From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is a page for working on arbitration decisions. The arbitrators, parties to the case, and other editors may draft proposals and post them to this page for review and comments. Proposals may include proposed general principles, findings of fact, remedies, and enforcement provisions—the same format as is used in Arbitration Committee decisions. The bottom of the page may be used for overall analysis of the /Evidence and for general discussion of the case.

Any user may edit this workshop page. Please sign all suggestions and comments. Arbitrators will place proposed items they believe should be part of the final decision on the /Proposed decision page, which only arbitrators may edit, for voting.

Contents 1 Motions and requests by the parties 1.1 PalestineRemembered block fully lifted 1.2 Arbitration is closed 1.3 Template 2 Proposed temporary injunctions 2.1 Template 2.2 Template 2.3 Template 2.4 Template 3 Questions to the parties 4 Proposed final decision 4.1 Proposed principles 4.1.1 Community bans 4.1.2 Citing sources 4.1.3 Evidentiary basis for banning 4.1.4 Use of single purpose accounts 4.1.5 One hat at a time 4.1.6 Community bans require community consensus. 4.1.7 Community bans require rational attempts to resolve the situation. 4.1.8 Blocks are used for project protection and to halt disruptive behaviour, not to enforce content guidelines and policy. 4.1.9 AGF is particularily important when community decisions are being made 4.1.10 Bigotry has no place in the project 4.1.11 Template 4.2 Proposed findings of fact 4.2.1 The Community ban discussion failed to reach a consensus 4.2.2 Locus of dispute 4.2.3 Miscitation of source 4.2.4 Controversy over source 4.2.5 Evidentiary problems 4.2.6 Dispute resolution not undertaken 4.2.7 Single-purpose account 4.2.8 Contentious editing 4.2.9 Template 4.2.10 Template 4.3 Proposed remedies 4.3.1 PalestineRemembered admonished 4.3.2 Jayjg admonished 4.3.3 Dispute resolution advised 4.3.4 Felonious Monk admonished 4.3.5 Template 4.3.6 Template 4.3.7 Template 4.3.8 Template 4.3.9 Template 4.4 Proposed enforcement 4.4.1 Template 4.4.2 Template 4.4.3 Template 4.4.4 Template 4.4.5 Template 4.5 Analysis of evidence 4.5.1 Template 4.5.2 Template 4.5.3 Template 4.5.4 Template 4.5.5 Template 4.5.6 Template 4.5.7 Template 4.6 General discussion

[edit] Motions and requests by the parties

[edit] PalestineRemembered block fully lifted

1) PalestineRemembered (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)'s block is lifted for the duration of the case and he is free to edit as desired. Ryan Postlethwaite 11:40, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

This proposal is badly worded, implying that the ArbCom is about me (PR), and that I still face sanctions. The latter may be true, but clearly not for the serious allegations made against me, which were proved utterly and completely false within hours.

Furthermore, I am not free to edit, and will not be until the accusations of "views from Holocaust Deniers" are retracted. My first attempt at editing (23rd May, 10 days after these allegations were made) was greeted with an authoritative You're going to get yourself into the same trouble as before if you don't learn to cite properly. [1]. (Though to be fair, the result of that exchange was good and the edit stuck). Clearly, I am not free to edit.

I waited a further 10 days (5th June) before attempting to make a second substantive edit[2]. It was reverted and authoritatively greeted with "Sigh. Same old, same old."[3] and the rubbishing of my (well known and basically non-contentious) addition. This is the same article as I was challenged over before, so we now have 3 fairly straightforward edits just in this one place which are being blocked on grounds that are either specious or cannot be discussed in a collegiate atmosphere.

