. As for Wikipedians for Palestine being benign, "What you don't know can't hurt you" --let me remind you that the number of messages published at Yahoo! was not necessarily the totality of emails exchanged by members. A group as completely dedicated to secrecy as SouthKempt has demonstrated, would clearly communicate sensitive material privately. Your aggressive editing of Oboler (which he calls 'vandalism' and I think rightly so)is hard to explain as NPOV. 69.21.249.114 (talk) 04:56, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

before using the last evidence template, please make a copy for the next person

{Write your assertion here}[edit]

Place argument and diffs which support your assertion; for example, your first assertion might be "So-and-so engages in edit warring", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits to specific articles which show So-and-so engaging in edit warring.