Proposed final decision
Template
1) {text of proposed principle}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Authority of an administrator to ban under probation
1) A single administrator, whether involved in editing of the article or not, may ban a user under a probation remedy imposed by the Arbitration Committee, unless more than one is required by the terms of the remedy. The sole recourse for overturning such a ban is a successful request for arbitration alleging abuse of discretion by the administrator. Objections may be made to the banning administrator, but no other administrator may overturn the ban.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Proposed Fred Bauder 21:24, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Obviously this is not clear, judging from the discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Arbitration_enforcement/Archive1#User:Guy_Montag. Fred Bauder 21:24, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Resetting of probation
2) Probation which is limited to a term is not reset by bans imposed under it.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Proposed Fred Bauder 21:29, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- This question was raised at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Arbitration_enforcement/Archive1#User:Guy_Montag.
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Users on probation
2.5) Users who are on probation remain free to edit in the same manner as other users. Unless they are banned from a specific article or area they may continue to engage in the same give and take as other editors.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Proposed Fred Bauder 16:12, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Communication regarding polls
3) Users may communicate in a reasonable manner with other users regarding active polls which for one reason or another they feel the other users might wish to weigh in on.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Proposed Fred Bauder 21:39, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
- There needs to be a big HOWEVER tacked onto this, something to the effect that voting patterns arising from such polls may need to be carefully scrutinized by whoever closes it. Stifle (talk) 23:41, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Administrative discretion in closing polls
4) Administrators may take into consideration all relevant factors when closing a poll. These may include the degree to which the poll drew a significant number of voters, type and extent of campaigning regarding the poll, whether the poll is for reversal of a unilateral action or any other relevant factor. It is often much easier for an administrator who is involved in the issue to know such factors, provided they are not strongly biased regarding the matter.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Proposed Fred Bauder 22:00, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
6) The article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. Articles that compare views need not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and may not include tiny-minority views at all.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Significance of points of view may differ from the extent that they have been published. The Zionist point of view as well as the Palestinian point of view is always as relevant as "objective" historical viewpoints. Fred Bauder 16:15, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment by parties:
- Proposed. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 01:10, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment by others:
- They are also relevant and need to be included, but they should not be treated as equivalent yo an objective viewpoint.Gleng 16:39, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
7) Wikipedia articles should use reliable published sources.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Proposed. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 01:10, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment by others:
8) The only way to demonstrate that you are not doing original research is to cite reliable sources which provide information that is directly related to the topic of the article, and to adhere to what those sources say.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Proposed. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 01:10, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment by others:
- For topics like this, there needs to be clarity and resolution about what constitute reliable verifiable sources. It is easy for authors to proclaim themselves as historians (David Irving, Samuel Katz), but for an encyclopedia we need sources that are academic historians affiliated to major Universities who publish in the academic peer reviewed literature, regardless of their viewpoint. For historical topics, contemporary eye witness accounts are primary raw data, and assembling these is original research; academic secondary sources weigh the totality of evidence, and assess the reliability of individual sources, and without this, then repeating eyewitness accounts might be little more than cataloguing propoganda. This article seems badly flawed in not adhering to V RS, and has become a vehicle for pov pushing. The above principle needs qualifying, to stress that the sources should be secondary sources, that the paraphrasing of information from those sources should be verifiable, and that the sources should be reputable, and we have to assume that academic affiliation confers reputability.Gleng 10:30, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- External links to blogs during a current event are not sources, but an opportunity for the reader to access contemporary opinion about the matter from diverse viewpoints. Fred Bauder 10:42, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
9) Generally, article naming should give priority to what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature. (See also ArbCom vote in previous case about choosing descritptive names)
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Generally true but see also Wikipedia:Naming_conflict#Descriptive_names. Fred Bauder 14:27, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment by parties:
- Proposed. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 01:13, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment by others:
10) In general, Wikipedia articles should not depend on primary sources but rather on reliable secondary sources who have made careful use of the primary-source material.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Proposed. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 01:25, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment by others:
Copyright violations
11) Wikipedia:Copyright violations forbids use of material copied from published works. The information in sources may be used if credited. Failure to credit a source is plagiarism.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Proposed Fred Bauder 14:19, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Choice of article name
12) In addition to the principle that the most common English usage should be used for the title of an article, should conflict arise regarding which title is appropriate "choose a descriptive name for an article that does not carry POV implications", Wikipedia:Naming_conflict#Descriptive_names.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Proposed Fred Bauder 14:34, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- However this principle may be more appropriate for subjects regarding which English usage has not stabilized rather than historical events which are generally known by a well-established name. Fred Bauder 14:34, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment by parties:
- See Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Israeli_apartheid/Proposed_decision#Choosing_descriptive_names. If anything, this case is much clearer with regard to common name than the Israeli Apartheid Article. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 14:38, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment by others:
Template
1) {text of proposed principle}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
1) {text of proposed principle}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
1) {text of proposed principle}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
1) {text of proposed principle}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
1) {text of proposed principle}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
1) {text of proposed principle}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
1) {text of proposed finding of fact}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Locus of dispute
1) The locus of the dispute is editing by Guy_Montag (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) of Deir Yassin massacre and administrative actions by KimvdLinde (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA).