Needless to say, there are dozens of other edits I would have been making if it were not for this situation. I'm confident that many of these edits would turn out to be "good", acceptable and even valuable. I believe I need the ArbCom to clear my name before it can be claimed that I am "free to edit". That is clearly not the case now, and I'm being treated as if there is a thick cloud of suspicion over me. PalestineRemembered 18:06, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed. firstly, there's serious doubts as to whether he should have been blocked in the first place, secondally, he's currently only able to edit ArbCom pages, thirdly, due to the current backlog, this is likely to take a while which isn't fair to PalestineRemembered as it's more than likely this is going to end up with parole or an admonishment. Ryan Postlethwaite 11:40, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Tying his hands when the initial proposal for this latest block has been proven to have been based on false information and further, even if true, would have constituted only the violation of guideline is no reason to continue to prevent him from making edits. Further, the stigma of the block is being compounded by overzealous admins who recently just fully blocked him again (even from participating in arbcomm) for an alleged violation of the conditions of this latest block which restrict him to discussing his case on a limited number of pages. This has got to stop. Tiamut 11:47, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

The block that he just received was a good block considering the restrictions that are currently in place on his editing - this is what I am trying to remove though. Ryan Postlethwaite 14:55, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I believe Tiamut is referring to the current defacto block (as originally implemented during the CSN). I don't think anyone is questioning the actions of the blocking admin from yesterday. Mark Chovain 01:17, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I should correct my statements above. Phaedriel was within the letter of things to effect the block she did. I'm just quite shocked by the revelations around PR's block history. I hadn't been following his case before. I know admins cannot look into every detail before making a decision, but considering the growing consensus surrounding the idea that the latest block proposed by Jayjg was misplaced, the restrictions on PR shouldn't be that heavily enforced, particularly when all he did was post about his case. I should mention I feel partially responsible having gone ahead and posted evidence before clearing it with Mark Chovain. PR asked me to consider removing it and I told him I would wait for Mark Chovain's advice. Anyway, the point is that that statement of mine there is little "overzealous" in itself. My apologies (and rather lengthy explanation) :)Tiamut 01:26, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Support I can see see no reason for this block. To prevent what? The proposed community ban, which was based upon a good faith but erroneous charge, failed. Thus, PR should be unblocked without predudice, and this case dismissed.Proabivouac 11:20, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

How long can someone remain blocked without a reason? Can we please push this one through? Mark Chovain 22:12, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I have not seen any party say that PR should continue to be blocked during this case. Unless someone disputes this proposed measure, I see no reason not to unblock immediately. nadav (talk) 09:40, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

If the case isn't going any further, and if FeloniousMonk doesn't publicly say that he is withdrawing his indefinite block, this is necessary. If the case goes further, this can wait. GRBerry 17:06, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

• Based on the discussion here, I have asked on ANI whether there is or is not any opposition to unblocking PalestineRemembered for all purposes as of now, to see if this can be addressed by consensus at the admin level. Editors with a view on this issue can comment here. Newyorkbrad 17:48, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Per consensus here and AN/I, I've lifted all restrictions on PR's editing[4]. Ryan Postlethwaite 19:51, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

• I had already lifted them. [5] I hope PR will accept Jay's apology so we can move on. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:06, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Arbitration is closed

2) This arbitration case is closed with immediate effect. All sides are advised to seek additional methods of dispute resolution before bringing this back to arbitration.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Agree. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 19:17, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

PR -- yes, editing is difficult on articles about difficult subjects. No reason it shouldn't be; there are indeed red lines, and those have to do with attibution and neutrality. It's quite reasonable that something that looks like it was drawing upon utterly unreliable (and downright nasty) sources raises eyebrows; and when poor attribution is provided, it's perhaps a little too easy to fail to assume good faith. What would you consider a satisfactory resolution of this arbitration? Nobody is going to be penalized; nobody is going to be chastised; it's already established that attribution to secondary sources needs to be explicit. You made an attribution error; someone got overly bothered by it; people talked; it got fixed. What more can be done? --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 15:56, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

OK, now PR says on the evidence page, evidence suggests this particular incident is a straightforward content dispute. Indeed. So why are we here? --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 14:24, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

In the interests of precision, the statement in my evidence now reads: "But that the evidence suggests this particular incident is a straightforward content dispute. The evidence suggests that this apparent content dispute was actually manufactured in order to stop uncontestable 59 year old history being added to articles." PalestineRemembered 18:11, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I guarantee you that won't fly. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 04:30, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Um, I hate to play bailiff here, but aren't these little sectional walls are supposed to stop what could quickly become a rambling free for all? I believe PR misusing the term "content dispute" anyway. -- Kendrick7^talk 06:00, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Feel free to refactor by moving PR's comments down to the appropriate places. Thanks. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 17:21, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

