This is a page for working on Arbitration decisions. It provides for suggestions by Arbitrators and other users and for comment by arbitrators, the parties and others. After the analysis of /Evidence here and development of proposed principles, findings of fact, and remedies. Anyone who edits should sign all suggestions and comments. Arbitrators will place proposed items they have confidence in on /Proposed decision.
1. I have just noticed a temporaray ban which I will offcourse obey. Howver, Ian and me are not the only parties inviolved in the dispute about these two articles. User Zero has been reverting the articles many times (including violation of 3RR which for some mistrious reason were not handled). In any case, this ban should include all involved parties.
Here is a partial list of diff that represent revertes identical to those of Ian. the vast majority of these edits are by user zero who participted in what has been going on in this article in the same way Ian and I did:
Added later: Not much sense in having a temporaray ban if other editors do the edit war on behalf of the participants:
[1] - Clearly the problem here are two groups of editors (one larger than the other) who represent two conflicting POV and no one Neutral who is able to take control over the articles and lead to an NPOV compromise.
2. The wikipedia system, as it is now set up, is encourajing such edit wars, especially when there is more editors from one side of the debate. I have propsed in the past that the editing process (especially of continious issues) will be divided to two parts:
A stable version, available to the outside reader
An internal, "in-progress" version that will be worked upon using a colborative process.
Only after the "in progress" version stabalize, it can be moved to replace the stable version.
I belive such a process will solve most of the edit warring and would induce colaboration, even in such issues as the middle-east conflict.
The process can be implemented today, without any software changes by using an agreed upon protection mechanism.
The article itself will be the "stable" vesrion and protected from editing. Any editor who wish to participate will be referd to a workshop page which starts out as a copy of the article. Only when the work in the workshop stablize (and maybe voted upon, allowing wider participation) the workshop vesrion is copied to the article itself and reprotected.
I encourgae ArbCom to deal with the bigger issues. A quick look at the history of "Palestinian exodus" will show you that
1. the edit wars have been going on there long before I joined to the frey
2. Most editors who did not agreed to the Palestinian narraitive of the subjects have been "scred-off" the page
3. The page is practicaly "owned" by theose who folow the Palestinian narritive of the Events.
Despite my attempts over several month, I doubt if a single word I wrote for this article survived the edit wars by the "owners" of this article.
I propse that ArbCom would appoint a Neutral "Guardian" to implement the "Protection+workshop" process described above (this is sort of mediation, where the mediator has "locking power" beyond just good will)
On my part, I would welcome working with such a "guardian" to resolve all issues in this article. This process will promote stability well beyond banning a specific user (as the history page shows that once in a while someone else finds the araticle to be completly POV , tries to correct it and eventually gives up) Zeq 05:22, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Your proposition is rather complicated and addresses a number of issues. Who, in your opinion should be a party to this arbitration? Should our remedies extend to all editors of Palestinian_exodus and 1948_Arab-Israeli_War, to all articles regarding Israeli-Palestinian conflict? Appointment of a neutral guardian seems almost impossible and essentially an abandonment of wiki process. I haven't gotten into this yet in detail. Why don't we watch the articles and see if things don't calm down a bit. Fred Bauder 17:23, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
They may calm down for a while but the same way that a temporary protection never worked so does "waiting" will not solve anything.
The arbitration process may focus on one individual(or two) at the time but I see from your reply that "complexity" and "abandonment of process" may be used to avoid doing the only thing that would allow such articles to be worked on in a colborative manner.
I think you (the arbitors) must look at this from a "game theory" precpective, analyze what the two sides want and find a way to use what the parties want in order to set rulles that would allow wikipedia to end up with a better araticle, one that conform to Wikipedia ideas such as NPOV. This is the goal and let us not place "wikipedia process" ahead of ending up with a better more neutral articles.
Using game theory, you can play to make the article go your way by adding positive information for your "side" and negative information for your opponent while meanwhile preventing him from adding positive information for his side or negative information regarding your side. This is the usual frustrating edit warring, demanding sources strategy.
It is intended by NPOV that the game is played by creating a fair representation of both viewpoints. A "fair representation" of a viewpoint would be one satisfactory to the proponent of that viewpoint. Applied to Israeli-Palestinian issues, at a minimum, an article would present an Israeli viewpoint which the Israeli side would consider a fair representation of their viewpoint and a Palestinian viewpoint which the Palestinian side would consider a fair representation of their viewpoint. This view is somewhat simplistic as other viewpoints, some quite cranky, may also be present. Fred Bauder 15:13, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure I understand. Too sophisticated for me. can you explain in simpler words: what is the conclusion. Zeq 16:40, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Edits below are older discussion:
Please let me know if you agree that this should be our goal and if so I will explain why the method proposed is not so complex (who would be the guardian is a minor issue, there are many qulified neutral editors who could have this job). But if you do not agree with me about the goals we should not continue to talk about the mechanism. so let me know. Zeq 20:38, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
PS I truely don't care if you extend the temporary ban to all editors from both sides or not - it is after all very easy to identify all that took part in the edit wars (just see the list of diffs above) so it is up to ArbCom if you want the process to be equal to all parties but the real issue is for ArbCom to see that the problem is much much bigger than 1-2 individuals. The problem is the articles themself and a (lack of ) process that allowed articles (such as Palestinian exodus) to become even close to NPOV. just look at the history of that article going 3 years back: When there were more pro_israeli editors it was totaly pro Israel ; now, when there are few more pro-Palestinian editors it is totaly biased to the other side. Is the quality of Wikipedia articles hostage to a small group who can create a temporay majority and survive change attempts it see as "attacks" on it's core narative ? Zeq 20:44, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Template
1) I move that the ArbCom will either remove the temporaray ban or add to the ban others (mainly user Zero as well as Palmiro, Huldra) who were part of the discussion in these two articles. Ample evidence above. Zeq 05:26, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Zero is continuing his one sided POV edits: [2]Zeq 20:01, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And this edit: [3]Zeq 16:37, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
(I´m completely new & unfamiliar to arb. com. business, but I´m posting here since User:Zeq has called for having me banned (see above) from editing in two articles. Please remove this if I should not post here.) As to the case:
11 Dec. 2005: information about rapes (of Arab women) (sourced in Benny Morris) was deleted with the comment that it was "not notable". I strongly disagree, and reinserted inf. [4]. The inf. was again deleted, by Zeq, [5], and reinserted by me [6].
On 24. Jan 2006 I had 3 more edits: [7], [8], and [9]
-And I have done exactly one edit (a rv) on the 1948 Arab-Israeli War: 27. Jan. 2006: [10], which was immediately reverted by User:Heptor (Who, incidentally, Zeq find no reason to want to ban.)
However, I have a lot of experience with Zeq, editing the Israeli Arabs.
I note that Zeq very much want the Arb.com. to treat everybody equally, and that is a point of view I have a lot of sympathy with. He has suggested that I should be banned from editing 1948 Arab-Israeli War after one edit (a rv), in addition to beeing banned from editing Palestinian exodus. I believe my edits in these 2 articles represents less that 1% of my total edits in the article-space. I therefore will not object if you follow Zeqs recommendations with regards to me, on one condition: that you treat Zeq somewhat the same way he wants to treat others. That is: ban User:Zeq from editing any article on Wikipedia where he has done one (or more) reverts. In fact, I would be eternally grateful to you if you did; I could then go back to editing Israeli Arabs, which is an outrageous mess at the moment as Zeq has scared most other editors off. Regards, Huldra 04:15, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I requested that Huldra be temporaraly banned from editing the 1948 war just because she has edited on behalf of banned user Ian[14]. In general She should not at all be banned. (no user should be banned)
In general, I don't think bans are the answer. In fact, in Israeli Arab article I think that Huldra made good contribution as well as the contribution made by me. She may not like all that I added there and I may not like all that she added there but that is life: There are unpleasent facts.
I am very proud of my work on Israeli Arab. That article can serve as a clear example why would some people want to ban me. . Before I started to edit wikipedia that article looked like this: [15] - a short un accurate intro and a long list about discrimination, as if this is the only aspect that an encyclopedia should have about a complex group that very few knows even exist (PLalestinians who are citizens of Israel).
Because of my work, and contribution by others , like Huldra, who objected part of what I added and brought their POV the result is a fairly balanced article. I wish articles like Nakba would enjoy the process as much as israeli Arabs did. So no wonder that some Like Huldra want to ban me. They want the articles to be as POV as they were before i showed up (adn as POV as Nakba still is.
Gentlemen, I am not the problem (Even if you don't like my methods). The problem is lack of balanc in many wikipedia articles about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. I am only trying to correct that and in all honesty: Either you revoke the temporay ban or you apply it to all others (i.e. Zero, Palmiri, Heptor, Huldra) who take part in those editwars until such time as Wikipedia create an enfirceable mechanism to facilitate NPOV edits on such subjects.
As I have shown above user Zero continue edit wars in these articles as wellas in others. The problem is systematic is not a specific user.
Given this edit: [16] the temp ban should apply to Zero who was a participant like myself and Ian. Zeq 17:23, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I request the arbitors make a rulling on the issue: Are you going to treat all the participants (especially Zero) equally ?
If you decide to treat everyone equaly, please decide if you want to impose the temporaray ban to all that participted (see evidance above) or lift it from everyone.
There is already a history of 3RR violations (twice that I myself documented) that Zero was not punished for. Is it because he is an Admin ? I thought the bar of expectations from Admins should be higher not lower. In any case: Please apply what ever temporary measures you think are approriate but apply them equally. Thank You. Zeq 15:32, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I Moved some times ago (Twice) that the ArbCom would extended the temporaray ban to user Zero who was the major perpatrator of the discussion (as much as Ian and me). Clearly a look at this history page shows [17] that user zero (with more ample evidence above) is continuing the endless obstruction to reach a solution to articles on the issue.
In one of these articles, the main dispute is "what qualify as good source". The ArbCom should find a way to implement Wikipedia policies. Banning this or that user is not the answer if the remaining unbanned user can not reach an agreement on which sources to use.
Zero is not the only one who takes part. Other users, (again evidence above) have actually edited on behalf of banned user Ian and reverted content in the articles in question. So Clearly the ArbCom need to define parameters on how Wikipedia policies can be observed by any user participating in these articles.
2)
In another article (Nakba) - the issue is the complete failure (over years) of NPOV policy. Again, ArbCom should find a way to ensure that the article is not "owned" by a group of POV users and become a focus of one side propeganda. There is a clear policy (NPOV) but there is currently no mechanism that enforce it. For example, ArbCom should consider deleting an article and creating a process by which a non-public version of this article is worked upon. Until such time as consensus is reached that the article is NPOV the article will not be made availble to the wider (non-editing) public.
2a) A wider participation, by non-POV editors, should be encourged. Again this something hat ArbCom should try to put in place - add editors and not ban any one.
Acatually the person that has ample evidence of editwarring is Zero [18] which for some unclear resaon was removed from this arbitration case although he is the main party to it (objects sources that are not according to his POV) Zeq 13:26, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
3) It is unacceptable to remove relevant material from an article if its source is a scholarly work by an authority in the field.
Comment by Arbitrators:
This applies to Zeq's repeated removal of the information sourced in Benny Morris's work. Fred Bauder 15:23, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:
Tendentious editing
4) Users who disrupt the editing of articles by engaging in sustained aggressive point of view editing may be banned from the affected articles. In extreme cases they may be banned from the site.
Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:
Quotation of opinions in Wikipedia
5) Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Wikipedia's main goal is to provide hard information to its readers. Opinions by individuals, especially in controversial issues, are not hard information, and must have much higher threshold for being considered notable.
Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Suggested by me. This applies to the quotation of the "prominent Palestinian scholar and activist" Hanan Ashraw Heptortalk 15:09, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A more general example: if a journalist reports that a brigade moved from A to B, it is notable. If he in the same article writes that it was a bad move, it is not notable, especially if the soundness of this move is know to be controversial. --Heptortalk 01:13, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by others:
Neutrality in disputed topics
6a) Articles on disputed topics should endeavour to represent all notable points of view. An article that gives some of the views an undue weight, is in violation of Wikipedia:Neutral_Point_Of_View. It should be expanded so that all notable points of view are represented properly. Until it is appropriately expanded, the article should be marked with ((POV)) or ((POV-because)). An explanation of the tag should be placed on the talk page.
Comment by Arbitrators:
The tag just tells me that there is conflict, which in the case of Palestinian-Israeli articles, I already know. What it signals is that there is active conflict with POV editing on one or both sides, but almost always by whoever put the tag up. The cure for lack of balance is finding good sources for the weakly presented point of view, not getting rid of well sourced information for the strongly presented point of view. The Mufti quotes, if they are real, can doubtless be found in a credible source. Fred Bauder 15:23, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree about deleting info. I don't think information should be removed, except when unnotable. I do think that opinions by people, as opposed to facts, must have a much higher treshold for being considered notable, as is suggested above in "Neutrality in disputed topics". Otherwise, the article should be taged with the mentioned tags.
The point with the proposition is that if the article is not neutral, the reader must be informed about it. Otherwise Wikipedia risks to be misleading.
I consider the sources provided (Pearlman, Schechtman, Honning) credible, even if they are not academic. The quotation is presented in the article as "he allegedly said, "Arabs, arise [...]", so I really don't see the problem. Still, if the motion "Sources in controversial matters (b)" fails to pass, the quotation will indeed have to be removed until academic sourses are found. --Heptortalk 01:13, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
PS: If the quotation can be found in an academic publication is one question. If it will be found by someone who will publish it on Wikipedia, is, unfortunatly, another question. --Heptortalk 01:35, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by parties:
Suggested by me. The article Palestinian Exodus gives an undue weight to the Palestinian view, and should remain to be marked with ((POV)). A casual reader should be able to easily get information on why an article is disputed. Most people would just ignore the tag otherwise. Heptortalk 15:09, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The ((POV-because)) itself appears to me to create potential POV issues regarding how it is applied, and to run the risk of further hostilities regarding the template itself. I strongly disagreed with its application to the Palestinian exodus page and would deplore any widespread use of it, except perhaps for the rather narrower circumstances for which its creator apparently intended it. Palmiro | Talk 15:12, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I see your point, but the problem is that a casual reader may ignore a simple ((POV)) tag. If an article is disputed, the casual reader should be informed about why it is disputed. I think it is best done with the ((POV)) or, preferably ((POV-because)) tag, and a note on the talk page, as I wrote on the Talk:Palestinian_exodus#Neutrality_of_this_article_is_disputed (Someone should update it by the way) --Heptortalk 01:13, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by others:
Neutrality in disputed topics
6b) Articles on disputed topics should endeavour to represent all notable points of view. An article that gives some of the views an undue weight, is in violation of Wikipedia:Neutral_Point_Of_View. It should be expanded so that all notable points of view are represented properly. Until it is appropriately expanded, the article should be marked with ((POV)). An explanation of the tag should be placed on the talk page.
Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Fair enough, I added this one as an alternative to (a). ((POV-because)) does seem to be rather unpopular. --Heptortalk 01:28, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by others:
Sources in controversial matters
7a:1) For controversial facts, only primary sources or publications by acknowledged academics should be trusted as sources.
Comment by Arbitrators:
Wikipedia articles may rely on primary sources so long as what they say has been published by a credible publication. The issue in this case is the use of POV sources, propagandistic sources. Fred Bauder 14:28, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We allow anyone to edit, but sufficient expertise in the field to know what is a reputable source can be very helpful. Fred Bauder 01:45, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:
how to define a credible publication ? Christophe Greffe 19:46, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is an exclent question. But wikipedia lready have a policy about it. Policy that was not violated.
For Wikipedia to ban ( only ) the pro-israel user they needed to come up with a new rule (since the sources policy was never violated)
7a:2) If such sources disagree, and it can not be determined which sources are false, the disagreement should be mentioned in the article.
You have banned only the Pro-Israel editors while both sides took part in the edit war.
The "pro-israel side' tried to make Nakba more NPOV while the "pro-palstinian" side tried to use propeganda sources to keep the article POV. Your descision on who to ban shows where you stand. (as If we did not knew that from the start) - clearly your staement that "we allow anyone to edit" is not true in this case. Zeq 08:23, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by others:
Sources in controversial matters
7b:1) For controversial facts, primary sources, publications by acknowledged academics, articles in respected newspapers or books by known authors that can not be reasonably dismissed as dishonest can be trusted as sources.
Comment by Arbitrators:
Except for unpublished primary sources, which cannot be used Fred Bauder 14:28, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes contemporary journalistic reports are not as good a source as well considered scholarly works, nor are popular non-fiction works. The more serious and controversial the article the more true this is. While gossip in the popular press may be of some value regarding the private life of movie stars, in an area such as the Palestinian-Israeli conflict where professionally produced propaganda is part and parcel of the struggle, only the most objective scholarly work is of substantial value. Fred Bauder 18:02, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I see you prefer alternative (a)? Fair enough. This will eventually lift the quality of the articles, but also reduce the quantity. --Heptortalk 01:13, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by parties:
Articles relating to a field of academic study in respected newspapers, even if written by respected journalists, should not necessarily be treated as of equivalent value to publications by academic specialists. Neither can "books by known authors that can not be reasonably dismissed as dishonest" be considered of a similar weight to academic sources, although in the absence of academic sources there is no reason why they should not be used to add useful information to an article. (My view, anyway.) Palmiro | Talk 17:52, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neither does this proposition suggest that they should be treated equivalently. The order in which types of sources are mentioned is not random. Apart from that, relative quality of the sources is not an issue here. I hope we will not have to deal with such contradictions to often. --Heptortalk 01:13, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by others:
That is better than the former proposal but under what criteria can it be termined if an autor is dishonnest or not ? Christophe Greffe 19:51, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That is a difficult one. Determining credibility of sources is never easy, and I don't think this problem will be solved any time soon. --Heptortalk 01:13, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Of course. And that was the idea behind all my former comments. Current decisions seem to have been taken deciding on the basis of what was a relevant source and what was not BUT no explanation is given how this is determined. That is not an appropriate way to settle the dispute and the case and such problems will arise more and more often because article are better and better and go deeper and deeper into details. Does it mean than half of wiki editors will be banned when there is a dispute about the relevance of sources ? wiki-editors should not have to dispute about this but should follow an agreed method specifying how to deal with this problem. This is Zeq request I think. Christophe Greffe 10:37, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think there are any third options, if there are do add them. --Heptortalk 11:19, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by others:
Use of primary sources
8) A primary source has to be published in a credible publication to be used on Wikipedia.
Comment by Arbitrators:
A report of a paper you found in an archive is original research Fred Bauder 22:47, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by parties:
Finally we are discussing real issues here. I added this to address Fred Bauder's legitimate concern: If I claim that I found a paper in an archive, is it or is it not legit to use it as a source in Wikipedia? It also solves the problem with what is to be considered as primary sourses. I actually had a debate with an editor who made a search on Google and claimed the result count was a primary source. --Heptortalk 00:20, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
To Bauder's 1) I wouldn't say it is original research, but it is utterly unverifiable. In any case, we seem to agree on the proposal itself. --Heptortalk 10:14, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by others:
We have to define words to fix rules. That is what I tried in defining "academical" and "professional" source. We can see the matter another way but words must be define. What is a "credible publication" ? Take care that this can remove a lot of information : eg Morris's book could not be distinguished from Anonymous's book because nothing differenciate a book from another, objectively speaking... Christophe Greffe 07:00, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
=== relevance and hierarchy of sources === Christophe Greffe 10:15, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
1)Any professional or academician working in the field of a subject is a relevant source for an article at the condition that written and no ambiguous quotes can be found.
Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:
2) A professional is a journalist, a writer or a politician involved in the topic. An academician is a person having at least a PhD in the field of the topic.
Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:
3) The relevance or neutrality of a professional may be disputed by wiki-editors. The relevance of an academician may not be disputed by wiki-editors. The neutrality of an academician may be disputed by wiki-editors.
Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
About "relevance of an academician": The problem is "Cherrypucking" quotes from an Academic book. The example of quotes from benny Morris book is the crucx of tha matter here. I deleted quotes which apear in Moris's book said that these quotes (By zionist leaders) do not proove the theory alleged "master Plan" theory that Ian and Zero are pushing.
So putting Wikipeia into a situation that every quote becomes automatically relevant just because it comes from an acdemic source is problemtic. The best would be to use quotes that are supported by the main idea in the academic publication that these quotes come from.
4) If the neutrality (not relevance) of a source is disputed, any wiki-editor may request that the following statement is added : “Following John Smith, member of the KKK, statement” or “Following Ann Smith, Prof. of Physics at MIT, statement”.
Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:
5) If the relevance of the information coming from a professional source is disputed, an academician will have to be found agreeing that the information is false. In that case, the information will have to be removed. The charge of the proof the information is to the widi-editor who thinks the information must be removed.
Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:
6) If the relevance of a professional source is disputed by different academicians, the information will be allowed to be introduced in an article but wiki-editors may request the following statement to be added : “ statement is disputed (by …)”.
Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:
7) If there is a dispute between the information coming from a professional source and an academician source, it can be deduced from former rules that professional source information may not be introduced unless another academician source if found corroborating the information.
Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:
8) In case of disagreement between academic sources, the following statements will have to be added to the article : “Following John Smith, Prof at XXXstatement ” (…) “But Following Marc Dupont, PhD, statement”. Same weight will be given to all analyses.
Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:
9) In case of disagreement between academic sources, any addition of information given to one analysis should be counter-balanced by the same addition of information given to the other one. No modification and addition will be allowed to be added in the article until *all* analyses are written in the “talk page”. Everything will be introduced at the same time.
Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:
In practice in war of 1948 article, rules 1 to 9 mean quotes of the Mufti are corroborated by professional sources. Wiki-editors can add today “Following …, bla bla bla”. They can also write an article detailing who are the author and how non neutral they can be –eventually-. Any academician source stating that this is false will be enough to remove this information without debate. People would nevertheless have the opportunity to look for academican sources corroborating the broadcasts. If academic sources disagree, rule 8 and 9 will solve the case.
In practice in refugee article, rules 1 to 9 mean Khalidi’s analysis should be counter-balanced by new historians and former historians point of view. The charge of adding the information is to the wiki-editor that devellop this controversial information. Note rule 9 enforces people to become neutral when controversial academic sources disagree.
This is the primary issue here.--Sean Black(talk) 21:39, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by others:
As demonstrated, the article is now protected again although both Ian and me are not editing it.
The need in protection prooves one thing and one thing only:
Wikipedia policies have failed to make Palestinian exodus NPOV. The important evidence about this article is not the article protection log but the article itself which is the worst POV article in Wikipedia (to this day)
User Sean insist on not naming all the parties, on turnning this into an individual issue instead of trying to fix the process that prevented these articles from being fixed. This, after user Sean himself was a mediator and his mediation results were not agreed by one of the parties to the conflict. He has also not answered the questions presented to him below. The article Palestinian exodus has for several years, long before I joined wkipedia, a subject of edit wars and conflicts. Focusing on one (or two) individual user will solve nothing. Zeq 04:37, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2) In the article Palestinian exodus edit warring has revolved around two versions: Zeq's version which he claims is "more NPOV"] and an alternative version [21] supported by most other editors. Zeq, while continuing to edit war, comments, "It is time that this edit war will stop and a serious attempt at NPOVing this article will start. see talk". His position on the talk page is set forth at Talk:Palestinian_exodus#Making_this_article_NPOV. The main issue seems to be Zeq's deletion of the "Transfer section", see Talk:Palestinian_exodus#Section_on_the_.27Transfer_principle.27. The material is sourced in Benny Morris, Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem Revisted (2004) ISBN0521009677, see reviews on Amazon. When it is in the article, it is at Palestinian_exodus#Transfer_principle. The major aspect of Zeq's version consists of deletion of this section of the article which he characterizes as removing POV and NPOVing the article [22].
Comment by Arbitrators:
Removing well sourced material is unacceptable. Fred Bauder 15:14, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fred is correct and the person that removed such material is Zero. This is clearly documented in the evidence section of this case. Zeq 20:25, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by parties:
The ""Transfer section" is mostly Original research by Zero and other editors. It is dotted with speeches by Zionist leaders. That is the sum of the material that is there.
No real "scholarly source" was ever removed from tha section.
Correction: When I added to this section a quote from the author of the book Benny Morris - who is the scholarwho's work I was accused of removing) that quote by Benny Morris was removed from the article and replaced with propeganda material.
This is all documented in diffs that were intreduiced as evidence. Any one can check it excpet ArbCom dos not sem to even look at the facts. Zeq 20:24, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I do not recall ever removing info from this article. (the 1948 war) My only part in this dispute (which was actually beween user Zero and Ian to Heptor) was that I have added sources when Zero and Ian claimed the info was not sourced. That is all. I have all along on the talk page said that any compromise accepted by Heptor will be accepted by me as well and indeed I accepted the mediation results.
It seems that Mr Fred Bauder is not recusing himslef from this arbitration depsite his own admition of bias in this case. This whole proceedings are tainnted by not having the right parties and not focusing on the rights issues. As every one can see the article in question 1948 war is already protected again without any edits by me in this article, The issue is clearly not what Mr. bauder want you to think. None of my motions have even been addressed. This "ArbCom" case is a joke. You are unable to create a process by which Wikipedia own policies regarding sources and NPOV are implemented so instead you focus on individuals who try to fix the situation. 19:56, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Comment by others:
QUESTION : Was it "well sourced material that were removed" (Ian's version of events) or was it : "removal of well sourced material in addition of personnal pov biaising the equilibrium of an article" (Zeq's version of events). Please take care of the real question. Christophe Greffe 19:56, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
From my experience with both users and observation of the dispute (though with little participation), the fact seems to be that most of the material removed by Zeq was not at all what we'd term "scholarly" nor entirely relevant to many of the involved articles. —Aiden 23:35, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
so 'ArbCom" what is your answer to Aiden ? He at least looked at the material removed ? Zeq 20:26, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Tendentious editing by Zeq and Heptor
4) Zeq and Heptor (talk·contribs) [23] revert to the same version of 1948 Arab-Israeli War. The issues involved are set forth at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Zeq/Evidence#Zeq_and_Heptor.27s_Changes_to_1948_Arab-Israeli_War. In addition to removing well sourced information Zeq and Heptor add poorly sourced material in their version and add a number of links and references to propagandistic sources. One particular dispute partially revolves around a quotation from Haj Muhammed Amin al-Husseini, the grand mufti of Jerusalem who supposedly requested the Axis powers to acknowledge the Arab right: "to settle the question of Jewish elements in Palestine and other Arab countries in accordance with the national and racial interests of the Arabs and along the lines similar to those used to solve the Jewish question in Germany and Italy." The sourcing of this quotation is at issue: Zero0000 (talk·contribs) describing it as "fake" [24]. The source given in the article [http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=21741], commentary by Joseph Farah on World Net Daily. The source given in Farah's article is given as Joan Peters, From Time ImmemorialISBN0060152656 see reviews on Amazon. This book has been criticized see google search and our article From Time Immemorial (book).
Comment by Arbitrators:
Removing good information, adding poor information Fred Bauder 19:40, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by parties:
The parties to that Dispute were:
As I mentioned here, the only time I actually removed info from the article was due to a mistake. I will readd that text I removed myself, as soon as the article is unlocked. --Heptortalk 04:10, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Zero
(Those are the two prinicipals)
Plus: Ian, Palmiro, Kriegman, Huldra and myself who taged alone.
And can someone explain why the source is not a good one because it become harder and harder to determine criteria when I read this : The source given in Farah's article is given as Joan Peters, From Time ImmemorialISBN0060152656 see reviews on Amazon. This book has been criticized see google search and our article From Time Immemorial (book) Christophe Greffe 20:02, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Deleting of the quoatation
5) Ian Pitchford and Zero repeatedly removed following quotation of Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, Haj Amin al-Husayni:
"Arabs, arise as one man and fight for your sacred rights. Kill Jews wherever you find them. This pleases God, history, and religion. This saves your honor. God is with you."
Comment by Arbitrators:
I don't doubt that this Nazi collaborator said at least the equivalent of this and probably worse, but the sources that have been advanced for it have not been good enough. These are the propagandistic sites we are complaining about. Fred Bauder 01:17, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:
indeed. Christophe Greffe 20:03, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Multiple times, yet they are quick to accuse anyone of removal of sourced information they agree with. —Aiden 23:38, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Importance of such statements
6) Especially in light of recent genocide against the Jewish people, such statements by a prominent Palestinian leader would be noted, and thus harden the conflict.
Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:
I invite people to look at this caricature published in May 1948 in Times (bottom of page). Is this not enough to "prove" that such statements was noted by protagonists during the conflit and therefore should be noted : [28] Christophe Greffe 20:07, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Mufti did speak like that
7) Sources provided to this quotation confirm that Haj Amin al-Husayni did speak like this, or at least that many people believed that he did.
Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
I am not sure if "or at least that many people believed that he did" should be included. --Heptortalk 15:45, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by others:
who knows but this is what is written here : [29],[30],[31]. Christophe Greffe 20:30, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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.
The issue is not me or my edits. The issue is not Ian alone. The issue is that there is complete failure of NPOV policy on Pal exodus article and there is a dispute about validity of sources on 1948 war. The proposed remedy does not come close to address the brioken process and instead focus on two of the parties involved (instead of all)
If the remedy would be that everyone who has a POV on these articles can not edit them this would go toward solving the problem, picking one of each side is not a serious solution. Beside no one offered any evidence for wrong doing. My edits on Pal exodus are just a minor attempt to make the article NPOV. On 1948 war I was not the principle party involved (The dispute there is mainly between Zero and Heptor)
I wouild like to ask Sean a question. I would ask him to explain why in his previous writing he thought the issue is "pre-mature" for arbcom ? Sean has done a good job in mediating the dispute (Mediation, which would address the text instead of the parties involve in the edit - is IMHO the correct way to solve the issue) . So why now Sean is not thinking any more in continuing his mediation. (BTW , I greed to the results of the mediator but Ian refused to accept it and brought the issue to ArbCom. Th arbitors should make them selfes familiar with the mediator proposal about the article )Zeq 04:57, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Zeq, the matter is now before the committee, and as such is out of my hands. I'm just assisting in the only way I can at this point.--Sean Black(talk) 05:35, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sean, this is not an answer.
First you need to provide evidence about the mediation, your proposal, who agreed to it and why it failed. You did a good job on the mediation and there is no reason to ignore that important part.
Next, you stated that bring this to ArbCom is premature. You are as close to "Neutral party" as we have in this dispute. Surly, you are the most neutral from those who have intimate knowledge about the issue. So why at first you thought about a solution that will not involved ArbCom and now go to the other extreme and suggest banning users without addressing the real issues of text which is POV and or sourced/unsourced ? I am puzzeled and asking for a serious answer. Zeq 07:04, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by others:
is there no other way to solve a conflict than to ban people ? Christophe Greffe 20:32, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Zeq banned from articles he has disrupted and placed on probation
The way it was before i strted editing it (Mucho POV): [33]
Go ahead, look at these two versions. This will help you understand what Palmiro (part of the gang that control IPalestinian exodus want to achive: Kickout all the pro-Israeli editors and restore the articles to their POV version.
What Zeq said below hits the nail on the head. Multiple editors have POV-pushing agendas and act in flagrant violation of WP policy quite often, yet are quick to accuse others who attempt to achieve a NPOV within an article of this very thing. A ban is unwarranted, highly disproportional, and double-standard due to the lack of action against other alleged policy violators. —Aiden 23:41, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Heptor banned from articles he has disrupted and placed on probation
Has Heptor really disrupted this article? It doesn't appear like that to me. Palmiro | Talk 15:05, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by others:
What has Heptor done to disrupt this article? —Aiden 23:45, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Zeq and Heptor cautioned regarding sources
3) Zeq and Heptor are cautioned to avoid using propagandistic sources.
Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:
why exactly ? There are sources. They are disputed and it is obvious it is extremely difficult to find a good way to determine the quality of a source. Christophe Greffe 20:34, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Zeq and Heptor cautioned regarding removal of well sourced information
4) Zeq and Heptor are cautioned to avoid removing information backed by reliable scholarly sources.
Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:
Did they remove "well sourced information" (Ian's claim) or "well sourced information used to introduce a biaised pov" (Zeq's claim) ? Christophe Greffe 20:35, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Policy is clarified and expected to be followed
5) Arbitration Committee considers to have sufficiently clarified the policy regarding sources on controversial issues, and expects all parties to follow new guidelines.
Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Suggested by me. If Arbitration Committe creates general guidelines on which sources are to be considered trustworthy on Wikipedia, I will have no proplems to follow such guidelines. I hope this is more constructive than banning people. --Heptortalk 18:30, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Initially one Arbitor said: "This is policy just implemnt it" Now it is clear they are breaking totaly new ground. As such they should put it into the policy page, discuss it wiedly and not punish people for a policy that was noy yet in place when the "crime" was commited. Zeq 20:56, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
1) Enforcement of bans imposed under the remedies in this matter may be by brief block, up to a week in the case of repeated violations. After 5 blocks the maximum block shall increase to one year. All blocks to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Zeq#Log_of_blocks_and_bans.
![[28]](/en/Image:NYTimes_1948_Jews_in_Arab.jpg){kind=link}