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Proposed Fred Bauder 17:30, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Guy Montag on probation
2) On October 9, 2005 Guy Montag was placed on probation for one year with respect to articles which relate to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Yuber#Guy_Montag_placed_on_probation. A ban was twice imposed with respect to Deir Yassiin massacre, once for POV disruption (the revision and title change), and again for copyright violation, but lifted both times when other administrators objected Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Arbitration_enforcement/Archive1#User:Guy_Montag Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive123#Deir_Yassin and Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive123#Guy_Montag_banned_from_Deir_Yassin_massacre_.282.29.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Proposed Fred Bauder 13:01, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- In order for probation to be relevant Guy Montag would have to have been banned from editing Deir Yassin massacre; which I don't think happened. Fred Bauder 16:44, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment by parties:
- It was tried twice, it is part of the saga. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 17:17, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- What was tried? Probation or putting him on probation? Fred Bauder 18:14, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- He was banned twice for the article, and it was undone twice as well. And I quetion the first undoing because the admin clearly had his mind made up about the article. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 19:59, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- In the first case, the ban was lifted by another admin, not by the admin in question. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 21:36, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment by others:
Move to Battle of Deir Yassin
3) On June 29, 2006 Guy Montag moved Deir Yassin massacre to Battle of Deir Yassin with the comment, "Title does not cover the entire scope of events and is only a small claim about events that happened during/ and or after battle; hence the name." [1]. This was combined with a "total rewrite" of the article, see Talk:Battle_of_Deir_Yassin#Total_Rewrite and subsequent discussion.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Proposed Fred Bauder 18:33, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Viewed in isolation, quite reasonable. Fred Bauder 18:33, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment by parties:
- Are you serious, you consider a whitewash reasonable?-- Kim van der Linde at venus 20:00, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, serious, but I was speaking of the title, not of the contents. However, even if I agree with the contents, which I probably do, that is not dispositive. There is a prominent notice at Wikipedia:Verifiability#Verifiability.2C_not_truth which forbids use of my own conclusions. Fred Bauder 21:16, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, that is clear. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 00:37, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment by others:
The vote on moving
4) Following the move there was a vote regarding the move Talk:Deir_Yassin_massacre#The_vote_on_moving. The result was even, but based on "votestalking" (campaigning) by Guy Montag the vote, when closed by KimvdLinde, was declared to support a move back to massacre.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Proposed Fred Bauder 19:22, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Soliciting of votes by Guy Montag
5) Guy Montag solicited other users regarding the poll on changing the title to the article in a reasonable manner [2], [3], [4], [5], [6].
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Proposed Fred Bauder 21:43, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Abuse of discretion by KimvdLinde in closing poll
6) KimvdLinde did not abuse her discretion as an administrator in taking into consideration the campaigning by Guy Montag with respect to the poll. Neither did she abuse her discretion by closing a poll regarding which she was an involved editor, discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive123#Battle_of_Deir_Yassin.2FDeir_Yassin_massacre:_move_poll_closure_review_requested and at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive123#What_to_do_if_a_move_poll_is_determined_by_partisan_reasons.3F.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Proposed Fred Bauder 21:50, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- If one side campaigns vigorously and the other not at all, that may be taken into consideration. Only an involved administrator can be expected to have the knowledge and interest rendering them capable of closing such a poll. An "uninvolved" administrator is, by definition, not up to speed on the details required to look beyond the mere numbers. Fred Bauder 21:50, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Guy Montag workpages
7) User:Guy Montag/project1 User:Guy Montag/project2
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Notes Fred Bauder 22:56, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
8) The books and articles by historians as Milstein and Morris who work for large universities, and whose work is published by reputable publishers are considered reliable soucres. Online publications of organisations who have a specified agenda such as the Zionist Organisation of America are not considered reliable sources.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Whether a Zionist source is reliable depends on their scholarship, not on their point of view. They are always a source for their point of view which ought to be fairly represented in the article. Fred Bauder 14:42, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment by parties:
- Proposed. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 01:41, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The ZOA states themselves: Since its founding in 1897, the Zionist Organization of America has been fighting for the Jewish people and the Land of Israel. Under the leadership of such illustrious presidents as Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis, Rabbi Dr. Abba Hillel Silver, and current National President Morton A. Klein, the ZOA has been on the front lines of Jewish activism.. Furthermore, the article has not been published in any international scholary journal. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 14:52, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment by others:
- I think it's important to distinguish between opinion and fact, clearly partisan sources are good evidence for the existence of particular opinions or interpretations, but they are not reliable sources for statements of fact; if reasonably disputed, these need reputable (academic, verifiable, peer reviewed) sources.Gleng 16:24, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't know if the ArbCom will consider this, as it appears to be a content ruling. Stifle (talk) 23:42, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- If determining what reliable sources are is a content ruling, then you are right. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 01:48, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