I would like ArbCom to look at the issues raised. The chill regarding this topic makes editing very difficult and could give the impression there are red-lines. PalestineRemembered 07:09, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

As of this moment, the arbitrators apparently wish to accept this case by six votes in favour and one against. I would plead with them all to be stalwart and to recognise the issues at stake. Thankyou. PalestineRemembered 18:11, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

If there was a chill of the sort you suggest, you'd not have been unblocked. The "red line" was the alleged unacknowledged use of a Holocaust denial website. As it became apparent that you didn't actually do that, the community changed its mind. You are free to move on as most everyone agrees you should be. I am sorry that this happened to you, and I am sorry that, based only upon the information that was presented to me, I recommended your ban before turning around and questioning it on WP:CSN. If anyone gives you trouble related to that mistaken charge, let me know.Proabivouac 09:10, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Precisely what probivouac stated there, but I might add that you are unblocked, you've got no restrictions on your edits and the only person who seems bothered about your ability to edit is yourself. Your continuing to make a big deal out of this when you should be getting on with something constructiive. Ryan Postlethwaite 12:07, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

• Agree with Jpgordon. Close the case, and follow WP:DR with an RfC. Let's move on, shall we? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:22, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed. Seriously, this is a complete waste of time, we can handle this - someone file an RfC if they really want something doing here, but I fail to see the point of this carrying on. No-ones going to get banned, no-ones going to get admonished and it seems highly likely that the arbitration committee will either find nothing at all, or find something minor for the sake of doing so. As I said on the talk page, let's kick this into touch at the moment - it's way too premature. Ryan Postlethwaite 18:14, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Admitidely, PR is still technically blocked (only able to edit ArbCom pages) - but this can be rectified, as soon as it closes he can be free to edit how he wants, and participate in his RfC if people really want to take it further. There's now no consensus to ban/block him, so let's get on with more important things. Ryan Postlethwaite 18:17, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I support this proposal. An admin posted a request for input on AN/I and that input was given. Halfway through the process, someone prematurely filed this RfAr. If there are still issues to be resolved, we should use the dispute resolution process, although I can't even see what those issues would be. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:19, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Oppose. The RfAr was appropriate and correctly timed; the discussion had become a straightforward partisan brawl. There are clearly still issues to be resolved, in particular the strong evidence that the initial banning proposal was based on a mistaken assumption. It would be preferable if both parties could agree on an equitable solution (PR to admit error in miscitation, Jay to admit an erroneous accusation and withdraw it) so that this arbitration can be discontinued. However, discontinuing without an agreement would leave the issues outstanding and would do nothing to encourage either PR or Jay to work more constructively with each other in future. The likelihood of an arbitration finding fault on both sides should encourage them to find a mutually acceptable solution rather than finding themselves being censured for their actions. -- ChrisO 18:59, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

(Added) If Jay was careless enough to make a potentially libelous public accusation without a shred of hard evidence, in a bid to ban an editor with an opposing POV, why shouldn't he be admonished? It's a very serious error of judgment. -- ChrisO 19:23, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

The claim was not "potentially libelous," so let's not up the ante. Imagine the chaos if we were to start an ArbCom case every time something factually incorrect was said about another person; Chris, you've said things about me that are false, so I could bring a case against you.

It seems to me that certain people are just using this as a platform to attack Jay, even though all he did was ask for input on AN/I, which is what admins are supposed to do when they have concerns. Let's face it, PR is not exactly a good editor. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:38, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

It's exactly nebulous claims like people claiming "PR is not exactly a good editor" which are as good a reason as any to go forward. Just the way even his second and third block proposals were titled The return of PalestineRemembered and PalestineRemembered again as if he were some endlessly problematic editor have been prejudicial, when, still, no one have presented any diffs as evidence to support such an idea. -- Kendrick7^talk 20:11, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

PR messed up with some citing, Jay messed up and thought he was adding false sources into an article and lost patience and took it to AN/I, it went to CN, PR got blocked, there's no consensus for the block to go ahead now, so lets close, move on and allow everyone to get on with their lives and PR and be properly unblocked. If people need it - heres the link they might need - no arbitration. Ryan Postlethwaite 20:24, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

It'd be nice if Jay withdrew the accusation that PR "copied his views and references from the Holocaust denial group the Institute for Historical Review". --Coroebus 20:38, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

We don't use arbitration to make people give forced appologies. Ryan Postlethwaite 20:45, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

That was intended more to convey that if Jay withdrew the accusation, and since PR has admitted misattributing his citation, that'd pretty much be it closed. --Coroebus 20:48, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

That would be a reasonable outcome. Let both acknowledge making mistakes and let them go on their way. -- ChrisO 22:41, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I have no problem admitting any mistakes I've made, retracting any false information I've provided and apologising to anyone who has been damaged or hurt by my actions. PalestineRemembered 19:26, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Kendrick, you want to "go forward" so you can use this case as a platform to attack Jay. I had little or nothing to do with PR, but my recollection is that he added his own opinions to articles, and constantly abused other editors. Even you told him he was out of order, Kendrick, and you've supported other disruptive editors because they were anti-Zionist (e.g. the Disruptive Apartheid editor), so PR must have been seriously abusive for you to say: "Geez PR, can you please take your foot out of your mouth and try better next time? Your edits to articles aren't terrible, but you have to do something about all the anti-Zionist rants ..." [6] There's no sense in misusing the dispute resolution in this way to discuss a lack of consensus to block an editor, just so that certain others can get their digs in about Jay. It's a waste of everyone's time, and it's actually making the attackers look bad, not Jay. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:40, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I'm not certain I have any real problem with Jay. If you are talking about User:Kiyosaki, he was my first run-in with any of the incarnations of the DAE, and I WP:AGF'd perhaps longer than most, but I did stop editing with him, and ultimately ignored his cries for my help well before the community properly banned him as a sock. As for PR, I supported PR's second block and gave him some constructive advice. -- Kendrick7^talk 21:21, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, frankly I'm getting very tired of this habit of yours of making unprovoked attacks against other editors. You did exactly the same against G-Dett on Talk:Pallywood a while back and you're right, I do "feel that [you] contributed to a poor atmosphere" by doing so. The atmosphere on articles about Arab-Israeli issues isn't just poor, it's thoroughly venomous. This debacle is a direct result of that - essentially, it's Jay lashing out at an editor who annoyed him. From what I've seen of your contributions, you're fully participating in the poisonous backbiting that's going on. Please stop this. It's absolutely not appropriate conduct for any administrator, let alone one as experienced as you. -- ChrisO 22:12, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Chris, I'm equally sick of your snide remarks and your certainty that you're the only neutral editor on these articles. You're far from neutral, and you contribute substantially to the poisonous atmosphere, and in fact often initiate it. If you want to avoid poison, you could make a start by not trying to turn ArbCom cases into attacks on admins because you disagree with them politically. Be the change you want to see in the world. SlimVirgin ^(talk)

You appear to be mistaking "holding administrators accountable for poor judgment" with "attacks on admins". I believe in accountability. Do you? -- ChrisO 01:06, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I think if you and I are going to argue, we should take it elsewhere. But to reply, I believe in being responsible and using common sense. What a responsible admin would have done in this case is quietly e-mail Jay and point out to him that there was evidence that PR had taken the material from a legit source. Jay would then likely have posted to that effect on AN/I and withdrawn his concerns, and that would have been the end of it. Instead, a bunch of people (including the usual suspects) jumped on the chance to kick Jay to the curb, and started the pompous footstomping about how outrageous it is to block an account with all of 200 edits to the encyclopedia, who's been ranting about Zionists almost the whole time he's been here. It hasn't reflected well on you, speaking of accountability. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:18, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

G-Dett did precisely this at 19:51, 13 May, on the community noticeboard: "PalestineRemembered gives his source here: Bitter Harvest: a Modern History of Palestine, by Sami Hadawi, p.59 [7]." Jay dismissed this at 20:28, insisting that "the charges were accompanied by evidence, and they appear to be as true as ever"; he posted again at 20:46 to reiterate his certainty. Zero0000 posted on the CN at 12:23 on 14 May that he had been able to establish PR's source definitively. However, Jay has not made any public comment on this matter since 14 May. While I don't think anyone here is defending PR's past record (I'm certainly not), getting rid of a bad editor using a baseless accusation is not the way that it's done in these parts. I'd like to think that we as a community have a bit more integrity than that. -- ChrisO 01:39, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Come on, Chris, you know as well as I do that if this involved an editor called User:ZionismForever, who went around insulting Arab or Muslim editors, and who'd made only 200 edits to articles, you wouldn't have batted an eyelid if he was banned, no matter the reason. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:18, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

If this case doesn't go forward, then I'm sure soon enough there'll be more "PR at it yet again" threads on the noticeboard, or else this'll end up here at arbcom again in some other form. It is strange to me that he's been blocked so many times before, and when I looked at the supposed justifying diffs, they didn't really justify his harsh treatment. All the hazy allegations in the air should be either conclusively proven or summarily withdrawn. Otherwise, they will continue to color people's perceptions of him, will affect his ability to freely edit, and will probably be used as vague justification for yet another block. nadav (talk) 21:15, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Nadav1 articulates the key point here, and well.--G-Dett 21:34, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Disagree - There are still too many issues here. PR is not willing to have Jayjg apologise for the sake of closing this case. Why is PR still blocked? He's done nothing wrong. All involved editors should be blocked, or none should be. Why has Jayjg been given the benefit of the doubt beyond all evidence, yet PR still blocked in the absence of any eviedence of wrong-doing. Mark Chovain 21:49, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

He isn't blocked, and there are no other involved editors; all that happened here is that an admin posted his suspicions and other admins responded. There's no question that PR has been disruptive — the suspicion he was lifting material from a Holocaust denial website was simply the last straw. The community judged him insufficiently disruptive to block indefinitely. End of story. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:58, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

No evidence has been submitted to the case file yet that he has in recent months been "disruptive." This is the kind of statement that either should not be made, or should be profusely backed up with evidence, and is exactly what I was referring to above. PR has said that this case is about clearing his name of all such allegations (or proving them). nadav (talk) 22:11, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

No, Jay made a specific, unconditional assertion of fact (not "suspicions") against PR. Nor did the community "judge him insufficiently disruptive" - the judgment of some of the community (not including you) was that Jay had made an erroneous charge. It wasn't a matter of being "insufficiently disruptive", it was a matter of there literally being no basis to the charge. Really, it doesn't do you any credit to misrepresent things this way. -- ChrisO 22:12, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

He is still blocked. The software block has been lifted to let him edit this page, but he will be blocked again if he edits anything else, as happened the other day. How would we all like being treated as a guilty party when there is still no evidence supporting a block? Mark Chovain 22:29, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

If it closes now, PR can edit as he wishes - there really isn't anything to arbitrate. Ryan Postlethwaite 22:04, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

So tell me - if Jayjg were incorrectly accused of something, without any evidence, would he be blocked for the duration of his defence, and told, "If you let this go quietly, we'll let the block go." Great... Mark Chovain 22:32, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

The key question is this: does Jay still stand by his original charge that PR "copied his views and references from the Holocaust denial group the Institute for Historical Review"? (And since she's here, can I ask SlimVirgin if she still stands by her charge that PR made "fraudulent use of material"?) The allegations haven't been withdrawn. If Jay stands by his charge we can't dismiss the case summarily. I've asked him to clarify his position, and I hope he takes this opportunity to withdraw the charge - I note that PR has already acknowledged his errors in the evidence page. If Jay does agree to withdraw, I'd be in favour of closing the case as well. Hopefully both parties will then reflect on this episode and learn the appropriate lessons. -- ChrisO 22:12, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

It looks like the constant back-and-forths between administrators in good standing, as well as the desire of one of the involved parties to continue, are further reinforcement of the reasons the arbitrators took on this case. I am disappointed that quarrels of this sort are occurring on the very page that is meant to resolve them. nadav (talk) 01:31, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm a bit confused; which of the involved parties wishes to continue? Also, I'm not quite sure how disputes on this page between various other administrators are relevant to this specific case, or would have any impact whatsoever on the merits of this case. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:10, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

At present, it is PR wishing to continue. He's concerned that he'll be right back where he started if this gets swept under the carpet. Mark Chovain 02:46, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I've read Zero's explanation of where PR's information could have come from, and in the interests of concluding this dispute, I'm happy to accept his evidence, and I apologize to PalestineRemembered for not asking him directly where he really got his material from before soliciting advice on AN/I. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:03, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I believe that addresses the outstanding issue (hopefully to PR's satisfaction). Assuming all parties are happy I support Ryan's motion that this arbitration be closed. -- ChrisO 02:06, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I'll let PR know that you "accept the evidence" "in the interests of concluding this dispute". You use interesting wording though. "... Zero's explanation of where PR's information could have come from". Is there a competing hypothesis? Mark Chovain 02:46, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

of course there is. A competing hypothesis is that PR got the quote exactly where jay claims he did, but once he became aware of the fuax pas, he quickly searched for alternate sources (or has some alternate sources conveniently provided to him by his supporters) and once he found a more respectable source, claimed that is the original source. I don't know if this is the case any more than i know if the former hypothesis is true - but let's not pretend that jaygj's original hypothesis has somehow been proven false by the emergence of an equally credible or even more credible hypothesis. Isarig 03:13, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I think Zero showed that the wording of the edit made it more likely that it had come from the book than from the Holocaust denial site. The point is that PalestineRemembered has edited in such a way that his taking material from a Holocaust denial site is not beyond the bounds of real possibility, given his obsession with "Zionists." If anything good can come of this, it'll be that PR changes his editing style so that the benefit of the doubt is extended more readily in future. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:19, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

showing that one hypothesis is more likely than another is not the same as proving one hypothesis correct and the other false. Isarig 03:22, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

There was never anything to recommend or support the Holocaust-denial hypothesis, except that it was the only source of the Evening Star quote that Jay knew of. PR, however, knew of another, from Hadawi's Bitter Harvest, which he provided almost immediately after he was informed of the controversy. The accuracy of his page citation has been independently verified; PR's source predates Jay's source by six years; it is not mentioned by Jay's source, and it is not available online (ruling out the "quickly-searched-for-alternate-sources" theory, which frankly smacks of desperation). In short, there is no link between the two. You may if you wish continue to imagine that in addition to finding his material in Bitter Harvest, PR also found it on a Holocaust denial website. You may also imagine, if you like, that PR is this very moment wearing a green velvet tuxedo and is bouncing on a trampoline on the lawn in front of his parents' house. Both propositions are possible, and you have as much evidence for one as you do for the other.--G-Dett 03:40, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

you are confusing "lack of supportive evidence" with "proven false". The two are not the same, as a basic introductory logic course will teach you. As I wrote, I don't know if the competing hypothesis is true, and I don't know if the other one is true, either. One may be more plausible than the other, but let's not pretend that this is "proof", one way or the other. Isarig 03:48, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, which "hypothesis" are we talking about now? Holocaust denial or tuxedos and trampolines?--G-Dett 03:52, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Since you are apparently just begging for a quick intro to logic, as well as for a lesson about conflating "lack of evidence" with "proof", here's a little story: Contrary to what you wrote, the nearly exact text of what PR inserted into the article as a quote attributed to the Auckland paper, to wit , "lay in Jerusalem's Hall of Heroism and were given a military burial on Mt Herzl" is available on line, an is in fact the 2nd link that comes up when you insert that quoted sentence into Google. The first link is a WP link related to our discussion here, which means that at the time of jay's report, that link was actually the first. That link gives as its source "http://www.network54.com/Forum/145962" - which happens to be a Forum now shut down, becuase it contained "links to nudity, sex, pornography, illegal activities, unauthorized use or distribution of copyrighted material(s) (including 'warez' boards), mail fraud and pyramid schemes, hatred and racism of any kind, guns or firearms, or any other material that may be deemed libelous or offensive to another individual or organization.". A little further snooping in internet archives will show you the kind of offensive material that Forum 145962 used to contain and got it shut down - screeds against "Jew york", 'Jewish theivs" etc.. [8] as well as, surprise surprise, support for Holocuast denial and revisionism [9] - not too far a cry from what Jay was claiming. Does this prove Jay was correct? of course not. But It does put your false claim that PR's source 'is not available online (ruling out the "quickly-searched-for-alternate-sources" theory', and illustrates rather nicley why current paucity of evidence is not the same as proving the theory false. Isarig 04:31, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Isarig, do not talk to me about elementary logic. You are eight days into this and still fumbling around with the pieces of child's jigsaw puzzle, ages 3 & up. I wrote that PR's source (Bitter Harvest, 1989, p.59) "is not available online (ruling out the "quickly-searched-for-alternate-sources" theory, which frankly smacks of desperation)." The point being that you cannot track down this particular citation to Bitter Harvest online, so your theory (or "hypothesis," or whatever the latest word you're dishonoring) that PR "quickly searched for alternate sources" is ridiculous. You are imagining that he darted to the library and raced to the Israel-Palestine section, and began yanking books off the shelf and looking for references to Lord Moyne. This is your "hypothesis" which hasn't been "disproved." Your sophistry has the sole purpose of keeping the ghost of a smear alive on life support; it is intellectually and ethically disgraceful.--G-Dett 14:01, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

