Arbitrators active on this case[edit]

Active:

  1. Blnguyen
  2. FayssalF
  3. FloNight
  4. FT2
  5. Jdforrester
  6. Jpgordon
  7. Kirill Lokshin
  8. Matthew Brown (Morven)
  9. Newyorkbrad
  10. Paul August
  11. Sam Blacketer
  12. Thebainer
  13. UninvitedCompany

Away/inactive:

  1. Charles Matthews
  2. Deskana
To update this listing, edit this template and scroll down until you find the right list of arbitrators.

Scope of this talk page[edit]

Are editors, whether p[arties or not, permitted to comment on the proposed decision by commenting here at this talk page? I would imagine that several people will have at least some opinions which they might like to post here. would appreciate some guidance on this. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 18:05, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone may comment on the talk page. — Rlevse • Talk • 19:32, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. thanks for your helpful reply. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 21:39, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Committee to handle ethnic disputes[edit]

See Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Palestine-Israel_articles/Workshop#Proposals_by_User:Sumoeagle179 for an real onwiki example of how to handle ethnic disputes. Sumoeagle179 (talk) 21:28, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Late evidence[edit]

Hi all,

I'm a bit late posting my evidence (I thought I had a week's time). I hope it can still be considered.

Cheers, pedro gonnet - talk - 16.01.2008 10:35

"Uninvolved" administrators[edit]

Re. the proposed rule on uninvolved administrators: From my own experience with similar disputed areas (Balkans etc.), I'll submit for consideration that the wording that admins must not have "previously participated in any content disputes on articles in the area of conflict" may be rather too stringent. There is, generally, a competition between two equally important goals here, and it seems to me that the Arbcom, in an understandable effort to enforce the one, may be overlooking the other. One is the need for administrators to be neutral, the other is the need for administrators to be knowledgeable.

Admins charged with judging whether an editor's conduct is disruptive need to have a familiarity with the field: both with the personalities of the editors involved, and with the real-life issues their disputes are concerned with. Naturally, such administrators will often be drawn towards making their own contributions to related articles, and may develop their own opinions about some article or other in the conflict domain, especially where the domain of conflict is defined broadly ("Balkans", "Eastern Europe").

I myself am regularly active in one of these notorious conflict areas, both as an editor and as an admin. I am actually quite often called in by participants in disputes, often from both sides, to act as a problem-solver in both capacities at once. I sometimes block an editor over a dispute on one article, and collaborate with them as an editor on a different loosely related article the next day. It's a difficult balance often, but I find that I am more efficient in doing my admin work in this way. I'm a better admin on Balkans articles than on Liancourt Rocks. I couldn't do the kind of work I do here on, say, global warming issues, China, or Scientology. Because there I couldn't make an equally informed judgment of who is a troll promoting fringe views, who is a good-faith editor just being carried away by understandable prejudice, or who is promoting a valid scholarly viewpoint that others have so far ignored. Even though I have been rather conservative in not taking a leading role enforcing the recent "Macedonia" remedies, I do not intend to cease admin action on Balkan-related topics altogether, unless I'm forced to.

If the committee is going to adopt the remedy as worded, I ask them to clarify whether they intend it to be valid for this particular area of dispute only, or for Arbcom enforcement in all disputed areas where similar remedies are currently in place, or as a new standard for admin behavior in general. In the latter case, I'd have to cease perhaps 80% of my admin activity altogether.

Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:24, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Fut.Perf. For example, I have made a significant number of edits to the Israel and Jerusalem article (both featured status now). I, naturally, have been involved in content disputes there, but I don't see why that should prevent me from acting in accordance with discretionary sections here. I have even been asked to mediate a case (for MedCom I mean) in which an article related to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is/was clearly at issue. I believe it's important to have people who have some knowledge about this dispute, as it pertains to both Wikipedia and the real world, while still excluding admins that are actually apart of the contentious disputes. -- tariqabjotu 17:01, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe I'm completely out of touch, but the concept of "uninvolved admin" has never really been precisely defined and rarely causes controversy. Do we really need a detailed definition here? the worst that could happen is that someone who is too involved to be uninvolved makes a bad block, gets turned over on appeal, and learns not to do it again. Thatcher 21:27, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We have noted that part of the problem with these controversial topics is the sometimes real and sometimes perceived involvement of too involved admins. We prefer that completely uninvolved admins spend time learning about the dispute and staying involved after the fact. Now some content disputes become stalled do to the side issue of admins being too involved. FloNight (talk) 21:46, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you find admins who are willing and capable of doing that, please, by all means, send them my way. In those conflicts I'm dealing with, I've been literally begging other admins to come in and take over from me. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:55, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We know that it is a problem. We are trying to bring attention to the issue of more admins with fresh eyes taking an interest in these topics. In general our AE page needs to be watched by more admins also. We very much appreciate the admins currently assisting us and want more admins to help out. FloNight (talk) 23:19, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In the noxious atemosphere under discussion here, "uninvovled" is going to be a major problem. I've never subtantially edited an article dealing with Israel or Palestine (broadly defined), to my knowledge, and certainly I've not participated in any content disputes. I did comment at a DRV and subsequently, based on my observations there, in the ensuing Arbitration case on related user-conduct issues. Subsequently, I blocked an editor who was not involved in the Arbitration, but who is apparently a member of the "pro-Israeli" group. And people lost their minds. Both "pro-Israeli" and "pro-Palestinian" editors assigned me to the "pro-Palestinian" camp, despite the fact that I've never edited any related articles, never taken a stance on the underlying issue, and am certainly not characterizable as "pro-Palestinian". Am I an uninvolved admin? Conceivably not, based entirely on the ruckus raised by a small handful of highly partisan editors-with-an-axe-to-grind. It is likely that similar efforts will be made to "involve" and pigeonhole otherwise uninvolved admins once they take any kind of action against any editor remotely aligned with these two groups. That's just my perspective, informed by my experience. I think that uninvolved really does need to be a bit more carefully defined in this particular case. MastCell Talk 23:17, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
MastCell is absolutely right. I think the concept of an "uninvolved" admin in this context is too ill-defined to be useful, and FloNight's own comments inadvertently highlight the difficulties here. Flo says: "We prefer that completely uninvolved admins spend time learning about the dispute and staying involved after the fact." But by definition, an admin who "stays involved" is no longer "uninvolved". As MastCell says, getting involved also means that you'll inevitably be deemed a partisan by one side or the other. It's all very well to declare that "Enforcing the provisions of this decision will not be considered to be participation in a dispute" but as both MastCell and I have found, if you act in a way that one side doesn't like, you will be pilloried for "favouring" the other side. The highly partisan editors to whom MastCell refers work on the basis of "if you're not on our side, you're on the enemy's" and act accordingly. A large part of the reason why this topic area has spiralled out of control is the intimidatory effect that they have wrought; a lot of admins simply don't want to get involved because they know that they'll become the target of a Two Minutes Hate if they do. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:33, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Add to this, sometimes you really can't do an admin intervention without becoming involved in disputing the contents, because the admin intervention objectively entails the latter. Think of BLP enforcement, for instance. If I stub an article down or warn people of blocks for BLP concerns, that in itself is taking a side in a content dispute. This whole dichotomy of admin work being involved "only" with behaviour and not with content is an oversimplification anyway. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:30, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For the purpose of practical implementation, I think it should be specified that admins cannot use discretionary powers to block individuals with whom they have had a previous dispute, content or otherwise. Tiamut 02:31, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't work either. Take Fut. Perf's example above. Suppose he blocks someone who repeatedly violates BLP and removes the BLP-violating content. Now he has a "previous dispute, content or otherwise" with that editor. If the editor comes back after the block and restores the deleted content, should Fut. Perf. now be barred from using his discretionary powers to deal with this repeated offence? -- ChrisO (talk) 08:44, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Another factor that may well force "involved" admins to take a role in such situations: Language skills. If you want to oversee these conflicts, you need to be able to check whether sources are quoted correctly. You need to be able to follow non-English exchanges between disputants on talk pages. You need to be able to follow a web link and understand what it's about. You need to be able to take an aggressive newbie aside and give him a bit of friendly advice in his own language (believe me, it works wonders.) You need to be sensitive to foreign cultural norms and sensitivities when judging people's behaviour. My own attempt at working on Liancourt Rocks was crippled by my being unable to understand a word of what those guys where babbling around me. Do we have any administrator who has a working knowledge of Hebrew and Arabic, but never has taken sides in a content dispute related to this field yet? I'm pretty sure there isn't one that could handle Turkish and Greek, or Greek and Macedonian. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:48, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Another thought occurs to me. Isn't this proposal effectively a modification of the existing blocking policy? There's already a prohibition on blocking users with whom one is involved in a content dispute (see WP:BLOCK#When blocking may not be used). This proposal would widen the prohibition, albeit just for this particular topic area, so that the prohibition would not just be triggered if one had been in a content dispute with an offending user but would apply if one had merely been involved in a content dispute with any user on any article in the topic area. In effect, this would set a different and much stricter rule for the Israeli-Palestinian topic area. Correct me if I'm wrong, but if it's effectively a change in policy isn't that something that the community needs to authorise? I was under the impression that the arbitration committee enforces policy, rather than modifying or making it. -- ChrisO (talk) 09:12, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am also concerned about this. As I have noted on Kirill's talk page, I was hoping that this RfAr would actually strengthen the position of admins to deal with the various troublemakers. However, as Tariq notes, past attempts at correcting POV could be seen as some as a "content dispute" and therefore make me an "involved". And as Future Perfect notes, how many of these uninvolved admins know Hebrew or Arabic. The only ways I can see getting around this is either to drop this rule, or specifically name those admins who should not be allowed to carry out administrative actions in this sphere. пﮟოьεԻ 57 10:04, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
One compromise I could imagine would be that "involved" admins should continue to do all their "normal" admin work in their areas of interest, including that of initiating Arbcom enforcement, but that in order to actually put an enforcement decision in force they'd seek consultation with at least one non-involved colleague. The point is that the initiative for such steps will still often have to come from those who truly know the field, and that such consultation must be quick and non-bureaucratic. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:14, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think admins need to be knowledgeable in a particular topic area, in order to be able to determine if an editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. All they need to know is what the purpose of Wikipedia is, what the expected standard of behavior is, and what the normal editorial process is. The issue is admins who participate significantly to the topic also enforcing such a powerful discretionary sanction could contribute to a perception of bias and injustice that would only inflame the situation, not calm it down. After all, ArbCom regularly makes judgements every day about what is unacceptable behaviour without the need or even desire to know the topic content, so why is it so difficult for admins in this case? Martintg (talk) 10:57, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comparisont doesn't work. Arbitrators have the luxury of having dozens of other people predigesting and spoon-feeding the evidence for them, and they have lots of time that they (hopefully) use for discussing among themselves. When you are a normal admin out in the trenches, you have to be quick, and you are on your own. And as for the dogma that admin (or Arbcom) surveillance should be completely agnostic as to content - well, I reject it. It's just plain wrong, and good amin work has never worked like that in practice. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:30, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Are you suggesting that depending upon the content, the purpose of Wikipedia, the expected standard of behaviour or the normal editorial process varies? If these three things are invariable, what relevance does knowledge of content have? Martintg (talk) 11:41, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Your logic is flawed. I need understanding of the backgrounds and content in order to assess whether and to what extent a contributor's performance is incompatible with the these, especially with the "purpose of Wikipedia" (which, as you will easily understand, is impossible to assess without taking content into consideration, because the purpose of Wikipedia, after all, is to assemble good content.) Translated into a practical example: If I find somebody edit-warring somewhere below 3RR, over, say, the inclusion of a passage based on some reference, I will treat him differently if I recognise the passage is a competently worded, well structured, neutral summary of a reliable mainstream scholarly publication relevant to the article, than if I recognise it is a coatrack ripoff plagiarised from the editor's pet nationalist propaganda website written in ungrammatical English. These are content judgments, yes, and I make them in my administrative decisions every day. Arbcom, please desysop me if you don't like that. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:52, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You only need to understand WP:V and WP:RS to know the difference between a mainstream scholarly publication and a "nationalist propaganda" (or any other) website, as that particular passage should have a reference attached. That you may call it "nationalist propoganda" is itself your own personal political viewpoint which is colouring your judgement, hence you ought to step back from the fray. Martintg (talk) 19:58, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(Hoping I am not intruding). I can provide an example of what Fut.Perf. appears to be suggesting, and why your reply, Martintg, mightn't strike many average editors in this area (under scrutiny or not) as anywhere near adequate, since endless useless arguments are raised about sources no person with a decent education would question in the first place, apparently as part of a wikilawyering attrition gambit.here Regards e buon lavoro. Nishidani (talk) 20:12, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Nishidani. Editors (and admins) need some reasonable latitude in order to include a full range of sources which can best represent the notable views and valid concerns of both sides in this conflict. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 20:20, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Tag team" editing is not unique to Palestine-Israel articles, I've seen it in my area of interest, pick any random hotspot you will find it there too. It is a pattern that is easily recognisable without having to be involved intimately in the article content. Nothing stopping Editors and Admins including a full range of sources in an article, but I'd be worried about the impartiality of that same admin issuing a discretionary sanction of up to one year in duration, particularly if it was influenced by his subjective view that the content in question was "xxxxx propaganda", where xxxx = nationalist, proletarian internationalist, zionist, anti-zionist or some other -ist. I don't think these kinds of political considerations should have any role when an admin enforces a sanction. Being an admin does not give one some special protection against adopting a particular viewpoint if he/she has been significantly contibuting to a topic area, we are all human, it is inevitable. Hence I think these admins ought to to step back and allow one of the other 1000 admins deal with the disruption. Martintg (talk) 22:06, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Although this may be futile at this point (given that there is a motion pending to close the case), I think the definition of "uninvolved" may be too narrow. (Meaning, I think that admins who are in the "grey area" should not be part of the "enforcement team.") I understand from the above discussion that there are some who feel just the opposite, and are concerned that "outside" admins may not be knowledgeable enough to enforce this decision. However, I think that the possibility of arguably-"involved" admins taking actions consistent with their POV (whether actual or apparent) is of greater concern. Now, I am not an admin, so I may not fully understand all of relevant considerations, but I do understand the "needs" of this particular area of dispute on Wikipedia, and if we are going to "err", it should be on the side of restricting the pool of those enforcing the rules. Otherwise, I think the controversy is only going to be exacerbated, which is the opposite of what the ArbCom is trying to accomplish here. Now, as I have been writing this, I have been debating with myself, how specific to be. In the interests of diplomacy, I have decided not to "name names." But let me put it this way: In keeping with my comments above about the "grey area", I think that if you are an admin who has posted in this section about the fact that some people consider you "involved" in this area, but you disagree, let's just consider you to be "involved", shall we? Of course, there are some people who I think are clearly "involved" and not in the "grey area", and you know who you are, most likely. 6SJ7 (talk) 02:37, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It might well need clarification later on; I'd suggest that admins err very much on the side of caution on this matter, since it's so inflammatory. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 03:27, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The thing is, though, that "involvement" is not static. Once an admin makes a comment or assesses a situation in a way that angers one "faction", then hardened WP:BATTLErs who conflate criticism of specific editors' conduct with political criticism of entire nation-states or ethnicities will spare no effort to try and disqualify that admin by casting them as fundamentally biased on all related matters. It's in the interest of particularly partisan editors to do so; if all a poorly behaved editor has to do to disqualify an admin is create FUD, then the already small pool of uninvolved admins foolish enough to consider stepping into this minefield will rapidly dwindle. I agree that in the interest of diplomacy, it's unecessary to name names. MastCell Talk 05:25, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That may be true of some admins. Others may in fact be using their administrative tools to give advantage to a particular POV. I suspect we may disagree as to who is who. But what this really should be all about is an assessment of comparative risks and harms. When I compare the potential harm to an editor who is unfairly blocked or banned (even if there is an opportunity to appeal), to the potential harm to an administrator who is unfairly excluded from the "enforcement team", if we have to err on one side or the other, I would err on the side of protecting the editors, hands down. One possible answer might be to limit the authority of all admins to unilaterally impose serious consequences on editors, but obviously that isn't happening anytime soon. It is clear that the ArbCom has great confidence in the admins as a group, so we are left to haggle over which individuals should be excluded from the group in this particular area of dispute. 6SJ7 (talk) 05:59, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The creation of FUD is, I believe, a deliberate and established tactic in this topic area. I recall a conversation I had some time ago with a contact who works in the media. He commented that Israel-Palestinian issues were extraordinarily difficult to report because of the intensely hostile lobbying of partisans. Any report that was critical of Israel or showed it in a bad light attracted floods of angry e-mails, phone calls and letters; there was a similar but less intense reaction to reports critical of the Palestinian side. He believed that the US media was largely paralysed by this phenomenon and was largely incapable of neutral reporting on the issue, as it was intimidated by predominately pro-Israel partisans. He mentioned the example of National Public Radio, which pro-Israel activists apparently regard as being anti-Israel in its reporting; they sought to bully NPR by organising demonstrations outside its stations and campaigning for NPR's supporters to withhold funds. (I recall this being mentioned in the UK press too.) In other words, there's clearly a substantial and organised group of partisans in this debate who have an ideological aversion to reporting that doesn't favour their own side, and who consciously seek to influence the issue through intimidation and pressure. We've definitely seen a similar trend here on Wikipedia. Unfortunately it seems to me that this proposal concerning "uninvolved administrators" doesn't take account of this factor. As MastCell suggests, the proposal can easily be gamed by "hardened WP:BATTLErs" mau-mauing admins if they disagree with their decisions. This already happens - MastCell and I have already experienced exactly this sort of thing, and I'm sure other admins have as well. It's a large part of the reason why most admins have steered clear of this topic area. This proposal would, in effect, amount to a heckler's veto over administrative decisions. -- ChrisO (talk) 09:15, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The root cause of this dispute is that many editors and admins believe that an article must present a single point of view that is "neutral". This is a fallacy. NPOV is the presentation of multiple views when they exist. As explained in Wikipedia:Five_pillars: "Wikipedia has a neutral point of view, which means we strive for articles that advocate no single point of view. Sometimes this requires representing multiple points of view, presenting each point of view accurately, providing context for any given point of view, and presenting no one point of view as "the truth" or "the best view." It means citing verifiable, authoritative sources whenever possible, especially on controversial topics." Martintg (talk) 11:31, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree completely with Martintg here. By the way, I don't think he actually needs any support on this, but I've mentioned this area a few times myself, so I wanted to add my support here as well. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 02:44, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well Chris, I was trying to be diplomatic, but since you bring up the subject of yourself... I think your statement indicates, better than I ever could, why you should not be enforcing Wikipedia policy in this area of dispute. 6SJ7 (talk) 17:44, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for proving the point I was making above... -- ChrisO (talk) 20:03, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Outdenting) Marting is certainly right that many editors and admins don't understand the principles of NPOV, but the problem is even more fundamental than that. I described above how partisans in this conflict not reject only neutral reporting, but also object to reporting that doesn't wholly favour their own side. Some partisans clearly regard their own point of view as 'the truth' or 'the best view'. They regard opposing points of view as being fundamentally illegitimate. From this perspective, "representing multiple points of view" is seen as being in itself a biased act, as it assumes that the opposing point of view has some legitimacy. This isn't a misunderstanding of NPOV; it's a rejection of it.

Of course, this sort of thing isn't unprecedented. What makes this particular dispute so difficult to manage on Wikipedia is the combination of ideological inflexibility with the willingness of partisans to attack attempts to enforce NPOV and conduct policies. MastCell has already described this phenomenon. It's not simply that "people lost their minds", as he said; on the contrary, it's a deliberate effort to dissuade enforcement action. The problem is that this enforcement remedy potentially plays into the hands of those seeking to continue this strategy. Avoiding this scenario is going to require close monitoring and a good deal more clarity about the workings of the remedy than we have at the moment. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:03, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let me back up and depersonalize things for a moment, while also mentioning that I have no intention of involving myself in any way with anything administrative on these articles. The problem I'm seeing is that the proposed decision relies heavily on the discretion of uninvolved administrators. While this has worked well in most areas of Wikipedia, in this particular area it seems that a hypothetical enforcing admin would need to be:

  1. Experienced enough to fairly and effectively sort through extremely complex disputes involving editors who have both constructive contributions and disruptive behaviors, where the relevant on-wiki history alone goes back years. Also credible and confident enough to impose decisions that stick in the face of the heavy lobbying, counteraccusations, etc that inevitably fly whenever a decision is made, and when these decisions potentially involve very established or high-ranking editors. This rules out most newish admins.
  2. "Uninvolved" to the extent that they have never expressed any sort of opinion on any content issue, deletion discussion, or interpersonal issue related to one of the most visible, longest-running, and most widely forum-shopped disputes on Wikipedia. If the admin has ever expressed anything resembling an opinion, or God forbid taken any administrative action against any editor remotely associated with one of these cliques, it will be catalogued. This criterion rules out most experienced or established admins.
  3. Brave (or foolhardy) enough to be willing to get involved in an area where a battle has been allowed to rage largely unchecked for quite some time, and where any admin willing to stick their neck out can be assured of instant ^demonization by one side or another. This rules out most sane admins.

Perhaps I'm being overly cynical, but I don't see the pool of qualified, willing, and potentially effective "uninvolved" admins to be very large. MastCell Talk 18:13, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree. Since it looks like this unfortunate proposal is going to pass, I think it would be helpful to discuss the practicalities of how it's going to work in practice. I'll start a new section below. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:03, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This strikes me as rather a slippery slope: implementing this could set a really unwanted precedent, and it's easy to see how editors embroiled in other disputes would attempt to use it to bolster their arguments. Will an admin who works on Italian language be considered too "involved" in the area to deal with problems at Fascism, for example? When will it end? We have policies in place already that admins must follow; admins who fail to follow those policies (by, for example, blocking editors or protecting pages to preserve a particular viewpoint) can lose their priviliges. I see no need for this additional constraint. Exploding Boy (talk) 16:01, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Working group[edit]

Some question:

→AzaToth 21:38, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kirill's response to my question may answer some of these questions. Emphasis on may. Daniel (talk) 23:36, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So the community should in two weeks create an policy, that the arbcom after two weeks can approve or not? →AzaToth 22:42, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If I read Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines correctly, the ArbCom can "propos[e] a change in practice and seek consensus for implementation of that change", like any other editor or group of editors, but it has to get the consensus of the community if it wants to change or create a policy; it has no special policy-making rights. (Correct me if I'm wrong!) As far as I can understand the working group proposal, the committee is aiming to get the group to generate some ideas for policy changes which it can put to the community in six months' time. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:46, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But it states it's subject of approval of the Committee, not of the Community. →AzaToth 17:37, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More time please?[edit]

Would it be possible to hold off closing this please? The remedies that have been made will certainly help with the task of keeping the editors in order, but PalestineRemembered has made some quite serious sock accusations against Jakobou on his user page which I believe should be fully investigated before you close this case. Ryan Postlethwaite 17:39, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like PalestineRemembered has withdrawn the allegations of sockpuppetry and deleted the evidence. 6SJ7 (talk) 18:04, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This evidence was investigated and discussed on the ArbCom mailing list. FloNight (talk) 18:18, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Question for ArbCom: is Jayjg (talk · contribs) still on that list? --John Nagle (talk) 18:50, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. See Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee#Mailing list, which is kept up-to-date. -jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 18:58, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know whether this is the correct page to remark on this, but I think that the harassment by sockpuppets of innumerable kinds of User:RolandR, who, perhaps because of his peculiar status as a Jewish editor who is anti-Zionist among the group classified as 'pro-Palestinian', comes in for an extraordinary amount of flak that seems organized, systematic and relentless, requires particular attention from senior administrators. The rest of us have our squabbles: but he has been singled out as a target by, apparently, some fanatical hate cabal from amongst his bretheren, and this concerns all of us, whatever our specific views pro or contra.Nishidani (talk) 18:17, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Then file individual cases; we're always disinclined to single out individuals in cases as broad as this one. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 18:31, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There have been countless cases filed, and so far some 350 editors have been indefinitely banned as abusive vandals. It seems to me that the real problem here is structural -- the apparent inability to prevent repeated use of proxy and anonymising services in order to edit abusively. If there is no way to prevent the establishment of such one-off accounts, it might be necessary to consider limiting or moderating the ability of new editors to edit articles until they contribute at least one good-faith edit. RolandR (talk) 16:26, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Limiting the ability of new editors to edit until they've edited?? --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 16:39, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe. Would it be possible to moderate the first (say) five edits by any new editor, before allowing unrestricted editing? I realise that this would be a big change of policy; but it might act to remove a lot of the fly-by vandalism Wikipedia is subjected to (not only the attacks on me). —Preceding unsigned comment added by RolandR (talk • contribs) 18:13, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Request for clarification[edit]

Given the discussion above it's probably a good idea to have a discussion now, at the start of the new regime, to work out the practicalities of the new rules about "uninvolved administrators". I'm going to jot down a few notes to try to work out what the new rules mean. Please don't take the following as remotely authoritative - it's simply a personal attempt to understand the situation and raise some questions.

The two new key rules:

- "Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict 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... 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.

- "For the purpose of imposing sanctions under the provisions of this case, an administrator will be considered "uninvolved" if he or she has not previously participated in any content disputes on articles in the area of conflict. Enforcing the provisions of this decision will not be considered to be participation in a dispute. Any doubt regarding whether an administrator qualifies under this definition is to be treated as any other appeal of discretionary sanctions."

Does anyone have any thoughts on this interpretation or suggestions about points that I've missed? Feedback (especially from the arbitrators) would be welcomed. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:27, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since all actions under this decision have to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles#Log of blocks and bans, we can tell what actions have been taken under this decision. Let's see what happens. --John Nagle (talk) 17:05, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The arbitrators may no longer be reading this page, as the case closed only about an hour after ChrisO's posting. Requests for clarification of closed cases (which this was, for all practical purposes) are made on the main Requests for Arbitration page. I will just say, I think some of your conclusions are questionable. Among other things, I don't think that "involved" admins should be involved in any phase of the "enforcement process", which includes giving warnings. This question also leads to other questions that may require clarification. It is not clear, for example, what an editor is supposed to do if they feel they have been wrongfully warned (whether by an involved or uninvolved admin) and want to be able to continue editing without being sanctioned. Another question is the amount of detail that must be included in a warning, and what happens if a person is warned for doing one thing but then does something else that an admin believes is against policy -- can they be sanctioned for the second thing, or do they have to be warned again. Perhaps a group of uninvolved admins can discuss these subjects and propose something to the ArbCom. 6SJ7 (talk) 22:41, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree strongly with 6SJ7, above. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 02:40, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Decorum[edit]

Requesting clarification on the 'Decorum' section.

I've seen a couple of edits that made me frown my nose (generic edit summary sample: "rm unsourced propaganda; please do not regurgitate content from..."), and I'd most appreciate this section being addressed to with complete seriousness. p.s. The sample is not made with intent on pointing fingers to anyone (only notify the committee of the issue), so I've kept the username out. JaakobouChalk Talk 06:14, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More