9) Quotes from eyewitness reports have extensively been used to make a specific point rather than to illustrate the point made by secondary reliable sources, resulting in original research.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- However, the quotes complained of were collected and published by secondary sources and are quite different in their nature from quotes a Wikipedia researcher might have collected themselves. Fred Bauder 14:45, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment by parties:
- Proposed. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 01:41, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The selective usage of eyewitness quotes (even when oublished in reputable secondary sources) can provide a dramatically different view of the situation than the conclusions of the secondary source itself. Quotemining is a often used method of historical revisionism. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 14:48, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment by others:
Title
10) "Deir Yassin massacre" is a much more commonly used name than "Battle of Deir Yassin" (see talk page discussion, for example here and other places).
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Accepted Fred Bauder 14:52, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- "Conquest of Deir Yassin" would perhaps be the most accurate description. It googles about 1,500 and is used in the historical literature may be purchased for $22. Fred Bauder 14:52, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment by parties:
- Proposed. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 01:41, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Deir Yassin massacre googles 627 unique non-wikipedia hits [7] while Conquest of Deir Yassin googles 12 unique non-wikipedia hits [8], which are all a direct reference to Yitzhak Levi's "Conquest of Deir Yassin" [9]. Battle of Deir Yassin returns 38 unique non-wikipedia hits [10] -- Kim van der Linde at venus 15:44, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment by others:
- On Google {"Massacre of Deir Yassin" -wikipedia} yields about 3,400 hitsGleng 09:35, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
11) The majority of scholars familiar with Deir Yassin call it a massacre, and as such should be reflected in the article.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Scholars are acutely aware of that common usage, but it remains an inherently point of view term which may not accurately reflect the nature and purpose of the Zionist attack on the village. Fred Bauder 15:01, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment by parties:
- Proposed. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 01:41, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment by others:
- There seems to be a complex trap here; if the term is in common usage, then not to use it seems to be editorialising with a pov. It seems to me that a possible action might have been to set "massacre" in inverted commas to indicate that the title reflects usage (demonstrably true) rather than necessarily a factual description, but a change to Battle would itself have been a strong expression of pov.Gleng 16:36, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Copyright violations by Guy Montag
11) Guy Montag copied and pasted substantial sections from various websites for his rewrite of the article, see [11] and Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Deir_Yassin_massacre/Evidence#Copyright_violations.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Approved Fred Bauder 14:11, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment by parties:
- Proposed. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 01:41, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment by others:
Original research by Guy Montag
12) Guy Montag supported his move of the article with original reasoning [12], see also Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Deir_Yassin_massacre/Evidence#Original_research:_massacre_definition and subsequent sections.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Proposed Fred Bauder 17:22, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Disruption by Guy Montag
13) Guy Montag disrupted Deir Yassin massacre by tendentious editing and copyright violations which would have supported an article ban under the terms of his probation, however, he was not banned other than temporarily.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Proposed Fred Bauder 17:24, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
1) {text of proposed finding of fact}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
1) {text of proposed finding of fact}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
1) {text of proposed finding of fact}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
1) {text of proposed finding of fact}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.
Template
1) {text of proposed remedy}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Guy Montag probation extended
1) Guy Montag's probation under the terms of Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Yuber#Guy_Montag_placed_on_probation is extended to include one year from the final date of this decision.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Proposed Fred Bauder 17:27, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Administrators encouraged
2) KimvdLinde and other administrators are encouraged to effectively enforce Guy Montag's probation in appropriate circumstances.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Proposed Fred Bauder 17:32, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
1) {text of proposed remedy}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
1) {text of proposed remedy}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
1) {text of proposed remedy}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
1) {text of proposed remedy}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
1) {text of proposed remedy}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
1) {text of proposed remedy}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
1) {text of proposed enforcement}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
1) {text of proposed enforcement}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
1) {text of proposed enforcement}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
1) {text of proposed enforcement}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
1) {text of proposed enforcement}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Place here items of evidence (with diffs) and detailed analysis
Template
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others: