This page has been mentioned by a media organization: Omer Benjakob (2020-10-01). "The Second Intifada Still Rages on Wikipedia". Haaretz. Retrieved 2020-10-02. When the issues on the intifada page and others related to the conflict reached fever pitch toward 2008, a special ArbCom was convened. The so-called ARBPIA (an acronym of Arbitration Palestine Israel Article) decided on a number of binding rules of conduct for editors and laid out ways to enforce them for the entire field.

Statement by Sm8900

Hi. this is Sm8900. I would like to add my input. i have contributed to discussions in these articles. sorry , but i do somewhat question the need for this arbitration. this request makes no specific statements as to what actually needs to be done or addressed. it's my understanding that Arbcom proceedings exist mainly to sanction other users. I have a concern about the wholesale nature of this proceeding. I would like to see more details about what needs to be addressed here.

I am concerned that starting a case like this might actually create greater conflict than the discussions which it would supposedly address. Sorry, I disagree with statements in the request; I feel that this community has been manifestly able to frequently have positive discussions. There are some articles (and some editors, according to some allegations here), where that has not been the case, but I feel that those articles and those editors can and should be addressed individually, not wholesale in a manner which invites the most minute problems and individual flaws to end up taking up most of the time and energy. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 17:30, 8 January 2008 (UTC)..[reply]

Reply to PR

(please note, everyone; we are permitted to make customary subheadings like this for readability within our OWN text sections here. )

Hi PR. sorry if my text was incovenient. everything is fine with me in regard to this case, so please feel free to remove my comments if you wish. thanks very much for the helpful sentiment which you expressed. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 19:39, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, if anyone wishes to discuss this case informally, they may do so by going to this page. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 19:48, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

General comment.

I am greatly disturbed by the tone which is already emerging here. Since no specific article is the focus here, editors are already piling on allegations and counter-allegations of various misconduct. this is sort of inevitable, since ArbCom does not address content disputes, and can only address user conduct.

i would suggest that a slightly better route might be to focus on disputed articles and on questionable editors individually, on a case by case basis. It is possible to start Arbcom cases for individual editors, as you may know. I truly don't have anyone particular in mind here. My only point is that if some here do feel that certain editors need attention, there are ways to do that, in a manner which would keep the focus much more steady, and would not result in a whole slew of counter-allegations to confuse the matter.

Going on this current route will only lead us into fuirther acrimony, and furthermore we may also find that nobody ends up with a useful resolution, because everybody is so involved in making allegations and counter-allegations. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 19:07, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now that the case is open, I am glad to see the inclusion of comments by those who are involved, and also of those who simply wished to comment. Hopefully, we can gradually move towards some positive resolution of some of these issues. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 22:00, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by GRBerry

I strongly encourage the committee to review editing patterns across a broad spectrum of articles here. We have factionalized editing occurring, and also individually problematic editors from both factions. I haven't been interested enough, nor willing enough to suffer the inevitable personal attacks consequent upon acting, to take a wholistic view and determine which editors Wikipedia would be better off without, if any, nor what other solutions would work. I believe there is a pattern of "edit war, page protected, change page to war over, don't discuss the original edit war" occurring. Some of this is a natural consequence of attending to a watchlist, some seems to reflect users who don't want to collaborate and/or create a NPOV article. As an example of the sorts of problems that are encountered routinely consider the following sets of protections on Nov 29 and Dec 5.

At the time I made the comments here, the named parties ended with Chesdovi

November 29, 2007

• Israeli-Palestinian conflict protected due to edit warring involving Pedro Gonnet and Jaakobou of the named parties, as well as others. Discussion on talk page.
• List of Israeli civilian casualties in the Second Intifada and List of Palestinian civilian casualties in the Second Intifada protected [1] due to move and edit warring involving Tiamut, Eleland and Jaakobou of the named parties, as well as others. Discussion attempted by Tiamut, without reply by other participants.

December 5, 2007

• Rule of the Gaza Strip by Egypt protected due to move warring involving Pedro Gonnet and Jaakobou of the named parties. Pedro raised discussion on Jaakobou's talk page, later copied to article talk page.
• Saeb Erekat protected due to edit warring by Eleland and Jaakobou. No discussion until Dec. 9, when both discussed it. GRBerry 18:30, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Kendrick7

I don't edit in this topic area as much as I used to; I hardly recognize the names of half the listed parties. But, I agree with Sm8900 that this could quickly devolve into a witch hunt which won't be good for anyone involved.

Insomuch as I can answer Kirill's question, the situation in Category:Israeli-Palestinian conflict is more or less the same as every other part of the Wikipedia trying to cover an ongoing civil war. There is always a slow influx of zealous new editors on both sides, and either they learn the ropes in a few months or they don't. If they remain problematic -- and I admit to cringing a little when I saw Jaakobou had installed Twinkle -- then an RFC is a better first step. Meanwhile, occasionally an article gets enough neutral editors going on it at once, as I recall occurring lately with Palestinian exodus for example, and the quality of the category does slowly improve.

Update: Ah, I am now caught up per the AN/I thread and User:Jaakobou#Detwinkled. Glad I wasn't the only one cringing.

Reply to Eleland: The thinking is correct as there are two sides to this little chess game, and instead of an RFC on the behavior of particular editors individually, bringing this to ArbCom puts all the pieces into play. The AN/I thread comments regarding WP:KETTLE forebode the likely attempt by one side to sacrifice one editor in exchange for an editor of greater value on the other side.

Reply to ThuranX: Yes, I also don't understand why you'd be a party here; Ryan seems to have listed just a lot of people who commented in the AN/I.

Reply to Durova: I concur that other dispute resolution would be a better first step; the examples Ryan give above are either rather ancient or ongoing or not even dispute resolution per se. P.S. You shouldn't get upset at G-Dett's little poke in your belly -- it just wouldn't be a cabal without you!

Statement by MastCell

This probably ought to go to ArbCom since there are real problems here, and no admin who values his residual sanity would get involved in trying to resolve them given the prevailing atmosphere and history. The only suggestion I have is that, if this goes to Arbitration, an uninvolved party (clerk or Arbitrator) seriously needs to ride shotgun over the Workshop and discussion pages to prevent them from turning into yet another front on the WP:BATTLEfield. MastCell ^Talk 18:56, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Tariqabjotu

I also strongly urge the Arbitration Committee to examine this case. Resolving this issue, or at least issuing remedies related to it, would go a long way to defusing the minefield that is the Israeli-Palestinian conflict articles and Middle East articles in general. I have not assessed the full situation, but every time my actions intersect with these articles, I see what appears to be an attitude a lá "I'm right, everyone else is wrong; thus, my edit-warring is okay (or actually not edit-warring at all) and everyone else is a disruptive POV warrior". Not good, to say the least. -- tariqabjotu 21:23, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I know I'm being pedantic here, but can we please reorder the entities in the name of this case, from "Palestine-Israel conflict" to "Israeli-Palestinian conflict", if/when it gets opened? The latter arrangement seems more customary both here on Wikipedia and elsewhere, and the former sounds awkward. -- tariqabjotu 21:29, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

P.P.S. I don't believe ThuranX (talk · contribs) and Chesdovi (talk · contribs) should be involved in this case. I'm also unsure about the involvement of G-Dett (talk · contribs), Itzse (talk · contribs), Suladna (talk · contribs), and Tewfik (talk · contribs). -- tariqabjotu 21:52, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to remind everyone that this is an RfArb on just the Israeli-Palestinian conflict articles. Please be cautious about adding new editors; ensure that their involvement is specifically in regards to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict articles and not primarily in regard to disruption on other Middle Eastern articles (or elsewhere). Also, I do not believe every single person that has edited an article related to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict needs to be dragged into this arbitration case. Please use some discretion. -- tariqabjotu 12:49, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by uninvolved Durova

Jaakobou has undertaken mentorship with me. This mentorship regards Wikipedia policies only, not the related content dispute. He tells me he wishes to pursue other dispute resolution at this time. Arbitration in general is a last resort, and I ask in good faith for the other parties to consider whether a brokered solution would be feasible.

I am neutral regarding the underlying conflict and, I hope, sufficiently respectful of both sides. About two years ago I started a short article on a Judaism-related topic and at present I'm doing a little bit of editing that relates to uncontroversial parts of Palestinian social history. Durova^Charge! 21:56, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

G-Dett, please strikethrough that insinuation regaring me. It's very bad faith and treads on the margins of a personal attack. Durova^Charge! 23:27, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yikes, Durova! I'm not sure how the wires got crossed, but...that was a straight suggestion, not a sarcastic insinuation. Sure, we've clashed briefly a couple of times, but I regard you as very even-handed on ME pages and related issues. There was a mediation way back about whether Wikipedia should report with a straight face something that Juan Cole said about himself in wry self-deprecation, and two partisan editors were locked in what appeared to be mortal combat, and if I remember right you were stern and effective. I was trying to think who would be a good foil to HG on my proposed 'cabal', someone who could be bad cop if necessary but had no ideological dog in the fight, and I thought of you.--G-Dett (talk) 00:47, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, I misunderstood. Please bear in mind that pretty much everyone in this dispute understands the content side in much greater depth than I do. So while I'd gladly interact with anyone as a neutral party regarding wiki policies and practices, I'm also reticent to scale up my involvement more than it already is. I'm posting here to affirm that Jaakobou is taking proactive steps and endeavoring to adapt to site standards. Durova^Charge! 05:55, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by ChrisO

I strongly support this request for arbitration. I only rarely edit Middle Eastern-related articles, for exactly the reasons that MastCell alludes to in his statement above. However, I've kept an eye on a number of editors and articles for some time, and I can confirm that there is indeed a serious and systematic problem in this topic area. I'd like to offer a few observations for the arbitrators:

• The class of affected articles is potentially very large - essentially all Middle Eastern articles, plus those on Jewish and Muslim-related topics, though I should emphasize that the number of articles being disputed at any one time is much more limited.

• The problem has its roots in the behaviour of a relatively small number of editors whose primary interest is in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Action against some of these editors (which will likely require topic or site bans) will help in part, but the topic areas are also likely to need placing under article probation (cf. Macedonia, Armenia-Azerbaijan). I suggest that parties should look to Wikipedia:General sanctions for relevant precedent in proposing remedies. A number of editors have been involved in straightforward violations of editing and conduct policies - for instance, episodes such as Jaakobou's recent edit warring to re-insert properly removed BLP violations, abuse of editing tools and other willful policy violations that led to this arbitration request in the first place. Such misconduct is relatively easy to identify and should result in those responsible being sanctioned.

• The harder question is what to do about the underlying problem in this topic area - the existence of blocs of partisan editors who use Wikipedia as a battlefield to campaign for their causes. The problem with Middle Eastern articles isn't only a matter of misconduct by individual editors; it has its roots in mutual hostilities that exist off-wiki and have been transported here en masse. The result is a poisonous atmosphere characterised by antagonism, aggressive behaviour and mutual distrust. There needs to be a change in editing culture on these articles, not just conduct. -- ChrisO (talk) 01:05, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Added) In reply to Quadell's query about Jayjg being added as a party, I believe Cla68 is alluding to this accidental e-mail from Jayjg to the WikiEN-l mailing list in which he invites a number of "allies" (namely User:Avraham, User:Beit Or, User:Humus sapiens and User:PinchasC) to "watch my back" as he makes controversial edits to Messianic Judaism. It's hard evidence of exactly the kind of cliqueish behaviour that I mentioned above and it's arguably a violation of WP:CANVASS. It certainly isn't good practice to try to stitch up an article by recruiting a team of ideological allies using back channels and inviting them to fight over an article; it's particularly depressing that experienced editors (two of them administrators!) should have sunk to this. I'm sure this sort of thing is going on on both sides, but it's something that should be strongly discouraged given the amount of disruption that it causes. Other subscribers to WikiEN-l certainly weren't impressed by Jayjg's inadvertent disclosure, and I hope it's properly reviewed by the Arbitration Committee. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:25, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Uninvolved CarolMooreDC

While happily I'm not named above! - and this is NOT my primary area of editing interest (except last couple days!) - I have observed the problems on some of the pages mentioned above, as well as on Carlos Latuff (where there is an absurd on going editing war I don't much get involved in); on Samson Option (where any attempt to mention the controversial things said about the Samson Option by Israel leaders and supporters was repeatedly deleted, no matter how well sourced, even when placed in a "controversies" section); and on Jewish Lobby (refusal to allow there to be ANY mention of NON-antisemitic use of the phrase Jewish Lobby, even though many prominent uses of the phrase are by Jews and/or mainstream publications and/or are NOT antisemitic).

Having just started intensely editing in last 6-8 months, I confess I have sometimes lost my temper and ranted and even made a couple personal attacks, but I'm learning how to use to the process instead! :-) Yes, it has taken me longer than it should to really read and re-read and understand the Wiki Pillars, but the more I understand them, the more outraged I become at the behavior of these editors. See my most recent complaining entry attempting to get NPOV version of page. At the end of it I list multiple violations of WP:NPOV from the tutorial.

Besides whatever steps Arbitrators might take, I really think wikipedia needs a neutral AND courageous Ombudsman just for the Israel-Palestine and related issues to keep people in line with the wikipedia process.

An additional idea: I noticed that Wikipedia:Naming_convention has manuals of styles for several nations. Maybe there should be a "Israel-Palestine" manual of style, or maybe one on Arab/Muslim/Jewish issues, to set up some guidelines -though there'd be a massive debate on creating that!

Also, I agree that User_talk:Jayjg should be added to the list of problematic editors on this topic. Carol Moore 02:36, 9 January 2008 (UTC)CarolMooreDC talk[reply]

Statement by RomaC

I am relieved to see that this issue is being addressed. I was happily contributing in many areas of Wiki until I tried to edit a picture caption at Media Coverage of the Arab-Israeli Conflict and came across a stubbornly persistent Jaakabou. I am currently working to add recently-released casualty figures to the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict article, and again I see what seems a coordinated effort by some editors to control content, with open talk about "sides," referring not to the subjects of the article, but to the editors themselves. This is a serious threat to Wiki. I would suggest interested parties also consider looking at some of the activity in our little edit war, I know Timeshifter for one has already studied the problem and made an interesting exposition on his user page. Good luck! RomaC (talk) 03:17, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by CasualObserver'48

Sigh of relief, I am happy, ecstatic, naively optimistic and very much appreciate the decision to accept. You will need the wisdom of Solomon and I wish you luck. It is long overdue; much longer that I have been around Wikipedia or on the Internet (Sept07). That said, I have already been labled as being on one of the ‘sides’, but only on the talkpages, not on edits (largely because I’m still learning to Be Bold. My POV is Pro-MidEast Peace, although a good friend of mine termed it the ultimate oxymoron, and even I consider that it is pushing the limits of the Serenity Prayer. I look at the I-P conflict situation from a civil/human rights perspective and, therefore my bias tends to be pro-Palestinian, but my support for Israel is based on, well, Biblical proportions. The admins will decide what they decide and I hope to be helpful along the way, but that is well over my head. Most of the heavily involved users with whom I am familiar are included above, although I could name a few more, if asked.

As pointed out in other’s statements above, I too feel that a broad range of topics with content disputes should be included and an ombudsman might be helpfull. I also believe for Wikipedia to gain more credibility, the systematic bias with respect to this subject must be addressed. More critically for Wikipedia viability is to address the issues noted here and to that I’ll add CAMERA and it’s multitude of talk-alikes, Hasbara and, for those computer literate types Megaphone. The import of these on NPOV should not be discounted. CasualObserver'48 (talk) 08:17, 9 January 2008 (UTC) So, why is it Red?[reply]

Statement by uninvited Number 57

I would also strongly urge the arbitration committee to look at this case. As possibly the largest single contributor to articles on Israeli politics, I have come across almost all the editors listed in this case (hence listing myself as uninvited rather than uninvolved), and I am thoroughly sick of the endless disputes which a number of them create and prolong. Unfortunately for the project, whenever an edit by at least five of the editors listed above comes up on any of the 500+ articles on my watchlist, I know that in the vast majority of cases (for two of the editors the figure is 100%) that edit will not conform to WP:NPOV.

Unfortunately my past attempts to diffuse situations and correct POV have led to me being labelled as a POV pusher by both sides, but particularly by the pro-Israelis (possibly because I tend to stick to articles on domestic Israeli topics rather than Israeli-Palestinian ones, and pro-Palestinian editors are not common in that sphere). This has meant that despite being well-placed to do so, I am now effectively hamstrung from carrying out administrative actions against the numerous violations of policy carried out by many of the editors listed above. I hope that a thorough investigation may allow me more room to take prompt action against both sides in the future.

In addition, I would also support adding User:GHcool and User:Beit Or to this case, as they are both involved in reverting on some of the articles listed above. пﮟოьεԻ 57 11:09, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by 6SJ7

I have to agree with Sm8900's "General Comment." There may be something for the ArbComm to accept in Ryan's initial "example", in which he specifies what a few specific editors did in a few specific articles. After that, Ryan identifies a few other articles, but with no specifics about what events concerning those articles might require arbitration. And in the comments of some subsequent editors, this potential arbitration case has taken on a life of its own. It would not be a particularly happy life, either for the parties, potential parties, the arbitrators or anyone else. If the committee accepts this case without specifically limiting what the case is about, the case is potentially going to be about every dispute that has occurred among dozens of editors on dozens of articles. I wouldn't be surprised if 150 or more editors are "named" before this is all over. And how far back does this go? All Israel- or Palestinian-related articles (and antisemitism-related articles? and other religion-related articles?) for the past six months? A year? Three years? Five years? And what kind of disputes are we talking about? I have already seen mentions of articles that would involve the ArbComm in content disputes, but I know that the ArbComm does not accept those. I hope that the arbitrators, if they accept this case, will tell the rest of us what it is about. Otherwise, this is going to become one big, ugly, nasty, confused and contentious scene, and it isn't going to produce anything good for anyone. 6SJ7 (talk) 20:35, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by uninvolved EconomicsGuy

General comment. Now that the case has been accepted I urge the arbitrators to look for a broad solution to this. AN/I threads like this will keep appearing if ArbCom does not come up with some sort of centralized solution to these disputes. The number of articles and the number of participants in these disputes would otherwise make it very difficult for the arbitrators and those enforcing the remedies to keep this from reappearing here. EconomicsGuy (talk) 11:19, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by univolved Cla68

I added Jayjg to the case because of this thread [2] on WP:ANI. I believe that more evidence of problematic behavior by Jayjg can probably be presented on the evidence page once the case formally opens. If Jayjg is still on the ArbCom mailing list, I formally request that he be removed, at least until this case closes. Cla68 (talk) 13:12, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In response to requests for evidence of involvement by Jayjg in specific Palestine-Israel articles, here's a recent RfC that he participated in: [3]. Cla68 (talk) 01:12, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by uninvolved User:Quadell

I don't understand why Cla68 added Jayjg to the case above. The thread he quotes above regards Jayjg's comment to Wayne, which Wayne regarded as a personal attack. (I don't see why that was ever on AN/I, actually, since it didn't involve Jayjg's admin abilities and was not requesting admin abilities be used to resolve it -- it just looks like a general complaint filed in an inappropriate place.) Jayjg's comment to Wayne doesn't involve the issues of "ownership", etc., in the description of this case. I don't think it's appropriate for him to be included as a party. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 16:03, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I also note that the comment in question was on the Khazars talk page, unrelated to this RfAr, and Wayne and Jayjg to not appear to have ever had a content dispute related to Israel/Palestine articles. Can anyone just add anyone's name to these things, based on unrelated allegations? – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 16:15, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In response to Chris O's statement, that e-mail also did not have anything to do with the articles in question, on Israel/Palestine relations -- it was about Messianic Judaism, which has exactly nothing to do with the case. This really appears to be a situation where some people think "If it has to do with Judaism and it's controversial, then Jayjg must be involved!", and all kinds of old and unrelated grudges are coming to the surface. This isn't an RfAr on improper posts to Wiki-l, nor is it an RfAr on alleged personal attacks on the Khazars talk page. It's about ownership issues in "Palestine-Israel articles", and I still can't see why Jayjg's name was drug into this. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 20:14, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to remove Jayjg's name. Several people have indicated that they want his name on it, but no one has given any reason why his name should be listed among those who have recently had ownership issues with Israel/Palestine articles. I invite anyone to provide evidence of involvement in this if I've overlooked anything. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 20:26, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And regarding Nishidani's evidence below, you do realize that was 6 months ago, right? Is that the most recent evidence of Jayjg's questionable activities regarding this RfAr? – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 20:53, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jayjg withdrew for several months just after the incident I mentioned, and therefore the point you make is irrelevant, since he is now back on board. I have quite a number of examples I could adduce for the preceding period to underline a pattern of irresponsibly partisan abuse from someone who had formerly been elected to an administrative role requiring, certainly in this area, rigorous and austere neutrality. Had he not been an administrator I wouldn't have worried or raised the issue, since the behaviour I objected to is par for the course among the lower denizens of Wikidom Nishidani (talk) 21:06, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User:Nishidani

I have withdrawn from editing, tired of the futility of trying to get attested and verifiable book sources in, and internet propaganda sources out in many articles. But, since I note User:Jaakobou has named me as a contentious editor, I should like at least to jot down this one point. In my experience, User:Jayjg, whose inclusion here many editors wonder about, certainly has edited frequently in an incomprehensible, and, in my view censorious fashion, riding shotgun to keep disagreeable information off many pages because he deems it personally unwelcome. As just one example of his ignoring Wiki editing norms concerning sources in order to wikilawyer an item of information or a respectable author I could cite for example the following edit exchange with myself, [4].

The reason given was ‘remove claim attributed to an unknown and possibly non-existent rabbi'’

The quote came from an eminent authority on the region, Professor Ian Lustick. Lustick’s source was in turn the New York Times. Thus it was doubly grounded in reliable sources. Jayjg has enough experience to know that information must be grounded in verifiable and reliable sources, yet he challenged the use of this information because he doubted its truth (which is not at issue). In the subsequent exchange on the talk page [5], (Talk:Baruch Goldstein. See the present talk sect.5 'fingernail speech'), he endeavoured apparently to get me to engage in a violation of WP:OR, by trying to lure me to verify the truth of Lustik's remark.

That said, I do not think the issue is primarily one of putting up individual editors to intense scrutiny, to weed out malefactors. Given the structural problem, even the best can find themselves dragged into violations of rules, out of sheer exasperation with patent abuses of the rules by editors cunning enough to avoid, themselves, a technical breach. And in any case, a person by person examination of the record would lead to a Kafkian or Borgesian archive of unmanageable intricacy. The articles in this area perfectly fit the cruxes (cruces) outlined in Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias. The contentiousness in good part arises from the anomalousness of articles dealing predominantly with Palestinians (almost invariably entwined with Israel as occupying power). The history of the Palestinians is being written with hardly any Palestinians on board (User:Tiamut is a notable exception), by (a) complete outsiders (Westerners) who, for a variety of distinct motives, take on the task of representing a 'Palestinian perspective' as that is available in books and reliable sources, and (2) by Jewish/Israeli editors who are either present in the area or deeply committed to the country. Both are potentially defective sources, in that the Westerners who stand in as locum tenentes for the missing Palestinian voices, often have no intimate personal grounding in the area, and lack as often or not familiarity with the appropriate languages(User:RolandR provides an exception), and the Jewish/Israeli editors, some living in the West Bank, can often confuse their task with a national mission to define the people their nation has effectively colonized (after 1967), and over which Israel exercises a preponderance of legal, military, economic and, in a discursive sense, cultural power. User:Chesdovi 's home page is all for national liberation movements everywhere, for example, but in the relevant window on Palestinians, they alone effectively do not exist, since he locates their homeland in the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan.

There is, in addition, a general Western cognitive bias against Palestinians and Arabs, one that has deep historical roots, and which is complicated by the intense politics concerning terrorism, identified in the public mind with Islam, over the past decades. A lesser one, often suspected as motivating some 'pro-Palestinian' editors, is anti-semitism. Personally I have not encountered editors whose work lends itself to this suspicion, but then again, I have relatively little experience. I judge this to be a concern among 'adversaries' because more than twice my work here has be hinted as implying such a bias, and the innuendo is often encountered.

Several practical measures can be taken, with, I suggest a series of experiments. Here are two suggestions of many that come to mind. (a) Competitive page writing in which editors from both 'sides' (not always a valid marker, since many of us get on well with posters on the other 'side') take on an article, and compete to produce a GA/FA standard according to strict Wiki rules, while the original page is locked. The natural consequence will be to eliminate edit-wars between opposed groups, since say one page on Palestine will be done exclusively by Jewish/Israeli editors, the other page by 'pro-Palestinian' editors, in which the conflicts will be respectively inframural. The psychological logic of such testing would be, I should think, one that presses each group to modify internally its own natural biases, reduce ideological antagonism, and strive harder towards both neutrality and excellence in order to impress neutral arbitrators called in, at the end of the experiment, to cast a vote as to which article best fits Wiki's quality standards. (b) have a rule obliging patent and consistent violators or edit-warriors to justify their continued presence on the encyclopedia by creating, within a month or two, an article dealing exclusively and neutrally, with some event, figure or episode in the history or culture of either Israel (in the case of a 'pro-Palestinian' editor) or Palestine (in the case of a 'pro-Israeli' editor'.

Excuse my longueur. Nishidani (talk) 20:42, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Malik Shabazz

I generally have tried to stay away from Wikipedia articles about Palestine and Israel — despite my life-long personal interest in the subject — because of the venomous atmosphere that surrounds them. Like several others, I strongly recommend the addition of Jayjg to the involved parties: As a member of the Wikipedia community who has been entrusted with considerable authority, Jayjg should be setting a positive example; instead, he usually pours gasoline on the fire. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 23:06, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Nagle

There's been some minor trouble over at Jewish Lobby from some of the same parties named in this arbitration, but it hasn't yet risen to the level of needing ArbCom attention. There have been some sizable deletions by Armon (talk · contribs), but they're usually follow-ups of similar actions by Jayjg (talk · contribs).

It's worth noting that during Jayjg (talk · contribs)'s first arbitration of 2007 (Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Allegations of apartheid) when he left Wikipedia without explanation for some months, these issues seemed to quiet down. ArbCom noted this in closing that arbitration.

Incidentally, if Jayjg (talk · contribs) is still on the ArbCom internal mailing list, ArbCom might want to consider removing him during this arbitration. --John Nagle (talk) 01:55, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unless the arbs revert themselves, do not add this user to the case. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:25, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Any future reverts of a sitting arb will result in a one month block, [6]. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:05, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently some think my stmt above was directed at John Nagle, but it wasn't. It was prompted by 128.122.253.196 reverting Morven, here and future such attempts to reinsert Jayjg as a party. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:28, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any chance the wording of the "discretionary sanctions" remedy could be tweaked to allow uninvolved admins to place a specific article (or closely related set of articles, if necessary), on article probation? I believe this would help, given the current thread at WP:AE and attendant squabbling at Jewish lobby. I suppose you could argue that article probation here might be redundant (seeing as all Arab-Israeli articles are kind of on article probation anyway) but it helps as a solution on especially problematic articles - the tag at the top lets people know there is a long-term issue. Furthermore, it means the article as a whole can be monitored and you don't have to pick through contributions elsewhere if deciding when to topic-ban. Best, Moreschi ^{If you've written a quality article...} 17:39, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure this is necessary Moreschi. If there's problematic editing on the page, article ban the participants on the page who are taking part in the problematic behaviour. If there's problems on numerous pages with certain editors, topic ban them. If they carry on editing these pages then should be blocked. Ryan Postlethwaite 17:53, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The sanctions are so broadly written that I think they allow for pretty much everything. I will probably place all editors on Jewish Lobby on 1RR per week for that article pending an attempt to more deeply analyze the problem. The sanctions are written against "any editor" not "any article," but articles don't write themselves, and I'm pretty sure that "any editor" includes "all editors of article X". Thatcher 18:09, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this is what I was trying to say. The ability to place a specific article on 1RR (and put in extra sanctions against uncooperative editing etc) is what's needed in some cases, because some articles are so darn controversial it's just natural to edit-war (the poor darlings can't help themselves). But Thatcher's work-around is rather neat, and will serve equally well. Moreschi ^{If you've written a quality article...}

Tariqabjotu has brought to my attention, in connection with a different matter altogether, an apparent edit war involving the same editors at New antisemitism. It's evidently escalated well beyond the issues at Jewish lobby, to the point of the article having being protected. I'm not involved in any way with either article and not really up to date on what has been going on, but m

aybe one of you guys could take a look. Now my request for clarification: would such an article be covered by this arbitration in the first place? I'm not certain how broadly the link with the Palestine-Israeli conflict is going to be interpreted, though looking at the article's content it does seem to be indirectly related to that conflict (which is mentioned at various points). Does an article have to be about Palestine-Israel, or is it sufficient that it should have some sort of non-trivial link to the conflict? -- ChrisO (talk) 23:32, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"The area of conflict in this case shall be considered to be the entire set of Arab-Israeli conflict-related articles, broadly interpreted." In my view a broad interpretation does include New antisemitism. Sam Blacketer (talk) 00:09, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is plenty wide to cover about anything, clearly the intent of the ruling. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:20, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(unindent) The remedies were deliberately wide, to indicate in a way, simply, that we feel that

1. Administrators on this area may need to use their judgement and adminship to bring the edit war (and warriors, and some editors who need to modify their conduct) back within acceptable limits, and
2. The edit war has exhausted patience, and we are therefore now inclined to give uninvolved administrators wide ranging scope to achieve that end (as described in the decision).

Note that a stricter application of "drawing a line on unproductive behavior" is not the same as "anything an admin does will be okay". However a user who cannot or will not take note of the need to edit productively and appropriately in their conduct ("WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT"), has now basically got only two choices in this arena: voluntarily do not edit there, or be prevented from editing in an unhelpful manner, by admin action. What counts as "unproductive" or "inappropriate" is pretty much "any action that contradicts high quality collaborative creation of a neutral encyclopedia article for readers".

Bottom line: the encyclopedic community is not expected to endorse some areas being a perrenial edit war, for any reason, and the belief that somehow they should, is misplaced. Disputes are fine provided they are carried out appropriately, which includes non-disruption, listening to uninvolved administrators, and editors actively and genuinely working to achieve resolution via NPOV.

An approximate summary of my own personal thoughts. If in doubt the remedy wording overrides any comment I might make. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 01:59, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for these very informative comments. I hope one of the clerks will archive this thread somewhere (maybe on the arbitration page?). -- ChrisO (talk) 21:37, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, main case talk page, after it's stale for a couple more days (in case any other Arbs wish to comment) Thatcher 00:56, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(If it's ok to comment. Aside for broad interpretation, which is fine by me, another method is to search for terms like "Israel" and "Palestin"* on the Talk page. By this means, I suspect that uninvolved admins would find that Jewish lobby is within the topic area. My 2 cents. See also the (unofficial) list of disputed articles being developed here. Thanks.) HG | Talk 19:46, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am posting again a comment that was arbitrarily deleted by RolandR. -> In case anyone wonders how uninvolved administrators are to be recognized, it's actually pretty easy. They ride flying pigs which are both kosher and halal. Administrators riding kosher flying pigs have a sound grasp the issues at stake here, are willing to engage constructively in a vicious confrontation, shutting up people on both sides of a desperate struggle, while staying uninvolved. They have an uncle who died in Auschwitz, a brother who lost his legs in a bombing in Jerusalem and a little sister who was blown to pieces in Qana. They can convincingly explain the difference between terrorists and freedom fighters, murders and extra-judicial killings, victims and losers. L'omo del batocio (talk) 12:07, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am raising an issue that I consider both extremely relevant and unresolved. I regard bitter irony as a legitimate and effective rethorical tool. L'omo del batocio (talk) 12:23, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: A new Sanctions template has been developed which could tag articles and notify users about possible sanctions. //FYI, without opinion about tagging, HG | Talk 18:18, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:

• ChrisO (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (initiator)
• Elonka (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Julia1987 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (aka Southkept (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log))

Statement by ChrisO

I wish to appeal a page ban applied by Elonka after I removed an obvious copyright, BLP and NPOV violation from an article. The background is as follows:

• Muhammad al-Durrah (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) concerns a controversy that is currently the subject of libel litigation in France as well as an off-wiki campaign that accuses several individuals of criminal and professional misconduct. Personal abuse like this and death threats have been directed against some of those involved. I have monitored the article for BLP reasons since April 2007.[7]

• A number of previously uninvolved editors have recently been editing the article. Some of the editing and talk page contributions have been very problematic. The article was fully protected for a time and two new editors, Julia1987 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Tundrabuggy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), have been the subject of action by Moreschi [8] and MZMcBride [9] respectively.

• On 10 June, Elonka stepped in to mediate, impose editing restrictions and lift protection. [10] I fully accept that I overstepped the restrictions on a couple of occasions through sheer frustration, as noted by Elonka.[11],[12],[13].

• On 13 June, Julia1987 posted unsourced allegations on the article talk page that an individual mentioned in the article was a drug dealer who had been attacked by a drug gang.[14] WP:BLP requires the removal of "unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material" from talk pages and articles. I therefore redacted them and asked Julia1987 not to post unsourced allegations in future.[15]

• On 14 June, Julia1987 made a series of edits in which she deleted some sourced material and added essentially the same allegations, this time sourced to this pirate web video, undated, unsourced, translated by an unknown individual, on a video sharing website. Julia1987's edits stated the allegations as proven facts.[16]

• WP:BLP requires that "Editors should remove any contentious material about living persons that ... relies upon sources that do not meet standards specified in Wikipedia:Verifiability". WP:COPY requires that "if you know that an external Web site is carrying a work in violation of the creator's copyright, do not link to that copy of the work". Elonka's own restrictions state that "If something is added that is unsourced, that is obviously troublesome (such as very biased or potentially untrue), it can be deleted on the spot." [17]

• I therefore removed Julia1987's problematic additions and restored the deleted material.[18] In hindsight my edit summary was poorly written and did not make sufficiently clear that the removed material was a BLP and copyright violation. As WP:BLP mandates that "The three-revert rule does not apply to such removals" (by extension the same would apply to a 0RR regime), I did not consider this to be a revert. I did not revert to a previous version, as I retained Julia1987's and another editor's non-problematic additions. (See User talk:Elonka#Sequence of edits).

• I was shocked and surprised to find on 15 June that Elonka had banned me for one week from the article's talk page and thirty days from the article itself.[19] Elonka has since restricted Julia1987 for deleting sourced content in the same series of edits as the BLP/copyright violation [20].

• I have since unsuccessfully sought to resolve this with Elonka on her talk page. Elonka has argued that my edit was an impermissible reversion and constituted "edit-warring", but has not acknowledged any of the NPOV, BLP or copyright issues that I have raised.[21] Wikipedia's BLP and copyright rules cannot be overridden by an individual admin's restrictions, and an admin-imposed 0RR cannot supersede the long-standing rule that the removal of BLP violations is not counted towards reversions. Elonka's action has the unfortunate effect of penalising a good-faith effort to remove material that indisputably violates BLP, COPY and NPOV. This risks sending a message to editors that BLP doesn't matter and attempts to uphold it will be penalised.

I would therefore be grateful for outside views on this matter. Please note that I fully support Elonka's mediation efforts; this unfortunate misunderstanding should not be taken as criticism of the rest of her work on the article. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:53, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In response to Elonka's comment below, I couldn't source Julia1987's allegations to anything other than the pirate video, an unusable source which had to be removed. BLP requires us to reliably source statements about living people ("Be very firm about the use of high quality references"). It wasn't possible to remove the unusable source while leaving in place an unsupported, potentially libelous claim - that would have been a BLP violation in my part. The only recourse was to remove the claim and the unusable source. I'm also not sitting this out because of the unresolved BLP issue and the chilling effect Elonka's action is likely to have on any future efforts to ensure that BLP is followed. We need a clear statement on whether or not editing restrictions can override BLP and copyright enforcement. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:11, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There appears to be some confusion over which edit prompted the page-ban. Elonka page-banned me for making this edit. The BLP violation I removed was this bit (the bolded text is that which was added by User:Julia1987, unbolded article text is previously existing material which I didn't remove)):

Muhammad's father claim he was severely wounded in the same incident and was treated in hospital in Jordan for multiple bullet wounds.<ref name="Tierney">Tierney, Michael. ''Glasgow Herald'', August 23, 2003</ref> However, scars that were supposedly caused by the Israeli gun-fire, were not left by bullets. Instead, they're the same scars identified by an Israeli doctor who treated Jamal after he was attacked by a Palestinian gang armed with axes. <ref> Ch. 10, April 29, 2008 [http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x594x0_jamal-aldurrah-scars-from-the-past_news]</ref>"

This makes the father out to be a liar, it states a purely anecdotal claim made by an interviewee in the report as fact, no other reliable source that I know of has made that claim, it's sourced to a Youtube-style video hosting site (ergo, a probable copyvio), and the reliability of the source was essentially unknowable since at the time I knew of no original copy of the video. The source was unusable and the information in it uncorroborated. It would be appreciated if arbitrators could address whether this is a BLP and probable copyright violation and if so, whether removing it was reasonable. -- ChrisO (talk) 10:41, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Eternalsleeper

I've been watching these discussions from afar, as I'm way too busy with RL to contribute to Wikipedia on a solid base. Elonka has been reasonable and helpful in moving the page forward, though it would be even more helpful if people stopped making sarcastic and pejorative comments on the talk page, directly and indirectly calling each other's position into ideological questioning. I haven't been following up on the page with enough persistence to make any further comment but I felt a vote of confidence in Elonka's efforts was due. Eternalsleeper (talk) 22:10, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Elonka

Personally I think that ChrisO is wasting his time here, but this appeal might actually benefit from an ArbCom review, as a few editors have been sharply critical of the conditions for editing that I placed on this article. So I wouldn't mind hearing from ArbCom as to whether or not I have been working in accordance with the Discretionary Sanctions that they envisioned in January. To describe the situation in a nutshell: ChrisO, an admin who was participating as an involved editor, was edit-warring at the Muhammad al-Durrah article, which is within the scope of the Palestine-Israel articles ArbCom discretionary sanctions, and had been in a state of dispute for quite awhile. I, as an uninvolved admin (and member of the ArbCom-appointed Working Group on ethnic and cultural edit wars), decided to take a look at the situation, and chose to place a civility and 0RR (no revert) restriction on the article. Most editors complied, but ChrisO kept reverting. Since he's an admin, I tried to give him lots of leeway, but it's obvious that he felt that the restrictions were for other people, and not for him, and he kept on with warring and incivility, such as referring to loony conspiracy theories. So I gave him a steadily increasing set of cautions.[22][23] [24][25][26] [27][28] After his second revert,[29][30] I told him clearly that if he did one more, he risked being put on tighter restrictions.[31] The next day, he reverted again,[32] with a misleading edit summary of "blatant POV pushing" (his edit summary didn't describe it as a revert, but it was clear that he had cleanly wiped out 8 intervening edits, back to his own last version.[33]) I then put him on (what I felt was) a mild ban of avoiding the talkpage for one week, and avoiding edits to the article for one month.[34] He immediately started wikilawyering with multiple messages to my talkpage about why he was allowed to revert,[35] and then he came up with this after-the-fact "BLP" angle,[36] saying that it excuses his total revert. I disagree. The case is pretty simple as far as I'm concerned, and has nothing to do with BLP. ChrisO was edit-warring, he was told to stop, he didn't, I put a brief page ban on him.

I would also like to point out that when I first learned of the situation, the article was already protected, the talkpage was in the middle of a severe dispute, and ChrisO was begging for an uninvolved administrator to help out. When I offered my assistance, he said it would be appreciated.[37] I am proud to say that since I placed my conditions on the article on June 10, the article has become much more stable, with some very constructive conversations going on at the talkpage. And all of this was accomplished with no blocks and no page protection. Instead, three editors (two new editors, and ChrisO) were placed on temporary bans (see our admin log), and everyone else is back to work. I acted in the best interest of the project, and got rapid control of a situation that was in near chaos, with only very minor course corrections on my part. I wish that ChrisO could recognize that my system works. That he is continuing to escalate and is now trying to spin this as a BLP issue, is disappointing. There were many ways that he could have edited the article to remove anything that he found problematic, by changing the text rather than just reverting. It is also disappointing that he's going to the trouble of filing what will probably be a lengthy appeal, which will probably take weeks to resolve. I had pointed out to him that an easier route would be to simply avoid the talkpage for the rest of the week (until June 22), and then if he resumed participation in a civil and constructive manner, that I would consider lifting the article editing ban early, rather than requiring that he sit out the full 30 days. I've already done this with one of the other editors, Tundrabuggy (talk · contribs), who had been banned for 90 days. We instructed him to work on other articles for awhile, and he did, so we lifted his talkpage ban to allow him to resume discussions. But evidently ChrisO would rather stir things up here at ArbCom for a few weeks, rather than just waiting until the weekend to participate at talk, so here we are. --Elonka 23:01, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Carcharoth

Just a brief comment here. Elonka's system is interesting, and is in fact similar to what I have advocated elsewhere. I'm glad to see that some of these (rather obvious) ideas are at least being put into practice. I am concerned though that sometimes it can end up looking like some individuals (in this case Elonka) are the gatekeepers for the article. To avoid this, I suggest a system of rotation, whereby the uninvolved admins move on to different areas and different articles every few months. This will ensure things do not go stale, that grudges do not fester and build up, and that the admins involved get a fresh look on different articles rather than deal with the same things over and over again (ie. avoid burn out). This would also address the perennial question of whether admins are truly uninvolved and committed. If the admins in question are uninvolved, then they will not mind moving on a different article every few months. Possibly all this has been suggested elsewhere. If not, please do pass it on to whatever board is considering these things this month. :-) Carcharoth (talk) 23:39, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Canadian Monkey

Elonka has done a commendable job of stepping into a controversial article and, through the imposition of strict editing conditions, eliminated edit warring while allowing for continuous improvement of the article. As she notes, ChrisO was given plenty of warning about his behavior, and much more leeway was given to him (presumably because of his status as an admin) than to other editors, who were subjected to similar sanctions for behavior that was, in my opinion, much less disruptive than ChrisO’s. He has clearly edit warred on the page, and reverted on multiple occasions, despite being notified of both the 0RR restrictions and the general ArbCom decision related to I-P articles.

The "BLP" issue is a Red herring. As Elonka notes, ChrisO came up with the "BLP" angle [38] after the fact, and used it as an excuse for a revert that encompassed much more than any potential BLP issues. I’d like to highlight he fact that this is apparently a common modus operandi with ChrisO. On May 23rd, he was reported for a 3RR violation by an uninvolved editor on the same article (prior to the recent restrictions and Elonka’s involvement). He did not claim he was reverting BLP issues in any of his 5 reverts, 3 of which consisted of removing "Category:Violence in media", which is clearly pure edit warring over a content issue that has nothing to do with BLP. But once the 3RR report was filed, he suddenly came up with the "BLP" angle, to excuse his behavior ex post facto, and without pointing to any actual BLP issues that his reverts were aimed at.

His behavior on this article has been problematic from the get go. He has abused his admin privileges by posting warning notifications on the Talk pages of all those who opposed him, even though he was an involved admin. This behavior was found problematic by several uninvolved admins ([39], [40],[41]) and he was told it was improper (though not sanctioned for it).

Unable to get consensus for his views on the Talk page of the article, he has engaged in egregious forum shopping, seeking to get his opponents banned or otherwise sanctioned and his own actions vindicated, on no fewer than 6 different venues: [42], [43], [44], [45], [46], [47]. In fact, this most recent appeal follows on the heels of yet another appeal, his 7th (!!) this time here, after he had been told by the responding admin that “I would tread on the cautious side and say that if it's not obvious, then note it to someone else and let others do it, if 0RR applies to one of the editors involved.”

Given this extremely disruptive behavior, the length of time it has been going on, and the fact that similar behavior has been exhibited on other articles as well (see this, for example, where he has blocked an editor with whom he has an active content dispute) – I think that ChrisO got off extremely lightly (a 30 day ban from a single article), and that a more appropriate sanction would be a topic ban, from all I-P related articles, for a substantially longer time period.

Statement by Tarc

I find it rather hard to believe that, in the name of "mediation", one administrator can simply ignore policy and guidelines on NPOV and BLP and such. All edits and/or reverts are not created equal; if someone edits in violation of Wikipedia policy, to sanction someone else for addressing and removing such violations is a serious error in judgment. Mediating in this or any I-P related article is a thankless task that few if any have the time, patience, or willingness to undertake, and Elonka should be commended for taking a stab at a difficult task. But a bit more flexibility is called for here, and a hard "no reverts ever" is simply bad practice and completely unworkable.

Statement by JGGardiner

Like everyone else, I have to say that Elonka has done a wonderful job on the talk page. This was definitely a mop and bucket job. I can see how the editing conditions may seem a little draconian but the alternatives are worse.

When I first read Chris' statement I thought it did raise an interesting policy question: can editing restrictions override our policy restrictions. But, having looked everything over once again, I'm not sure that there is an actual policy difference here. Elonka's conditions seem to have exclusions that go far beyond just BLP: "If something is added that is unsourced, that is obviously troublesome (such as very biased or potentially untrue), it can be deleted on the spot." Chris’ initial arguments seem to be that his edit was within the limits of Elonka’s restrictions. I think this is just a simple disagreement over the nature of Chris' particular edit.

Chris does acknowledge that he did not adequately construct his summary. If he did alter content beyond what was necessary to satisfy BLP concerns, it is easy to see why Elonka would have felt this was a reversion in violation of the editing conditions.

I am sympathetic to Chris’ feelings. I think that his general concern was having the article within policy. But I think that an admin in Elonka’s position would have had to have given Chris the benefit of the doubt to think that his edit was not a reversion. And at that point nobody on the talk page deserved such a benefit. --JGGardiner (talk) 12:27, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Kelly

I fully endorse Elonka's actions - as someone who tried to make a foray into this article as an uninvolved party, I can testify that a firm hand is needed in handling this article. ChrisO's behavior has been problematic at times, as Elonka states (particularly his continual use of derogatory terms like "conspiracy theories" to describe other viewpoints; I believe this provokes other editors into inappropriate actions). This is not to say that the editing of his "opponents" has not also been problematic. But, as an experienced user, ChrisO should know better. Frankly, I'm impressed with how Elonka has handled the situation, and feel this approach should be used with other contentious articles. No ArbCom action needed here. Kelly ^hi! 14:48, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Further comment on ban of User:Tundrabuggy

Based on the user's comments below, I guess I would ask why Tundrabuggy's sanction was so much more severe than ChrisO's, for what seems to be a much lighter offense. If anything, Tundrabuggy should have gotten more leniency than ChrisO, given that Tundrabuggy is relatively new and ChrisO is, and has been, well aware of editing practices here. Kelly ^hi! 02:45, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by WJBscribe

This seems to be about the imposition of a fairly routine discretionary sanction as provided for by the remedies in the case in question. If someone thinks an administrator erred in imposing such a sanction, their first avenue of redress is surely to seek input from other administrators, say by raising the matter at WP:AN/I and establishing a consensus that the application of the sanction should be reversed. I don't think the Arbitration Committee's input is needed unless the community is unable to resolve the matter, or clarification of the remedy is needed. Neither appears to be the case here. The Committee will waste a lot of time if they're to agree to provide "first instance" review of every discretionary sanction imposed by an administrator. I think other avenues of redress should be explored first. WjBscribe 15:34, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Penwhale

I think the problematic part is the fact that some people would read the original wording as only sanctioning AFTER warning, and not to start with blanket 0RR. - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 16:10, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Tundrabuggy

As a new user I started my account 28th May and the first article I edited was Muhammad al-Durrah. On June 2, the first external contribution to my talk page was the notification posted by ChrisO [48] without comment or discussion, and logged here: [49]. Until "tidied up" by Moreschi [50] later, the edit read: "notified of the case in relation to single-purpose account editing and promotion of personal views and original research"

Since then I've had a quick lesson in navigating, editing, rules and general "culture" of WP. I believed my half-dozen edits on the article were fair and neutral.

With the recent court decision, the release of the raw footage, and the latest articles, the equation has changed such that to continue to insist that that the opposing viewpoint is "fringe" or "conspiracy theory" becomes not only insulting, but rather a barrier to productive editing. Thus I tried to use neutral terms such as "was reported." This edit, however, became proof of being a 9/11-style thruthers [51], a sentiment endorsed by Moreschi, at the FTN with this highly POV edit [52]. The following day Moreschi goes to the Admin Noticeboard asking for an uninvolved admin to ban me and Julia1987. [53]

Later (ChrisO (talk) 23:44, 5 June 2008)labels other editors: Canadian Monkey, Gilabrand, & Leifern "... to put it bluntly the SPAs and conspiracy theory advocates are not listening and are attempting to edit-war their view into the article. There is some very blatant soapboxing..."

Elonka stepped in and volunteered to mediate. She was accepted by all including ChrisO. As part of her ongoing mediation, she lifted protection on the article in exchange for some simple edit restrictions.

On June 10th I made the first single-word edit on the newly unprotected article -- "reported" -- and was surprised by a 90 day edit-ban on both article and talk page by previously uninvolved admin MZMcBride[54] Elonka asks for reconsideration: [55] and suggesting the ban is excessive, explains her rationale: [56]

I didn't challenge my ban until discovering ChrisO had received a much lighter restriction despite numerous warnings. Indeed, one might suppose he could have been expected, as an administrator and experienced editor, to have required fewer warnings, to have been held to a higher standard than I.

MZMcBride said of my ban of three months: "There truly isn't any need for this level of discussion for something so minor." [57]

If three months is acceptable for one party in a mediated dispute, how is a week and one month from the article so egregious? I believe that ChrisO abused his administrative powers to shoe-horn his POV into this article, and is now trying to break an agreed-upon mediation. He should accept the mediator's decision(s) in good spirit, and abide by them. To me the terms seem generous, and I think he could use his time to consider his own behavior in regard to this article, rather than trying to find fault in the behavior of others. Tundrabuggy (talk) 20:22, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Concerning the issue of what ChrisO refers to as "ongoing litigation" in his statement. There is currently no ongoing litigation. Until and unless France 2 takes this to the Supreme Court, the issue has been decided. On the point of BLP, the latest court decision says of the main figure in this controversy (Charles Enderlin) that in his position "he inevitably and knowingly exposes himself to more careful scrutiny," and that he "admitted that the film, ... perhaps did not correspond to his commentary" "and the statements procured by the cameraman ... cannot be found truly credible neither in their presentation nor in their substance..." and in regard to the wounds of the father: "the lack of probative value of the photographs of Jamal AL DURA’s wounds." Thus the court has made their statement [58]and to reiterate the substance of the investigations that the court decision used to determine its verdict would not seem to me to be in violation of WP:BLP. Tundrabuggy (talk) 20:22, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Julia1987

Prior to the ban ChrisO violated 3RR but escaped a block for technical reasons (report filed too late). He intimidated other editors using his admin "rank". His contribution page (prior to the ban) almost all his 500 edits are in one article. (or this request for arbitration plus related talk page - arguing about the ban) [59] --Julia1987 (talk) 18:15, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Messedrocker

I do not know the background, but let's assume for the sake for the argument that the editing sanctions were rightfully applied. If a removal is done per BLP, and it is recognized as such by the mediator and others, then it is a granted exception to the editorial ban. This has to be a very cut-and-dry case, though, where it is unambiguously in compliance with the ArbCom statement which goes along the lines of "BLP must be enforced at all costs". Otherwise, it is a breach of the ban and should be reverted.

I have no problem with banned ones requesting others to make edits, BUT BUT BUT BUT BUT the proxy editor must acknowledge that they have passed the request through their own judgment and they are willing to be responsible for their edits. That way, it is like proxy editing, but with the benefit of a human filter to prevent bad stuff from going through.

If the editing ban was wrongfully placed, then that's for the ArbCom to deal with.

MessedRocker (talk) 02:12, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Ned Scott

I half expected to see this request when I commented on the issue a little bit ago. I'm not sure on the specifics, but I will say that a blanket no-revert rule on an article, applied to all editors, isn't wise. Sometimes someone will make an edit with no redeeming qualities at all, negatively effecting the article, but without it being vandalism (or a BLP issue). My suggestion to Elonka was to make this restriction more.. restricted. Apply it to certain editors, certain texts, or something that wouldn't debilitate one of our most basic cleanup functions.

This may or may not be an issue yet, and this may or may not apply to ChrisO, but that's my two cents. -- Ned Scott 08:55, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

Arbitrator views and discussion

• I find myself agreeing with a number of people here:
  • Firstly, I agree with WJBscribe's comment. The original decision included this remedy, on appeals of discretionary sanctions, providing that appeals could be made to the sanctioning administrator, the relevant admin noticeboard (presently arbitration enforcement) or to the Committee. While the remedy didn't spell it out explicitly, the usual understanding is that one would start with the individual administrator, and then proceed "up" the chain of review from there, with review by the Committee being the last step, if others have not produced a resolution.
  • Secondly, I agree with the substance of what Elonka has said. From what I have seen this does not appear to be a BLP situation, but one of simple edit-warring. Reverting simply so your preferred version can stand (here, with an edit summary of "please let this stand for more than half an hour, OK?") is textbook edit-warring. Policy and practice grant much leeway to people to deal with BLP problems, but they have to have a sound basis for exercising such leeway, and they have to communicate that they think there's a BLP issue when they take action so that other editors understand what they're doing.
  • Thirdly, I agree with Carcharoth's view. Speaking generally, in these types of situations, the appearance of non-involvement is often as important as actual non-involvement. Perhaps, in the light of the increased number of discretionary sanctions remedies the Committee has passed over the last year, it would be worth setting aside a page somewhere to discuss discretionary sanction "best practice": what has worked, what hasn't worked, and so forth.

--bainer (talk) 09:02, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• There are several matters in this clarification: compatibility of 0RR with the case sanction (was Elonka within her rights?) and balancing of that sanction with BLP (if imposed, would 0RR preclude BLP reversion?). A question also exists, per ChrisO's statement, whether the specific item in question is in fact a BLP violation. Quick answers (detail below):

1. Yes, 0RR is an appropriate choice available to an uninvolved administrator, within the sanctions provided. Elonka has correctly understood both the purpose of the discretion given, and the extent of the tools made available for that purpose, and has applied them following appropriate prior warnings, and with care.
2. BLP (if a genuine case) would have a very high priority indeed and would override xRR.

   There is a caveat (because BLP is sometimes pushed or gamed for POV removal purposes). The caveat is, a user who claims "BLP-vio!" to do this, takes the chance they could be deemed edit warring unless the case is obvious. "Exceptional claims" (which include the claim "we have to ignore sanctions and restrictions, delete this now, and discuss later") should be accompanied by a good description of the reason that anyone can follow, and by willingness to discuss collaboratively after removal. Where it may not be clear to others, a good talk page description should usually be provided and ideally posted within moments of the edit and noted in the edit summary, so that the two will be seen together by other editors, and so it doesn't get mistaken for edit warring.

3. The revert by ChrisO does include material that was a clear violation of BLP (negative and unsourced/poorly sourced content). It also included reverting a number of edits that by themselves were not BLP violating, but taken together had a very one-sided negative effect that possibly did meet BLP criteria. (See below: "detail".) I'm willing to accept ChrisO's statement that despite describing it as "POV", this was what made him revert (WP:AGF). A person reverting others' work should be very careful at the best of times not to do so unnecessarily nor to revert valid material (WP:REVERT). This goes double when 0RR is in operation and also when a prior history of warnings for editing conduct has taken place. ChrisO had previously been warned about editing conduct on the article. He then posted a revert of multiple edits to the introduction, with an edit summary "blatant POV-pushing". Some of the reverted material should have been reverted (but on well-explained grounds), some should have been discussed but not reverted -- and a good explanation at that exact time of revert above all should have been given. Especially given the circumstances, he should have made exceptional efforts to be clear. ChrisO did not communicate and the result was a foregone conclusion.
4. Last, as bainer says (citing WJBScribe), this should probably not be brought here first. This dispute is probably not an RFAR matter (at this time). But now it's here, so be it.

I hope Elonka and ChrisO will talk and sort matters out, having seen first-hand the consequences of this communication issue. It's easy to learn from and both are good editors capable of insight. I note the sanction Elonka chose is reasonable and not excessive, and that Elonka carefully distinguishes talk page and article in her judgement of the handling. Bans and the like are preventative, and ChrisO sounds like he may have done mostly the right thing this case, but with poor and misleading communication, even though in prior instances he was breaching good practice and needed warning. I urge both to re-affirm that they are working together, and to collaborate better, which would make the sanction perhaps less necessary to uphold. But the bottom line is, I feel it's best to leave the final decision in Elonka's hands to decide (she's admining on this dispute area, and is doing it well). My own feeling is that if appropriate and if she feels ChrisO may have now learned from this about the importance of good communication in sensitive, already-restricted areas, she might feel like giving a second chance.

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 13:52, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More detail.

More detail on the actual points raised: Compatibility of 0RR with the general sanction - The remedy is extremely broad (including "restrictions on reverts or other specified behaviors; or any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary...".) 0RR is a restriction that would apply only to existing or new editors on the article. The aim of an ultra-broad remedy is to get the article back on track however is necessary almost, and to deal with a range of behaviors that need strong action. If an uninvolved administrator feels 0RR/1RR may resolve problems (for example by compelling discussion of all points that become visibly disputed) then that may well be exactly whats needed. If not, we'll find out. Default = trust. If anyone feels that 0RR is a bad idea, it can be appealled (via Elonka as imposing administrator, WP:AE, or the Committee). But so far as I am aware, no claim is made that imposing 0RR per se is a bad admin judgement, or harms the article. Arbitration remedies like this get given only because nothing less seems powerful enough to work, and (provided it is fairly used) to support a strong hand which may actually be what is needed for admins to do their job managing conduct on an article, without being stonewalled. BLP vs. sanctions - A genuinely harmful BLP issue must take priority over most other editorial concerns. If there were a genuine issue with poorly sourced or unsourced material, and it was in a biographical article or shaded negatively towards a living person, I would expect it to be removed. Caveat - I would not expect it edit warred over or gamed. Was the reverted material (despite its revert as "POV") really a genuine BLP violation? - Unequivocably yes, but capable of correction. This is exactly the kind of thing BLP policy was set up to deal with quickly and override other concerns on. Let's look at the case. A living person, the joint subject of an article, has a part of the article saying that medically and factually, an Israeli doctor has examined his scars and they are not bullet scars as he claims ("scars that were supposedly caused by the Israeli gun-fire, were not left by bullets. Instead, they're the same scars identified by an Israeli doctor who treated Jamal after he was attacked by a Palestinian gang armed with axes"). The article is citing this as fact in Wikipedia's voice. Its effect is to discredit the subject of the article. We need a high quality and reliable source to support a claim that roughly speaking this is either 1/ considered the case by the medical world ("they are axe scars"), or 2/ backed by reliable sources ("source X opined that they are axe scars"). We have neither. A google search shows nothing except blogs. There is apparently not one reliable source in Google News. The actual article statement is backed up by a source of no merit whatsoever (a video purporting to be an Israeli TV recording), but no evidence backing this exists in any reliable source I can find. We have no real evidence it was "channel 10" or any Israeli TV channel (much less a reputable one), what its provenance and reliability are. There is a channel ident on the video, but that doesnt matter - I (or any video editing hack) could fake that. A website saying "I am official" doesnt make it official. A video saying "I am channel 10" doesnt make it channel 10. We need a reliable source - ie, provenance - not just a source that claims to be reliable. The doctor and hospital are named, and a statement that "In an anonymous video, Doctor X of hospital Y stated that he identified them as surgical scars from an operation he had performed in 1994" would be better. The translation issue is not a problem (we can check it, like any other non-English source.) But note - we still have no reliable source that this is a doctor, or the doctor, or that there was a surgery case as described, or that the interview is of a reliable nature and not tampered, no confirmation that the claims in the video are endorsed by any reliable source, not one reliable independent source refers to any of this at all... all we have is one anonymous video of a person who says they were a doctor in the 1990s holding up an X ray and making a claim. On this basis the introduction states the subject has been in effect, proven untruthful. We need a higher quality source to support such a statement. That is precisely what BLP is for. Dead end. Other edits reverted were POV. Whether or not serious doubt exists (it may well), these edits placed this doubt in Wikipedia's voice, and implied a negative slant to the bio throughout much of its introduction. Likely ChrisO's version is better in that it cites facts and statements, more neutrally and with less opinioning. In general with one exception NPOV issues do not by themselves reach the standard needed for summary deletion/reversion per BLP, when 0RR is in operation. The exception is when the overall effect is BLP breaching. Here it may well have been, since the introduction had been generally negatively shaded in tone against the subject by these edits. To sum up, ChrisO has admitted that he was at fault for stepping over previous restrictions. But in removing this item, and persisting, he's on target and has got BLP right, and given it the priority it needs. I put the issue down to communication and forethought rather than anything else, with good points coming out of it to go forward. ChrisO especially could have notified it better, and explained it more on the talk page. It wasn't well explained and was in a contentious area. An exceptional issue may need exceptional communication. Editing a contentious area with poor communication following on from prior breach of restriction is a risky proposition. In their intentions and the aim of their actions, both were impeccable - Elonka managing the dispute, ChrisO spotting the genuine serious BLP issue and persisting with removing it. The communication and understanding failed. Above average care, and above average communication, are needed on more sensitive contended areas... a person who doesnt, will often have a problem as a result. ChrisO didn't communicate. FT2 (Talk | email) 13:52, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Agree with the above, especially FT2's expression of hope that Elonka & ChrisO can resolve; in light of this consensus in the those of the Committee who have posted, I think we should remove this request. James F. (talk) 16:22, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:MeteorMaker has been banned from 'removing citations to reliable sources' in the Israel/Palestine topic area - and he subsequently violated that ban with this edit. NoCal100 (talk) 00:59, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

because almost no one calls it "Palestine-Israel," except the most leftist groups, even most of them call it "Israel-Palestine," tho "Israel-Palestinian" is optimal.Tallicfan20 (talk) 07:03, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've modified a line in the notification template that said:

This notice is only effective if given by an administrator and logged here

which I've changed to:

This notification has been logged here.

I'm not sure why that language was in the template in the first place; the case remedies say merely that "Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be given a warning with a link to this decision; and, where appropriate, should be counseled on specific steps that he or she can take to improve his or her editing in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines." They don't specify that only an admin can do this. That approach would, in any case, be inconsistent with current practice - the three general sanctions regimes currently in force (Climate change, Sarah Palin and Barack Obama) all permit anyone to notify anyone else, although of course only admins can impose sanctions. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:54, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I support this change. As noted, the language in the template was stricter than the ARBPIA decision itself. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 22:00, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The WP:ARBPIA page was protected for a few months in 2008, and the wording dates from then. PhilKnight (talk) 22:14, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the info. Am I right in presuming that the conditions which prompted that wording no longer apply? -- ChrisO (talk) 22:17, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the dispute was settled in 2008. PhilKnight (talk) 22:21, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks. Given that, do you have any comments on the modification? From what you say I would guess it effectively takes the template back to the way it was when the ARBPIA remedies were first agreed. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:25, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for not being clearer, I support the change. PhilKnight (talk) 22:29, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AFTER you removed that language back in 2008, another admin restored it , stating it was standard practice for sanction regimes. It does not appear to be related to the edit war on the WP:ARBPIA page you describe. Powder Hound 3000 (talk) 00:37, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I dont support the change. One of two things should happen, either any user who makes any edit in the topic area is given the notice or uninvolved admins should give the notice as needed. In my opinion it is unhelpful to have an involved editor, likely an editor with whom the person being notified is engaged in a dispute with, give these "notices". nableezy - 22:45, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Nableezy. I don't think this would be helpful, it would increase the drama, and would be likely to result in further edit-warring and reprisals. RolandR (talk) 22:57, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Nableezy & RonaldR. Looking at the way ChrisO has been using these notices to selectively warn those opposed to his viewpoint, it is obvious how this will turn into another weapon in the I/P arena. Powder Hound 3000 (talk) 00:55, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom warnings should be handed out by uninvolved admins only, precisely to avoid situations where non-admins are using warnings to intimidate opponents in a dispute. And even in the case of an admin giving a warning, it should still be an uninvolved admin. If someone's involved in a dispute, be they admin or non-admin, they should not be handing out formal (logged) warnings. --Elonka 03:56, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree the notice should be issued by someone uninvolved. Where we differ is that I'm ok with an uninvolved editor giving the warning. PhilKnight (talk) 08:21, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see no problem with an editor (involved or uninvolved) reminding someone about the possibility of ArbCom sanctions. Informal warnings are fine, and quite common. When it comes to making a formal warning though, which is made with the the ((Palestine-Israel enforcement)) template, and logged to a case page, it should be done by an admin, because:

• To many editors, seeing their name in a formal "notifications" list, has a similar weight to an actual sanction, which is why an administrator should do it.
• Keeping the option admin-only provides an additional tool for administrators who are managing a dispute. In many cases, I've helped stabilize a dispute by advising editors that if they continued with disruptive behavior, they might receiving a formal warning. This alone was often enough to get them to change their behavior. If we allow any user to issue the warning, it removes that tool from the administrator's toolbox.
• Consistency. The ARBPIA case is an old one, so the wording wasn't entirely standardized yet, but in most cases of this type since then, it's routine that formal notifications are to be made only by administrators.

I'm pretty sure there was also an ANI thread about this at some point, though I don't remember the exact title at the moment. It would probably make sense to find it and get it diffed to the template somewhere though. --Elonka 14:00, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Nableezy that involved editors have absolutely no right to deliver this notification. I'm not sure about the proposal for an automatic message to anyone who edits an article, because it might scare away editors who are new to the area. I also completely agree with Elonka that this cannot be used as a tool to intimidate other editors, something that was done yesterday. That is completely unacceptable, and contrary to the spirit of ARBPIA in general. The requirement for an uninvolved admin to delivery the notification solves this problem. The fact that not only non-admins, but editors involved in extreme edit wars and even former admins who have lost their title, are giving out this template to people who they disagree with, is highly highly troubling. Equally troubling is the fact that non-admins are pretending to be admins by taking admin actions such as unilaterally editing the ARBPIA template and logging notifications to the list. To top it all off, current admins who are friends with these editors are protecting them and blocking other users who notice the abuse and point it out. Does anyone see the problem in this picture? Breein1007 (talk) 20:51, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and restored the template to the "administrator" wording, as there does not appear to be consensus here for a change. If there is strong feeling that the template should be changed, I would recommend seeking wider input, such as to start a thread at WP:AE or WP:AN to get more opinions. --Elonka 04:47, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since that wording has no basis in the Arbitration Committee's ruling, I can't see that it has any effect. Editors can't alter arbitration remedies by fiat. If you want to change the template I suggest that you get the consent of the Arbitration Committee. I've seen no evidence that you have it, either now or back in 2008 when you originally changed the template. -- ChrisO (talk) 07:41, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And even with this discussion ongoing, the template is still being used by editors in dispute as a form of intimidation. I am going to be bringing this to a noticeboard soon, because enough is enough. Breein1007 (talk) 14:39, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I, as usual, agree with Nableezy. The use of the template by an heavily involved de-sysoped non-admin might be one arrow in a quiver of hostile acts employed by the non-admin to raise the level of hostility. Curiously, I recently disagreed with ChrisO (the nom here) in a talk page discussion. I have no recollection of dealing with him before, in my 40,000+ edits. Yet he in short order both: a) (coincidentally) appeared at the most recent AfD at which I had just !voted, !voting against me; and b) tagged my page with the above tag. It seems IMHO the nom is just the sort of non-admin that the rule is properly meant to protect against. --Epeefleche (talk) 20:23, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • After investigation, I cannot see sufficient reason for an official warning towards Epeefleche, especially as it was logged by an editor, ChrisO (talk · contribs) who is actively involved in the dispute, and who has a long history of disruption in this topic area (see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Macedonia 2 for further details). I have removed the warning.[60] To be clear: Editors who are involved in a dispute are welcome to remind other editors about the possibility of arbitration sanctions. But when it comes to making actual logged entries to the arbitration case page, please leave that to uninvolved administrators, thanks. --Elonka 20:50, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I logged Epeefleche solely as a means of notifying him about the restrictions in this topic area. Elonka is, not for the first time, assuming bad faith. I have asked her to recuse herself from this issue given that she is too involved to act, or to be seen to act, neutrally. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:08, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I started off by assuming good faith, despite the fact that Chris's notice to me had followed my disagreeing with him (and despite the fact that I couldn't figure out what I had done, other than disagree with him, to trigger his leaving the template message for me). And despite the fact that he left me a note with profanity in it (which he kindly subsequently excised). I thought Chris might just be a friendly gnomish fellow, out to help those editors w/42,000 edits under their belt to know what the rules are. Unfortunately, I then found it peculiar that Chris also followed his disagreement with me in short order by (coincidentally) appearing at the most recent AfD at which I had just !voted, and !voted against me (while personally attacking my particular !vote at the AfD). That was especially peculiar, given that I can't recall us ever being at an AfD together before. The combination (disagreement, profanity, template warning, !AfD attack) served to move him in my book into the "quacks like a duck" category. AgF is a rebutable presumption. Editors such as Chris can refute the presumption by their actions. Now that I see Chris has also been cited four times by the arbitrators for disruptive editing, and de-sysoped as a result, I get the full picture. It would be nice if this particular arrow were taken out of Chris's harassment quiver.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:23, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As only uninvolved admins may act on discretionary sanctions after warning, it follows that they should be the one giving such warnings. The template is for convenience and should not be used as a bludgeon against editors whom someone is in conflict with. Shell ^babelfish 23:28, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There' a discussion regarding ArbCom Enforcement in regard to the Israel-Palestine articles at Wikipedia:WikiProject Arbitration Enforcement/Israel-Palestine articles. The discussion is considering a number of options concerning how to deal with the apparent deterioration of editing of this topic. PhilKnight (talk) 16:28, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I feel that the decision made will benefit Wikpedians evertywhere.

GrammarSpellingWatch (talk) 20:02, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

 – by this edit AgadaUrbanit (talk) 11:10, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This was added to the 2010 section:[61] --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 11:00, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Initiated by Cptnono (talk) at 19:04, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:

• Cptnono (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
• Prunesqualer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Guinsberg (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Statement by Cptnono

Prunesqualer is indeffed from the topic area.[62] Another user and I have a disagreement at Racism in Israel. I "warned" him (he had been warned about his conduct before) on his talk page. In hindsite, I should have been nicer and made it sound less scary. But the point of this request for clarification is that Prunesqualler decided to chime in.[63] Is he allowed to comment in a discussion about the I-P/I-A topic area?

Also, I would be worried about the potential hounding of him following my "career with interest" but he is not prohibited from checking me out. I believe he he is prohibited from joining in discussion, though. If an admin would clarify that an indef does not need to be forever it would be helpful too. If Prunesqualer would stop going out of his way to make attacks and proved his editing could be a benefit to the project then he could request to come back.

On a side note, Guinsberg and I have not gotten off on the right foot. I am tempted to request counseling in a separate request but would like to stop rocking the boat now. It would be appreciated if an admin could formally notify him of the arbitration case and give him advise in a friendlier fashion than I am capable of. Edits of concern include this pointy bombardment of the article with fact templates when there are sources provided for some of the lines.[64]Cptnono (talk) 19:04, 5 April 2011 (UTC) (this has now been done by an admin, although it has not been logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles#Log of notifications[reply]

Note that this request for clarification is on if the talk page comment is under the scope of the topic ban. If Prunesqualer wants to open a case against me they will have to get unbanned and make it at AE. Also note that those quotes were already handled at AE so they are now stale. If Prunesqualer wants to get unbanned the appropriate venue is not here but through the normal appeals process.Cptnono (talk) 23:07, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not asking for "action". I am asking for clarification. Can Prunesqualer contribute to a discussion that is about the conflict area or not?Cptnono (talk) 01:03, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, the reason I ask is because the policy WP:BAN is clear that the edit can be reverted. I also want to make sure that Prunesqualer does not continue to chime in on such discussion until an appeal is accepted. It is not much to ask and it is backed by policy. Unfortunately, both editors have refused to follow policy and allow the edit to be removed (I actually struck it out instead of reverting to be a little more open)Cptnono (talk) 02:13, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Prunesqualer continues to violate his topic ban. No other editor has been allowed to edit in a discussion based on the conflict area they were banned from. This request was a formality. Can an admin advise Prunsesqualer to stop commenting on discussions that originated in the topic area. He is not commenting based on anything else. It is only the I-P/I-A topic areas that we have been involved in and he even mentions them in his initial comment. Can an admin take care of this or do I need to jump through more hoops? If he gets blocked then he cannot edit anywhere so that is my next option.Cptnono (talk) 02:26, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is still unresolved. Although I am happy to see this dropped sooner than later, some clarification is still needed.Cptnono (talk) 06:43, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Stop dodging th quesiton admins. Xeno: Can he edit or not? I am not going to open an AE just to see it devovle into garbage. I want something clarified and that is the point of this board. Either you can do it or you should not comment here ever again since you have proven that you are not interested. Can he edit or not in a discussion about a topic area. Yes or no. I ti s an easy question. I get the reluctance but go ahead and answer.Cptnono (talk) 05:41, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Prunesqualer

I realise that the following is almost certainly not being presented in the correct form, or forum. However I can only hope that interested parties will sympathise with the following: I am doing little harm here, and that: one should not have to be a Wiki-Lawyer in order to contribute to Wiki.

I believe my contributions, before my indefinite topic ban, were "a benefit to the project".

Re. my ban (to which Cptnono has linked/referred) I can now see that I committed naive breaches of Wiki editing rules. In the case of my first ban I didn’t even know what 3RR meant (I realise ignorance of the law is not an acceptable defence, I'm just pointing out where I stood as an inexperienced editor). I noted during my resulting 21 October 2010, 24 hour, editing "block" that Wiki software made it impossible to edit. I made the following wrong assumption: that when I was allowed by the software to edit the Gaza war article before my longer ban on that page had run it's time I must have been forgiven or had slipped through the net (accepting the second possibility was not a noble thing to consider acting on, I admit) . This excuse may seem a little lame but I would add that if you follow the "Gaza War" discussion page at that time, you will find a fair bit of acceptance for the edits I proposed, even from previous opponents (this added to the "green light" feeling I had about making the edits). I realise now that that is not how Wiki works. For these relatively harmless mistakes I received an indefinite ban on editing IP/IA articles.

By contrast here are some Cptnono Wiki quotes:

"Call it Palestinians getting screwed with giant dildos as far as I am concerned"

"If you fuck with the mainspace I am going to fuck with you"

"How many separate articles do we need on the Palestinians being sad?"

"So you have enough time to write an AE but it took you this long to comment? Prick."

Action taken for the previous comments "blocked 3 hours for incivility"

Frankly, I admit, that since these events my attitudes and actions have reflected more than a touch of bitterness towards Cptnono. I believe Cptnono is more biased in IP/AP outlook than I am. I see no good reason beyond his (admittedly) superior Wiki-lawyering skills, as to why- he should be allowed to edit on IP/AP articles, and not I. PS I would be very happy to discuss the issue of subjectivity, which is so central to these matters (and all human affairs), with any interested party.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Prunesqualer (talk • contribs) 23:03, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Shucks another of my fiendish schemes, to undermine Wikipedia, and to subvert truth, has been thwarted. It's fortunate, for you pesky good guys, that the Guardians of integrity (Wiki admin) are so clear sighted and unbiased. I will now retire to my up-lit livid green laboratory, and munch on some babies, whilst Cptnono shines a beacon of truth for the free world. Prunesqualer (talk) 21:48, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Guinsberg

I'm not a great connaisseur of wikipedia's protocol. Even though I am aware that user Prunesqualer has been banned from contributing to Israeli/Palestinian articles, I can't understand the basis for Cptnono's complaint against him. User P. was not contributing to an Israeli/Palestinian article: he was using my Talk Page to warn me about the rather sly argument style Cptnono adopts on discussions about that topic - that is, user Prunesqualer wasn't even actually discussing Israeli/Palestinian politics, the only subject he has been forbidden to contribute to on Wikipedia. From what I can see in Cptnono's conduct, he has a very provocative communication style. He frequently accuses me of being disruptive and threatens to file a complaint against me for doing exactly what he's done before - even on instances where he recognizes I was right in acting in such a way. That he decided to pick on user Prunesqualer even though it is very hard to see what he has done wrong in communicating with me, only goes to confirm the pattern argumentative behavior. Plus, what he says about me - that I have been warned by an adm on my editions - is not true. Guinsberg (talk) 01:52, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Arbitrator views and discussion

• Prunesqualer has just one edit in the entire past month, and I do not feel impelled to take any action on this request. If Prunesqualer wishes to seek a lifting or modification of his topic-ban in the future, the appropriate venue in the first instance would be a request either to the administrator who imposed the topic-ban or to the AE board. Any such request would benefit from evidence of appropriate, collegial editing in other topic areas. I can't evaluate the quotes for Cptnono without diffs or links, but needless to say, if they are authentic, then this type of approach would best be avoided, no matter how stressful the editing environment in this topic-area may ofttimes be. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:05, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Prunesqualer, stay off Cptnono's talkpage. Of all the places you could post on the entire wiki, that is one of the least appropriate. Cptnono, you still haven't answered whether the quotations attributed above to you are accurate. If they are, clean up your act. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:36, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Agreed with Brad. I don't see any reason to take action here. SirFozzie (talk) 00:24, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• "This request was a formality" → If you feel that the user has violated restrictions and arbitration enforcement is required, you should file at WP:AE, not at clarification. –xeno^talk 15:05, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  The topic ban is "over the entire area of conflict" [65]. Yes: the edit [66], being made in direct relation to the area of conflict, violated the restriction. –xeno^talk 12:44, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Concur, nothing for us to do here. Jclemens (talk) 05:48, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• I agree with my fellow arbitrators - there isn't anything for us to do here. If there are further infractions of the topic ban, they should be handled at WP:AE. Similarly, an appeal of this ban should be heard at WP:AE. PhilKnight (talk) 14:55, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Initiated by Ravpapa (talk) at 04:49, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cases affected

• Gilabrand
• Nishidani
• Possibly others

Statement by Ravpapa

This rather unusual case is a proposal for a general amnesty of Wikipedia users who have been blocked or topic banned from articles dealing with the Israel-Arab dispute. The proposal is the result of a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration#Taking stock and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration#Amnesty for topic banned and blocked users. It is our belief that an amnesty could alleviate tensions in the project, improve the editing environment and improve the quality of the articles.

In those discussions, editors looked at some of the measures implemented to improve the quality of editing on the project. On the one hand, we felt that centralized discussions had helped to resolve numerous editing conflicts over general issues (such as the way to treat settlements in articles) and that the 1RR restriction had added to the stability of articles and succeeded in moving disputes from the article to the talk page.

On the other hand, we felt that vigorous enforcement by Arbcom has done little to reduce the level of conflict on disputed articles. We feel that an amnesty of banned or blocked users would not increase conflict, and, on the contrary, would improve the overall atmosphere and restore a number of productive editors to the project.

We suggest that the conditions for amnesty should be:

• the candidates have made substantive contributions to articles (and not just talk page contributions).
• They are not single purpose editors, but have contributed in a number of topic areas.

In our discussion, two editors came immediately to mind: User:Gilabrand and User:Nishidani. I am certain that there are other editors that also meet these criteria.

This amnesty proposal is supported by editors from both sides of the conflict. It should be clear that granting amnesty does not suggest that administrators condone the acts for which the editors were blocked, but only that they believe that these editors' commitment to improving the Wikipedia will override any recidivist tendencies they may have.

In addition to myself, User:Nableezy and User:CarolMooreDC support this proposal.

Statement by Nableezy

Unsubstantiated accusations about ignoring topic bans or "problematic behavior" aside, the topic area needs knowledgeable editors. Both Gila and Nishidani have a lot to offer, more than most. Gila's only real problem here has been ignoring a topic ban/block. If she were to commit to not doing so in the future I see no reason why she should stay blocked. As for Nishidani, there are very few editors here that have the patience or skills to do such in-depth research using the best sources. The topic area has not improved as a result of the WB/JS case, and I honestly cannot tell why after 2 parties of that case were discovered to be socks ArbCom has not simply vacated the case. As it stands right now, the only editors that are not editing in the topic area as a result of the case are Nishidani, G-Dett, MeteroMaker and Pedrito. Jay had his ban rescinded following an appeal, which is great, but NoCal/Canadian Monkey have never left us (see Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of NoCal100). So the net result of that case is that one of the more prolific sockpupeteers on WP was able to instigate edit-wars with several users, using several user names, and succeed in the aim of having them topic-banned. Should the editors not have reverted as much? Sure. But you cannot look at what happened without keeping the fact of Isarig's multiple personalities wreaking havoc across the topic area coloring your view.

This is not a "general amnesty", there are two users listed for consideration. Ravpapa, with good intentions no doubt, may have made this a bit more complicated by suggesting conditions that would apply to others. Id prefer to talk about just those two users as those are ones that a. show an interest in improving the articles, and b. know what they are talking about.

If you wish to increase the quality of the articles in the topic area there is no reason to not lift these users sanctions.

Statement by JoshuaZ

As proposed this seems like a bad idea. Each editor is a unique case. Some have been better than others about keeping in line with the sanctions than others. Some have been more productive in other areas than others. And there may be other considerations. I would rather have each editor considered individually with each editor in question making a case for the removal of their sanctions. Since there are now only five editors who are relevant this should not be that much more work. But a blanket pardon in this context seems like a recipe for disaster and is also unfair to the editors who have toed the lines and worked hard to rehabilitate themselves. JoshuaZ (talk) 14:12, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Uninvolved Rocksanddirt

Amnesty no. individual topic ban reviews yes. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 22:13, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Amendment 2

The topic ban on Nishidani is rescinded. The indefinite block of Gilabrand is lifted, subject to her agreeing to use one account and not editing as an IP.

Statement by Nableezy (2)

I doubt a general amnesty will go through, but I think ArbCom should consider these two specific cases. Gilabrand has, for many years now, made important contributions to a wide range of articles, both within the topic area and outside of it. Her refusal to abide by her topic ban was frustrating, and the disingenuous nature of her response to being caught pretty much red-handed socking did her no favors, but her block does nothing but punish Wikipedia. Nishidani is, in my opinion of course, one of the most thoughtful and well read editors that was willing to spend any time at all in this time suck we call the ARBPIA topic area. Both of those editors have much to offer, and Wikipedia loses by restricting their accounts. We need editors like these. The bans have not done anything to make the topic area better in any way. Instead, the same fights with lower quality arguments are being played out over and over. This is repeated from above, but if you wish to increase the quality of the articles in the topic area there is no reason to not lift these sanctions. By keeping them in place you damage Wikipedia. By that I mean the articles, not some imaginary harmony among users, you know, what is supposed to count here.

Statement by other editor (2)

{Other editors are free to comment on this amendment as necessary. Comments here should be directed only at the above proposed amendment.}

Further discussion

Statements here may address all the amendments, but individual statements under each proposed amendment are preferred. If there is only one proposed amendment, then no statements should be added here.

Statement from Cptnono

Nishidani has ignored his topic ban multiple times. The topic area is cooling down a bit. The last thing we need is another editor who repeatedly asserts a battlefield mentality. He has not shown any remorse for his actions and letting him off the hook simply because the ban was some time ago is silly. If anything he has only served a couple months if you count the most recent breech. Will only serve to add fuel to the fire. When the editor actually fesses up to what he did wrong then it should be entertained until then we are simply cycling in another problematic editor to fill the shoes of another banned one.Cptnono (talk) 07:45, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement from Michael C. Price

I find it alarming that Nishidani is specifically named ready for the amnesty. I second all the points that Cptnono makes, and add that Nishidani's problematic behaviour (which almost defies description, it is so egregious) extends to many other areas of the project. -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 08:23, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Since evidence has been asked for, here's a sample:

• [[67]] “I'm presuming you are not an adolescent struggling in remedial classes in English, while you edit with furor here.”
• [[68] – “Are you just acting DUMB?...a reflection that English is not your mother tongue."
• [[69]] "There's edit-warring and edit-whoring, and you practice both."

Has he really reformed?-- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 16:22, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Michael, if you were replying to my comment, what I actually asked for substantiation for was the assertion that Nishidani breached his sanction on multiple occasions. The block logs indicate that that can be nothing but a personal opinion and, as a personal opinion, of no worth or significance.     ←   ZScarpia   23:23, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

He wasn't blocked for it. And it wasn't my opinion. It was the administrators'. But it was way more than a couple months now that I look at it again so that was my bad (I guess time flies). Unfortunately, in those 10 months there were problems in other topic areas (I don;t know the details) and now he has retired. So why are we having this conversation if he doesn't wish to volunteer here? Very little activity on the account since this.Cptnono (talk) 04:06, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can you substantiate your allegation: yes or no?     ←   ZScarpia   17:37, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See the edit-summary of why here. My retirement has nothing to do with my wishes, but a perception that editors with a real commitment to the encyclopedia are being systematically picked off, and that further work outside the area of my permaban (which I have quietly followed for 2 years), were this state of affairs to persist, was inappropriate.

Work here is voluntary. One reads extensively, and takes time to transfer one's acquired knowledge to topics for the benefit of a global readership. This means that if, while working on any article you come across information that makes the side you are identified as favouring look bad, this, for example, you don't hesitate an instant to include it, but put it in, because it is relevant and strongly attested in RS. You do not calculate the advantages of withholding it, or smile as you quietly ignore the unpalatable fact. It means that if you see news describing some desperate injustice visited on a people for whose historical condition you have some sympathy, you don't just rush to plunk it in to make the other side look bad. You examine the whole history and background, and, if you find out far more information concerning the glories of its Jewish past in RS than you find about the woes of its native peoples, as I did at Susya, you write up that research comprehensively, and add it, even if in doing so you, as an editor, know that the article will risk looking like a cultural justification for the side opposed to the local people whose plight worries you.

That incident played a key role in my permaban, one admin told me. I had written the history of the synagogue, and silence prevailed. I then added a few sad notes on the history of eviction and expropriation, and all sorts of objections flew my way, esp. from a notorious sock-team. Admins do not evaluate the overall picture; they have no hands-on intuitions about socking games yet to be uncovered; they examine the only behavioural evidence that counts, whether an editor is complying or not with that terse, rule-focused urbanity all are asked to acculturate themselves to ideally. The system is the way wiki works, and has its logic and advantages, though its underside is that it tutors the malicious to be twee as they pettifog, and run around with a smiley syntax, while wreaking havoc on RS by endlessly polite equivocation.

In a stray remark, I failed the test, and I cannot complain that I was asked to pay the penalty for that lapse. They were perfectly right technically. I would be insincere were I to hide the feeling that contextually, to deny a builder permission to finish the roof, after he has erected singlehandedly a substantial piece of form-work and bricked it in, on the grounds that he kicked some dust off the scaffolding that got into the eyes of a few bystanders who strongly objected to the makeshift loo in the backyard, was to ignore the big picture. It is certainly true that, given the intensive boredom editing difficult articles (I like difficult stuff) demands of editors, that one occasionally lapses into smart cracks to relieve one's exasperation. Of several hundred pages of extensive explanations I have had to write over 5 years to justify edits that seem obvious before fellow-editors who cannot see it, several lines are flagrantly flippant or acerbically venomous. If the patience of Job or sainthood is required under the Nacht and Nebel of obfuscation, I'm not your man for all wiki seasons. But I can trudge through the bleakest of wintry landscapes, and plant a fruitful crop once the sun shines.

To return to the point of my retirement. It struck me that, under present circumstances, I was being asked, as a donor with a comfortable income of knowledge, to contribute my tithe exclusively to wealthy causes (untroubled articles) while abstaining from donations of intellectual capital to the poor (i.e., articles in an area that is widely thought of by authoritative admins even as a 'time-suck', a 'crapfest', i.e., wikipedia's I/P ghetto where Dante's: lasciate ogni speranza voi ch'entrate evinces the abiding truth). Superlatively good editors there, rigorous, precise, if they are on the wrong side can get subjected to a minuteness of surveillance and pettifogging complaint of an order few would put up with. I think this true of recent circumstances regarding one of the proposers. I retired because I think the 'behavioural' criteria used to evaluate people here is unfocused, or rather, it all boils down, 'faute de mieux, to scrutinizing p's and q's, and evaluating endless whingeing over technical cavils, while the essential behavioural evidence about an editor, his or her track record of dedication to WP:NPOV, WP:RS, article building and above all, respect for whatever quality sources say irrespective of what POV they appear to support, is ignored.

I only noticed that this was being discussed two days ago. I haven't commented till now because I thought anything I might say will only be jumped on as infringing my permaban. Perhaps it does. Still, since I have been described as consistently evincing behaviour so egregiously outrageous as to defy description, I really can't let that pass. l'd like to express here my appreciation of the expression of confidence in my bona fides by the two proposers, with whom, for the record, I have not discussed the present suggestion. I won't certainly be around for the summer, since work offline engages me. I don't think I should venture to say more than what I have said above. I am constitutionally incapable of trying to claw back a right I have lost by pleading at the bar. I leave it to others to review or reject the proposal. Regards. Nishidani (talk) 15:57, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This does sound compelling. But I disagree that you were asked, as a donor with a comfortable income of knowledge, to contribute my tithe exclusively to wealthy causes (untroubled articles). No there are a huge number of equally contentious topic areas outside of I/A, from Kosovo to Climate Change, from Mass Killings by Communist Regimes to Evolution. Try Cold Fusion. Also, I have no interest in exploring your history, but it is not easy to earn a permaban by a slip of the tongue. But I AGF and would support your unban. I think your statement satisfies my criterion below. But it seems arbs are not enthusiastic, to put it mildly. Cheers. - BorisG (talk) 16:18, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Quite acute in picking a hole in the analogy, Boris! Still the metaphor translates the following section of the relevant decision.

'The Committee will . . look favorably on participation in the featured content process, including both production of any type of featured content, as well as constructive participation in featured content candidacies and reviews.'

The Arbcom decision asked that those who wished to be pardoned participate in producing featured content articles. It is not particularly difficult to do this actually, if you choose to write up articles on topics that are devoid of controversy. But (a) it is almost impossible to fulfil that remit if you go to 'equally contentious topic areas'. Those areas you name are strewn with the corpses of defunct editors, some quite brilliant. I don't go to articles because they are contentious. YHWH forbid. (b) I go to articles about which, outside of my professional interests, I have some reasonable knowledge, and where I can be assured that I won't step on the minefield of my own prejudices or ignorance. Your premise assumes I like contention. I hate it. I must admit I have not fulfilled that remit, however. My participation in the Shakespeare Authorship Question, which passed FA, and the List of Shakespeare authorship candidates page, which got a DYK, had nothing to do with purposive work to redeem my fallen fortunes. I stumbled on them, and on several articles (Franz Baermann Steiner etc.,) I wrote up, with a little help from friends, by chance. Here and, in life, if people have a poor opinion of me, I just can't work myself up to try and persuade them differently. They're entitled to that view, their view may indeed be grounded in evidence they think decisive and incontrovertible by their lights, and were I to be upset, and struggle to improve my 'public' image, I'd only feel that I must, unconsciously, be suffering from a guilt complex, or be motivated by some obscure narcissistic wish to win the esteem of my fellows. Thanks anyway for the AGF. Best Nishidani (talk) 17:30, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In case anyone wonders, I stand by my description of Nishidani's behaviour. And as usual he protests his innocence. As Boris says, "it is not easy to earn a permaban by a slip of the tongue". Indeed. -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 16:46, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by ZScarpia

Cptnono and Michael C. Price have stated that Nishidani has ignored his topic ban multiple times. Given Nishidani's block log and the ARBPIA log of blocks and bans, I doubt that they can substantiate their claim. Given the ARBPIA log of blocks and bans and Cptnono's own block log, perhaps Cptnono in particular should be being a little less condemnatory.     ←   ZScarpia   16:02, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by uninvolved Thryduulf

I don't work in this area, and don't recall interacting with any of the named users, but the thought of a general amnesty scares me. The ending of topic bans and other restrictions should be considered on an individual basis taking into account the reasons it was imposed, when it was imposed, what they have been doing since the imposition, etc.

I equally don't think that a meta request like this is the right way to go about examining the merits of removing restrictions on specific editors in several different cases. It is of necessity either going to be an unwieldy list of sections containing comments for and against ending restrictions on several users; or it's going to be a complete mess with little structure making it very difficult to determine which comments are about which people. Chances are there will be few commenters who hold the same opinion about everyone discussed, and it would not surprise me if one or more arbitrators felt the need to recuse with regards to one or more of the people being discussed, but I would be quite surprised if any felt the need to recuse for all cases under discussion.

In short, I just can't see this working. Thryduulf (talk) 09:26, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"General amnesty" is, I agree, not the right term. The idea is that only editors who meet the two criteria above - (1) have made substantive contributions and not just argued, and (2) have edited in a variety of topic areas - would be eligible for the amnesty. The criteria must be clear and objective, otherwise, as you say, we may find an Australian prison ship on our shores.

As I mentioned above, fears that the return of these editors could heat up the topic area are not shared by the editors who participated in the discussion. Our feeling is, on the contrary, bans and blocks have not contributed to improving the editing environment. This step, an act of trust and good faith, could, on the contrary, make things better rather than worse.

Also, this is not an irreversible act. If these guys act up again, they're out. So the risk is negligible. --Ravpapa (talk) 09:42, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by BorisG

I like the spirit of this proposal but I think the two conditions are not enough. Additional conditions are needed, in particular admission/remorse concerning past transgressions for which they were sanctioned. If an editor thinks he/she has done nothing wrong, then it is obvious they will do so again (they have done nothing wrong!). Basically if they have done nothing wrong, then they should have a regular appeal, not amnesty.

Statement by CarolMooredc

I have been generally suspicious of some of these bans, though reading the above does make the reasoning more clear. I basically agree with BorisG. The one time I got blocked after getting angry at harassment and attacking another editor, I felt very righteous and it took some real prodding to make me see for myself that the specific attack I made was just a variation on the ones that others have used against me. So when I understood that, I did feel remorse and learned better not to make that mistake again. So if a person keeps making the same mistake, they haven't "gotten it" yet. Maybe they just have to keep communicating with a sympathetic editor who can explain it again and again til they get it and then can have block/ban lifted. Also, if they keep slipping, they can always be reblocked as a "time out" for a week or two until they realize they went too far. CarolMooreDC (talk) 00:40, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Ynhockey

I am strongly against the proposal in its current form. The I–P area has the same problems today as it ever had, but each time one of the problematic editors is banned, the area becomes much nicer to edit, and gives good editors more time to concentrate on contributing content, instead of arguing. I think we should be lenient with editors who actually contribute to the encyclopedia, even if they make serious mistakes, but most of the editors permanently banned in I–P were banned after not one but a large number of serious mistakes. Most of them (except one editor whose ban was already lifted) have not shown that they can contribute constructively to the encyclopedia post-ban. Making small contributions here and there as some have is just not enough to justify bringing back more major problems to I–P. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 19:50, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yet another statement by Ravpapa

Okay, you have convinced me. I agree with Nableezy: let's limit this to Gilabrand and Nishidani. Do I need to open two new motions for this, or can we continue to discuss them together here? Because, in my mind, they are related - both outstanding editors, on opposite sides of the dispute, and their return is supported by editors from both sides. It would only do the project good. --Ravpapa (talk) 17:43, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Peter Cohen

I would support the lifting of the restriction on Nishidani. His three edits that have been picked out above are all over a year old. Nishidani has made thousands of edits in the interim. So, if he has a continuing pattern of problematic behaviour, it should be possible to find more recent issues. Also the three edits were brought to Arbcom's attention during the SAQ case in which Arbcom chose to act against the fringe theorists with whom Nishidani was in disagreement and not against Nishidani.

I don't know the context of the issues with Gila. My presence on Wikipedia dropped in the latter part of last year and has only picked up somewhat recently and I think I must have missed the drama around this. I know she was on the "other side" of the I/P business from me but she had not stuck in my mind as someone particularly problematic. I notice she has been indef blocked only recently for socking. If the problematic behaviour has been through the socks, I don't see what Wikipedia gains through the blocking of the main account. She is fairly prolific and if she has not recently been problematic with the main account then this seems to be a use of blocking as punishment rather than as a means of protecting Wikipedia. Maybe someone who has looked at things more recently could explain the logic of the block.--Peter cohen (talk) 22:57, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

This section is for administrative notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Arbitrator views and discussion

• First thought is that a general amnesty is not workable, that there's "too many and too much" to consider. SirFozzie (talk) 18:24, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• I agree with SirFozzie - I'd prefer to consider each case on its merits. Suggest putting in separate requests for the editors and include links to collaborative editing. PhilKnight (talk) 20:41, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• The two "sides" aren't the only victims of the acrimony in this area; the ability of casual editors to visit these topics has been damaged by the polarization here, and I'd need to see a widespread groundswell of support from uninvolved administrators who've had to deal with these conflicts to even consider such a motion. Jclemens (talk) 01:06, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm with Jclemens on this one - while it has been stressful for those involved, it's also had a significant impact on this topic as a whole. I would prefer to consider each case on it's own merits. Shell ^babelfish 01:06, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Concur pretty much with Jclemens. Risker (talk) 02:06, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Permanent Link: [70]

Motion

The arbitration enforcement block placed on Gilabrand (talk · contribs) related to the Palestine-Israel articles case is provisionally suspended as of 25 August or the passage of this motion, whichever is the latter. Gilabrand is reminded that articles in the area of conflict remain the subject of discretionary sanctions, and are currently subject to a 1RR restriction. Gilabrand is further reminded that any future problematic editing following the removal of editing restrictions will viewed dimly.

For this motion, there are 14 active non-recused arbitrators, so 8 is a majority.

Support

1. (happy with 1RR addition above) Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:33, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
2. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 13:36, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
3. Although significant concerns linger regarding Gilabrand's compliance with discretionary sanctions, I am willing to cautiously support in light of the supportive submissions made to this amendment request. –xeno^talk 14:04, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
4. I've copyedited the motion to include a mention of the 1RR restriction. PhilKnight (talk) 14:12, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
5. Jclemens (talk) 14:32, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
6. Support, with the 1RR. — Coren ^(talk) 14:51, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
7. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 00:41, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
8. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 18:40, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Abstain

Discussion

A motion has been proposed that would amend a sanctions remedy in this case. It would replace the remedy in this case that allows administrators to unilaterally apply sanctions to editors within the designated topic area with a standardized remedy that essentially allows for the same thing. Any extant sanctions or warnings made according to the older wording found in those decisions (as applicable) remain unaffected. To comment on this proposal, please go to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Motions. NW (Talk) 20:36, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The restriction is worded thusly: "Clear vandalism, or edits by anonymous IP editors, may be reverted without penalty." I've just unblocked a user who was blocked for violating these sanctions. Their argument was that they received a big fat notice on their talk page that contained this wording from the decision, and that they therefore believed they could revert IP users without penalty. I assumed the notice was misrepresenting the decision, but that is in fact exactly what it says. I'm a bit confused by this, it seems to suggest that any and all IP edits on articles covered by this sanction can be treated as vandalism. Am I missing something here? Beeblebrox (talk) 20:15, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If this is the intention, that any edit by an IP to any of these articles can be reverted on sight and they are not subject to the 1RR restriction, shouldn't we just semi-protect the whole lot of them? Beeblebrox (talk) 22:47, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I happened to have Beeblebrox's talk page on my watch list. I think the intended meaning of "without penalty" was "not subject to this (1RR) restriction". The wording should probably be changed to avoid misunderstanding and/or wikilawyering in the future. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 20:30, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Could we broaden this to 1RRs generally? If I'm talking out of my arse here (wrt the WP:TROUBLES arbitration case), I'd appreciate being told so (and why). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:54, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• I think some better wording is in order, for example: "Reversions of clear vandalism, or reversions of edits by anonymous IP editors, are not subject to the 1R Restriction. "--SPhilbrick(Talk) 22:52, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by EdJohnston

It seems harmless to make the change in wording recommended by Sphilbrick, but I don't think it is necessary. The ((ARBPIA)) template already reads like this:

"Certain edits may be reverted without penalty. These include edits made by anonymous IP editors, and edits which are clearly vandalism."

I find it hard to tell the difference between that and Sphilbrick's version:

"Reversions of clear vandalism, or reversions of edits by anonymous IP editors, are not subject to the 1R Restriction."

It goes without saying that IP edits should only be reverted for a good reason and that the WP:EW policy still applies. For background, the exemption that allows reverting IP edits seems to come from a proposal by T. Canens in November 2010, which got included in the result of the discussion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Arbitration Enforcement/Israel-Palestine articles. From there it made its way into the wording of the ((ARBPIA)) template, and then got added as a community supplement to the WP:ARBPIA decision. The sentence in WP:ARBPIA was tweaked by PhilKnight in January 2011 to agree with the language in the ((ARBPIA)) template. 1RR rules which exempt IP edits are not common, and it is logical that they might create some confusion. The special 1RR rules that exempt IP edits still appear to serve a purpose in the most contentious areas. EdJohnston (talk) 17:11, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps it should go without saying that "IP edits should only be reverted for a good reason" but I think the issue arose because someone read "Certain edits may be reverted without penalty. These include edits made by anonymous IP editors..." and thought it meant, literally, that IP edits could be reverted without penalty, instead of "Certain edits may be reverted without [incurring a 1RR] penalty. These include edits made by anonymous IP editors..."

My proposed edit makes explicit, what was implicitly true, but missed.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 18:28, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I also support the point made by AGK; the proposed edit is not a change to the restriction, but a wording change to make clear the original intention, which is unchanged.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 18:31, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by The Devil's Advocate

On a purely cosmetic point, in the motion below saying "reverts of edits made by IP editors that are not clear vandalism" are still covered by edit-warring policy is a tad redundant. Edit-warring policy also provides an explicit exemption for reverting vandalism. Rather, I think after noting reverts of IP editors are not subject to 1RR the subsequent statement need only say that the usual edit-warring policy still applies.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 16:35, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Gatoclass

The 1RR exemption for IPs was intended as a discouragement to sockpuppetry. I am concerned that making reverts of IPs "subject to the usual rules on edit warring" will expose established accounts to the fiat of admins who not infrequently decide to hand out bans in contentious topic areas for perceived "edit warring" even when 3RR has not been violated. This is likely to make it difficult for established accounts to discourage sockpuppetry as intended as they will have to be looking over their own shoulder when reverting IPs. I suggest therefore that the phrase "subject to 3RR" be substituted for "subject to the usual rules on edit warring". This should help ensure that established editors retain a useful advantage over IPs without being accused of edit warring when doing so. Gatoclass (talk) 00:21, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On reflection, and given Elen's comments below, I'm wondering if it wouldn't be simpler just to make reverts of IPs literally without penalty, ie they can be reverted as often as necessary. It would strongly discourage sockpuppetry but wouldn't completely prevent IPs from adding useful content, as semi-protection would do. Gatoclass (talk) 00:32, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Arbitrator views and discussion

Moved from WP:ACN as this is the right venue. Courcelles 20:20, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• In my opinion, the way the remedy is worded, the 1RR does not apply to reverting IP's, but usual rules on edit warring and 3RR do. Courcelles 20:23, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I"m not saying this is right, I'm still thinking on that one, just expressing that how I read the current remedy.(And I'd hope and expect people are not using this language to revert IP edits without good reason.) Courcelles 22:52, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I also agree with the proposed copyedit. Courcelles 19:10, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Agree with Courcelles, reverting IPs is still subject to 3RR, and for that matter our usual rules on edit warring. I'm ok with the change suggested by Sphilbrick, which could, as HJMitchell suggests, be extended to The Troubles as well. PhilKnight (talk) 01:28, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Agree with Sphilbrick's proposed copyedit. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 10:33, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• I interpret the current wording to have the same meaning as that of Sphilbrick's proposed change. However, I can see why there can be a different interpretation of the current wording, and to resolve the discrepancy I propose we copy-edit the sanction wording as recommended (unless there are objections in the next few days). If there is a pending enforcement request that relates to this sanction, I recommend it be placed on hold, but in any event it must be dismissed: an ex post facto application of the sanction would be unfair. AGK [•] 15:16, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• I was recused on the underlying case so have no vote here, but agree that as a matter of general principle and as part of our goal of standardizing remedies to the extent possible, the remedy here should be copyedited, and/or updated to reflect current practice. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:28, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• I also agree with Sphilbrick's proposed tweak. Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:09, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Motion

• Enacted at 18:44, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

• The text in WP:ARBPIA section "Further remedies" is modified from "Clear vandalism, or edits by anonymous IP editors, may be reverted without penalty" to "Clear vandalism of whatever origin may be reverted without restriction. Reverts of edits made by anonymous IP editors that are not vandalism are exempt from 1RR but are subject to the usual rules on edit warring." As identical text is used in an active sanction related to The Troubles case, the same substitution of wording shall be made there.

For this motion, there are 13 active non-recused arbitrators, so 7 is a majority.

Support

1. Feel free to copyedit, but this has been sitting here too long for a mainly cosmetic change. Courcelles 20:49, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
2. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 23:00, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
3. (We may require some notifications about the amendment to The Troubles sanction - for example on the talk pages of popular, related articles - if our foresighted change is not to take the editors completely by surprise.) AGK [•] 23:31, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
4. PhilKnight (talk) 01:05, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
5. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 01:15, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
6. Works for me. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 03:59, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
7. Jclemens (talk) 05:57, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
8. I've historically recused on most parts of the Palestine-Israel case, but this motion pertains equally to The Troubles where I am active, and its really just a copyediting clarification (that has already passed anyway), so I will go ahead and vote. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:31, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
9. Support in principle but I wonder whether this could not be more simply, clearly and emphatically expressed as "Unless the reversion is solely to remove clear vandalism, all reversions are subject to the One Revert Restriction". (Sorry to be a Johnny-come-lately on this.) I'll circulate this on the list and see if there's any traction,  Roger Davies ^talk 16:59, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

   As I explained on-list, that would change the substantive issues of the sanction, which this motion explicitly does not do. That kind of change would require a fresh motion, as it would make reverting IP edits count in the 1RR, which they do not do at present. Courcelles 18:38, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

   Indeed. Thanks for clarifying it though, absent context, we're still left with an ambiguity in the first sentence (which Phil's "made" doesn't really fix). Sorry to suggest a recast but it's probably clearer to separate the vandalism and the IP edits entirely, as two sentences, thus: "Clear vandalism of whatever origin may be reverted without restriction. Reverts of edits made by anonymous IP editors that are not vandalism are exempt from 1RR but are subject to the usual rules on edit warring." And the "of whatever origin" is probably unnecessary.  Roger Davies ^talk 19:24, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

   Good idea, so copyedited. Anyone, feel free to revert if you disagree. Courcelles 20:56, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

1. The only reason this is in there is the fear that five IP editors are actually just one editor. If they were five editors, then there would be no reason to assume that. But whenever you put "IP editor" and "vandal" in the same sentence, the community comes away with the impression that IP editors are all vandals and can be reverted on sight. I would prefer something like the wording below, and will propose it as an alternative if there is any traction

In an area subject to IRR restrictions -

• Editors are restricted to making one revert only per day - this applies to all accounts and IP addresses of that editor
• There are no restrictions on the number of times vandalism may be reverted
• Any IP editor is restricted to IRR in the same way as other editors
• Where multiple IPs edit the article in a similar manner, they can be treated as if they are all one person and, if they persist in making the same edits or reversions, then other editors may revert them without penalty.

Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:17, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain;

Comments

Note to Clerk: Even though the motion as proposed is passing, please don't close this just yet, given the discussion of possible copyedits or alternatives. Thanks. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:38, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Initiated by Tijfo098 (talk) at 19:43, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:

• Tijfo098 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
• Dream Focus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) [73]
• Marokwitz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) [74]
• AndyTheGrump (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) [75]
• AnkhMorpork (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) [76]
• Dlv999 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) [77]
• No More Mr Nice Guy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) [78]
• Jethro B (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), already participating
• Bali ultimate (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) [79]
• Brewcrewer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), already participating
• KillerChihuahua (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) [80]
• Timotheus Canens (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) [81]
• Elen of the Roads (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), presumably watching this; she just blocked Bali ultimate.

Statement by Tijfo098

I simply submit to you that the creative restrictions imposed are not working as expected, but are simply gamed to arbitrarily remove content from that page, cf. WP:AE#Dlv999. I request that the imbalance be addressed by a similar restriction on removing content without consensus. This has been done before, for example at Mass killings under Communist regimes. Tijfo098 (talk) 19:43, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@KC & TC. If they are working as intended and you saw no gaming from the deletionists, then why is Dream Focus not blocked for this and his open defiance [82] of ArbCom sanctions? TC, you have made promises to met "longish blocks" to editors under your creative restrictions [83], which clearly indicate that you approve of Dvl999's actions. Please explain why you think his deletion was appropriate. Tijfo098 (talk) 12:05, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I see that TC has tweaked the wording on the restrictions in the meantime. Tijfo098 (talk) 12:50, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was also considering reporting to AE the insertion of some original research in the article [84] [85] [86] and direct accusation against two editors of being on a mission "to spread hate" [87], but given that the two admins always ruling over this appear to share that viewpoint, I won't bother with AE anymore. And if T. Canens wants that article deleted on such grounds, he should do it himself. It's not unheard of [88]. Oh, and Elen of the Roads should be immediately ejected from ArbCom. She's definitely up to no good; see [89] [90]. Tijfo098 (talk) 16:24, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Jethro B: My last sentence was a pun on Wikipedia's own conspiracy theory involving User:!!. There's no chance anyone on ArbCom would take that as anything but a joke. I hope. Tijfo098 (talk) 19:06, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I hope this meets AGK's approval. Oh, and enjoy the new article: Persecution by Muslims. Muslims == KKK?? [91] [92]; Muslims == Nazis? [93] Tijfo098 (talk) 14:58, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by AnkhMorpork

This echoes my previous concerns regarding these novel restrictions and their susceptibilty to abuse - which took all of two days to manifest itself. I support the need to reevaluate the efficacy of these restricitons and to consider extending them to equally cover existing content in this article. Currently, they simultaneously preclude good-faith additions and improvements, yet allow unilateral content removal by individual editors that totally eschew any attempt at collaborative discussion seeing as the need for it has now been obviated. While the restrictions were well-intentioned, they are proving wholly inadequate. Ankh.Morpork 19:57, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Brewcrewer

I concur with the proposal -- to add to the restriction to anyone removing sourced material or at least to exclude from the restrictions any sourced content that was already in the article before the restrictions took place (grandfather in). The current rules leave the article open to gaming. Anyone can remove material with some vague edit summary and then demand another consensus for its inclusion, which will have to be approved by an uninvolved administrator that will have to be tracked down somehow. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 20:03, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement AndyTheGrump

I agree that the restrictions imposed by are not working - but not for the reasons given above. They have simply been ignored, whether wilfully, or by accident, and material has been added without consensus to an article which has widely been seen (at for example the recent AfD discussions [94]) as burdened with WP:OR, poor sourcing, and significant POV-driven editing. Frankly, at this point I can see no hope for any consensus-based solutions short of topic-banning the more overt POV-pushers, and fully protecting the article. Loosening restrictions to encourage more edit-warring makes no sense whatsoever. This is a contentious subject, for which much source material seems intended to cast people in a negative light, and as such it seems entirely reasonable that the burden of proof should be on those wishing to add material to our article - as is normal Wikipedia policy. The restrictions are in fact little more than WP:BRD extended and formalised in such a way as to prevent further questionable editing of a contentious article. What is necessary is that they be enforced, and that the article be made to conform to WP:NPOV standards - and if it cannot (which seems entirely possible, given the subject matter), regardless of (rather equivocal) AfD decisions, Wikipedia may have to do without it entirely. That is probably outside the remit of this discussion, however... AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:06, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by KillerChihuahua

I am completely uninvolved. The only way I have even touched this is to comment in the Uninvolved admins section on an AE request regarding this. That said, in the very short time that case has been open it has become clear that loosening restrictions is not in the best interest of this article. One puppy's opinion. KillerChihuahua^?!? 20:16, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Jethro B

One of the main issues with the restrictions is that it allows editors to get away with violating 1RR as long as they're removing "original research." By this, editors are gaming it, so that if RS wrote about how aliens invaded Palestinian farms and destroyed the crops as requested by Israel, it'd be removed as "Source doesn't say it's conspiracy, so how is the connection made that it's a conspiracy?" Or if the reference writes that a "myth circulated" about it, it'd get removed as "source doesn't write it's a conspiracy, only a myth" (this actually happened). In other cases, you have editors who will remove sections and violate 1RR in doing so, knowing that despite the 1RR violation, it will allow for the content to be simply removed without discusion, and any attempts to reinsert it will require a discussion, which that editor will just object and thus not allow for consensus.

There have been cases where sections have been removed that even uninvolved editors disagree with removing. There wasn't any discussion to remove it. But once removed, no matter what the reason, it's very tough to get it back in - because a lengthy discussion with consensus is needed, and that consensus will just be broken by one editor who opposes putting it in. So what we're getting here are bogus excuses to remove content that even uninvolved editors disagree with, all in "compliance" with the restrictions.

I think they should definitely be changed. I really don't see how this article can be that much more special and contentious than some other I-P articles here. The normal rules in ARBPIA should suffice here, and they've been working up until two weeks ago, when the restrictions were made in response to a report filed because an editor violated 1RR. --Jethro B 20:53, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Dlv99 - with respect to Tijfo, as far as I'm aware he wasn't involved in the previous Arbcom clarification/amendment thread here, and opened up this one recently as a result of the AE thread. In addition, although not commenting on admin bias at ArbCom, the admin who blocked Bali was not an admin this AE thread or the ArbCom clarification thread here, so I don't think that'd count as rejecting proof of bias, if bias does exist here. --Jethro B 16:04, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Dlv99 - thanks, didn't notice that, although in both cases it's been opened by 2 different editors in response to two different stimuli, both of which I feel are legitimate. However, you should be aware that this thread isn't meant to sanction you, which is the AE thread, but rather as an offshoot of the AE thread to discuss the restrictions as a whole. --Jethro B 16:27, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@AKG - Really? Let's forget the glaring issues with Bali's version... He tried to insert it into the article once. He got reverted. Rather than discuss it and try to get it inserted, what does he do? He waits a few days, maybe the editors will go away, and then inserts it again. He doesn't explain in his edit summary "Reinserting content that was reverted a few days ago," giving people like me the impression this is completely new. If your edits are reverted, how can you just come in a few days later and expect to put it back in without a discussion? Then we have some glaring issues with it. Firstly, the attempt to minimize the conspiracy as very brief and quick, along with WP:OR (exactly what the restrictions are meant to eliminate), weasel wording, and a POV editorial bias. In short, if Bali felt his edit was the best version, he should've participated in the WP:BRD process. Not "bold, revert, revert a few days later" process. --Jethro B 00:47, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Tijfo - I don't see the connection between some article called Persecution of Muslims and this article. I've never edited that article or its AfD, and others involved in this dispute haven't either. There aren't restrictions on that article like there are here. In short, it's not relevant here, unless it's a cunning attempt to get some editors here to vote on its AfD, but I know you to be a better editor than that so I'm really perplexed at the reason for mentioning it. --Jethro B 21:41, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by TC

As far as I can see, the restrictions appear to be working as intended. Neither our resident puppy nor I have seen any actionable gaming. Some people may not like how they are designed to operate; that does not mean that they are broken. As to the "Mass killings restriction", it was the consensus among AE admins, when it was last discussed in this lengthy AE thread, that it is not a particularly useful restriction in many cases.

In imposing the restrictions, I have already considered and rejected the possibility of "grandfathering in" existing material. Given the lengthy partisan wrangling over this article, I had, and still have, little confidence in the quality of the existing material. I opted for the present approach of permitting easy removal of existing material, which will still preserve uncontroversial instances, rather than a significantly more aggressive approach seen in this BLPSE action.

I also don't see why this couldn't have been handled at the currently open AE thread. This is striking me more and more like running to the other parent when AE admins don't see any gaming, especially since the last arbcom thread on these very restrictions was closed less than a week ago. I respectfully request that the committee close this one speedily. AE simply can't properly operate if the restrictions applied are brought to the committee, and the admin who imposed them forced to defend them, every few days. T. Canens (talk) 04:16, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A note that I've seen what AnkhMorpork posted below, and will not be dignifying it with a response unless the committee requests. T. Canens (talk) 17:40, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to T Canens

The primary purpose of discretionary editing restrictions on an article is to to create an acceptable collaborative editing environment in contentious areas prone to misconduct. When this has been created, Wikipedia assumes that editorial discussions and the ensuing consensus will adequately govern the nature of an article; this is a fundamental policy - that all editors can contribute equally to the make-up of an article, that there exists a clear separation of powers between the executive (admins) and the legislature (editors). Admins should facilitate discussion and not attempt to foist their views on others.

That being said, you have twice explained that your restrictions were predicated on your personal views regarding the subject. The imposition of the restrictions should not determined by whether you "had, and still have, little confidence in the quality of the existing material." Yet, you unilaterally imposed unique restriction designed to promote your particular point of view in a content dispute without deigning to seek admin consensus for this measure. In the words of Silktork: "I also share AnkhMorpork's concern that general editing restrictions are being applied to all users without there being a discussion first." Why are you of the view that your view is of pre-eminent importance that you, by yourself, can seek to forcefully alter the shape of this article through use of administrative privilege? I remind you of discretionary sanction guidance: you are expected to balance the provision of "responsible contributors maximum freedom to edit, with the need to reduce edit-warring and misuse of Wikipedia as a battleground". I submit that the you have restricted good-faith improvement entirely and compounded this by allowing for pernicious abuse of the restrictions, to the extent that exasperated editors that have never previously participated in these discussions or topics are imploring for an alteration or arbitration enforcement.

As to your comment that this was recently discussed, I would assume that you are cognisant with what PhilKnight said: "Obviously these restrictions are innovative, and it may well be prudent to evaluate their effectiveness in due course". Well the answer to that is obviously they're pathetically useless and when you have editors returning from 6 month sabbaticals, two days after your restrictions, to remove vast sections with nary a talk page comment, I am surprised that you see this in any other way. Or then again, based on your above predilections, perhaps not. Ankh.Morpork 13:58, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As an aside, do you feel that the previous discussion at Arbcom in which I questioned the efficacy of your novel restrictions and their susceptibility to gaming, coupled with your personal declaration that " I had, and still have, little confidence in the quality of the existing material", might affect your objectivity in assessing at AE whether content removal games your restrictions that you previously vouched for? Ankh.Morpork 14:13, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Dlv999

Seems like WP:FORUMSHOPING to me. The issue was already raised at the previous request for clarification last week. [95] The editor was told that any evidence of gaming should be presented to AE. [96] An AE case was filed [97] - the two uninvolved admins who have commented so far have not seen evidence of gaming or actionable behavior in the diffs provided. And now we are back here with the same issue being raised again. Are we just going to keep going round in circles with this until the editors get their own way? Dlv999 (talk) 07:14, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Tijfo098 Regarding the most recent diffs you have presented: The editor in question has already been given a week block so I don't really think this is a credible case of Admin bias as you are suggesting. Dlv999 (talk) 15:59, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Jethro B, Tijfo098 was in fact a party to the previous Arbcom clarification/amendment discussion last week [98]. With the greatest respect, if you do not know what the facts are I'm not sure why you feel the need to make such a comment. Dlv999 (talk) 16:12, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by NMMNG

@AGK Are you serious? Bali's edit was 80% editorial and consisted mainly of his interpretation of the sources. Moreover, he did not seek consensus for it on the talk page per the additional sanctions being discussed here, but chose to edit war his preferred version into the article. He could have just removed any problematic text which would then have needed to gain consensus to be put back in the article.

Nobody needs to "bait" Bali for him to lash out, he does that regularly and frequently. In fact, if you look at some of the edit summaries he used, he "lashed out" against living people who have wikipedia articles as well. I wonder what they did to bait him. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 01:20, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cla68

This would be a good opportunity for ArbCom/WP's administration to show that WP:NPOV in an enforceable policy. Look at the article's edit history, look at the article's talk page, note which editors are tring to use it to disparage Arab/Palestinian culture and/or politics, make a decision, then act on that decision. Now's a good time. Cla68 (talk) 12:11, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by 108.60.151.4 - Agree with NMMNG

I do not care if Bali Ultimate's edits improved the article or worsen it, but AGK's comments demonstrate his extreme immaturity. An arbitrator must conduct arbitrations in an impartial manner. An arbitrator should avoid any conduct that might give the appearance of partiality towards any party. AGK writes: "Somebody needs to bring to AE the editors who reverted Bali ultimate's edits about the Shark attacks section." and then "(As an arbitrator, I'm unable to be involved in the enforcement process, or I would hand out AE blocks myself.)"? What kind of arbitrator AGK is?

Bali Ultimate, you say you are a named professional except you behave as a named idiot. Named professionals come to Wikipedia to write articles and not to be ""meanie" on talk pages." Now you are blocked, and when the block expires you'd come back with your tail between your legs or else. It is the only thing you've achieved so far. — 108.60.151.4 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 23:18, 6 October 2012‎ (UTC).[reply]

I.P., you have stated only that you object to my comment, but not why. You must therefore forgive me if I pay little heed to your statement, but I do ask for your clarification. You state unilaterally that my comments demonstrated "extreme immaturity" and suggested they had "the appearance of partiality". On your former statement, I am sure you are aware (as a regular contributor) that baseless, ad hominem remarks like that are unacceptable on Wikipedia. I am particularly at a loss to see how those remarks demonstrated immaturity. On your latter statement, I think you misunderstand the role of an arbitrator: we do not exist to "judge" cases, nor to "protect and serve" and uphold the rigid public image that goes with such missions, but to solve editorial disputes. If to do so I must succinctly state I think an editor needs to be referred to AE for sanctioning, then I will do precisely that. The role of arbitrator is made up largely of an ability and willingness to speak about the proverbial elephant in the room; you subscribe to a woefully flawed vision if you conflate that ability with "partiality". AGK [•] 19:46, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Pluto2012 regarding AGK comment

I concurr with Bali Ultimate answer on this talk page : "AGK, you have just illustrated the dysfunction of the website's approach, and why it fails so badly in these areas. Someone like me, a named [person], will be easily blocked for being a "meanie" on talk pages. People who skew content in service of a cause (frequently one, as in this case, that seeks to advance its agenda by dehumanizing a whole culture) are left to merrily go about their business on the articles (the stuff the general public sees) so long as they are "civil." Please also note that this is going on in a great many more articles, most of them of far more importance and general interest, than the one I tried to make a point of fixing.Dan Murphy (talk) 02:13, 6 October 2012 (UTC)"[reply]

I fully agree with this analysis and it is proved by what is written just here above : "I do not care if Bali Ultimate's edits improved the article or worsen it (...)."

The 1st pillar of wikipedia is that it is an encyclopedy. 2nd and 3rd pillars remind the quality standards should be high. The 4th pillar that requires politeness and civility is very important but it is used in this area of articles to canevass their development. One way or the other, external observers (Arbcom members, uninvolved sysops) should analyse the context of the conflicts based on this problematic. Pluto2012 (talk) 07:18, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Wnt

I request that all of T. Canens' September 2012 edicts be suspended from this page. In contradiction to the Talk Page notice, I see nothing here or here calling for prior restraint on edits. Eventually I tracked down the history to [99] in which the policy is unilaterally decreed, and editors either vehemently disagree with it or go off on tangents. This directly contradicts Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions which says "Best practice includes seeking additional input prior to applying a novel sanction or when a reasonable, uninvolved editor may question whether the sanction is within the scope of the relevant case;" more to the point, it is not a sanction against "any editor working on a page within the area of conflict (or for whom discretionary sanctions have otherwise been authorized) if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process." To the contrary, it includes a sanction against even a completely naive and good faith editor who, coming to the article page, and not seeing any special edit notice, adds a story that seems relevant in his consideration. The talk page notice explicitly says that "Editors who violate the above restrictions may be blocked without warning by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offence."

I should also point out that the scope of this article is very arbitrary. Of all the animal conspiracy theories in the world, we've singled out those about Israel for a special article based on one or two articles connecting them. More plausible allegations have been made, for example, about the U.S. airdropping thrips on Cuba. A reorganization, e.g. by species, is very much appropriate, which to me suggests that either these special restrictions should be eliminated, or eventually they will spread to infect articles even less related to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, let alone to the original editors in the arbitration case.

The mere fact that some editors have had an interpersonal squabble based on their opinions in the Israel-Palestinian conflict does not mean that new editors a random article about allegations about Israelis in Egypt and Saudi Arabia should be subjected to unreasonable sanctions!

I should add that I am curious how many other articles have been subjected to such unusual sanctions as this one. I should point out that there is a risk that, if a lot of Israel-related topics are treated to sanctions that affect even new good-faith editors, Wikipedia itself may become the object of a Zionist conspiracy theory. Wnt (talk) 16:34, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Elen of the Roads

I'm only involved in that I blocked Bali Ultimate for a week for hate-speech, having previously warned him for using similar language in a different area. Several parties including another arbitrator have suggested that 'the other side' are successfully gaming the restrictions, cannot be brought to AE etc. Is this the case? If so, this ought to be addressed. Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:34, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

• I've asked the clerks to archive this request. AGK [•] 12:57, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrator views and discussion

• I have already opined on Bali ultimate's talk page about the recent edit war in the "Shark attacks" section of this article:

  Somebody needs to bring to AE the editors who reverted Bali ultimate's edits about the Shark attacks section. While I do not condone BU's comments on the article talk page, his edits neutralised some glaring problems with the POV in the Shark attacks section. The POV of that section was totally skewed, whereas Bali's re-write restored some balance and reason—and made it clear how laughable the "sharks" theory really is. This is a classic case of POV-pushers baiting somebody like BU into verbally lashing out.

  To me, the problem is that edits to this article are being policed only for decorum, and that obvious POV-pushing is being disregarded. I therefore advise the enforcement team to examine complaints about this article in more detail, and to look at the substance of incidents and edits. Rarely is only one side to blame, and sometimes editors lose their head for reasons which are actually valid. AGK [•] 22:34, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I concur with PhilKnight and SilkTork, though I echo my call that more rigorous enforcement of POV-pushing as well as merely un-collegial conduct needs to be made in this topic area. AGK [•] 19:49, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• This is a request regarding Timotheus Canens posting these restrictions on the Israel-related animal conspiracy theories article, which was recently discussed and archived on 26 Sept as being acceptable. I am not comfortable with general editing restrictions being applied to articles without there being some form of discussion and consensus sought first; but as these restrictions have been discussed, and there is a consensus for them, then a reasonable amount of time must be given to see how they work, and for any problems to be worked through via discussion on the article talkpage or on AE. It's perhaps too soon to be bringing this back to ArbCom. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 09:40, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Given that TC has recently modified these sanctions, I think we should allow some time before determining their effectiveness. PhilKnight (talk) 15:15, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• I see no reason to modify the tweaked sanctions, but they have got to be enforced. This article is a train-wreck, and if people are not following them, block them. If that doesn't solve it, full protect it and force folks to use the talk page. Courcelles 16:26, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Let's give the tweaked sanctions a chance for a bit. However, I do echo AGK's concerns about the blatant civil POV-pushing on this article, and its appearance to be a coatrack. Administrators at AE may want to take that into consideration as well. Risker (talk) 19:18, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do y'all deal with obvious socks? The problem, naturally, is that there's no way yet to know whose it is. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:35, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, all. this is just a suggestion. In the future, I think that any time that Arbcomm launches a process to discuss an RFC, they should ask the moderator to provide a set of the possible wordings or options which may be offered in the future RFC.

Then participants in the process for designing that RFC should be given the chance to say whether they are for or against each of those options, and why.

if we permit all discussion participants to offer their own options and to argue over that, then the process can become quickly derailed, and we may never get around to the RFC itself which was the reason for convening that process in the first place. just a thought. hope you don't mind. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 19:41, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Original location