The line on that site (which is otherwise in Italian) is "His body was given a military hero burial and lay at Jerusalem Hall of Heroism on Mt. Herzl" which has no citation except to that shutdown website (last archived in Apr 2006). It is logically possible that PR sourced his quote from this site if it has a more accurate version, and he kept the details of it after the site shutdown. But it is still not logically possible for him to have solely sourced the quote where Jay alleged, as Zero's evidence demonstrates, and if he didn't solely source it there, in what way is he supposed to have sourced it from that site, what evidence is there that he did, and why would he have bothered if he already had a source?. --Coroebus 09:30, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

(This is a silly argument but...) this version is factually incorrect. The Jerusalem Hall of Heroism is not on Mt. Herzl, it's in the Russian Compound. The version in Bitter Harvest is correct. --Zero^talk 12:58, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

May I ask that you add this as a statement on the evidence page. Also, there should be a statement on the evidence page that includes all the refutations that have been given for why PR did not copy from the Holocaust denial site. They have not been collected into one place yet. nadav (talk) 04:50, 22 May 2007 (UTC) It is an unrealistic suggestion that PR took his quotes from the non-identical bulletin board quotes when in fact he already owns the Hadawi book that has the exact form of the quotations he used. If, however, you really believe this is possible, then you should add this as evidence. If it is not submitted as evidence, then it is irresponsible to continue this atmosphere of unproven, damaging insinuations about PR's actions. Moreover, the burden of proof is on PR's accusers, and they should not use words such as "logically, he could have done it." We would not allow these kind of statements in biographies of living people, so why allow them in reference to fellow wikipedians? nadav (talk) 05:26, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

And claims that both hypotheses are equivilent are exactly why PR wants this case to continue. Mark Chovain 04:45, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

The above is not a claim that both hypotheses are equivalent, but rather an illustration of why saying one hypotheses is more plausible than another is a far cry from proving the other hypotheses false. Do you understand the difference? You are not doing your client any favors by prolonging this case, because as this little exercise shows, it is easy to cast doubt on the strength of the (currently) more plausible theory, with the consequence that it will not be as easy to get him unblocked. Isarig 04:53, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

It's not my choice to keep it open. That's PR's choice. Once again, you've proposed this idea of "Drop the argument against Jayjg, and the block against PR will be dropped". Why is PR currently blocked? (I'd really like an answer to that) Mark Chovain 05:17, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

It's worth bearing in mind that, wherever PR took the material from, he added his usual spin to it. The Holocaust denial site calls the two subjects of the edit "assassins." The book PR says he used names but doesn't describe them. But PR calls them "terrorist assassins" in his edit. [10] He had no source for that. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:51, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion: All individuals who continue to stand by the allegation should add themselves as involved parties to this case. nadav (talk) 04:04, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I'll support whatever PR wishes to do at this point. I well understand his wish to clear his name, as well as his fear that closing arbitration may land him right back where he started – to wit: an editor who may be slandered with neither initial evidence nor subsequent apology; an editor to whom WP:AGF does not apply; an editor who is subject to personal attacks, either of the nastily direct or cattily indirect variety; and – apparently – an editor subject to Checkuser investigation without probable cause or indeed any cause at all. I am as eager as ChrisO and Proabivouac are to see this end bloodlessly, but I'm afraid I agree with Mark that the apology on offer is rather weaselly.--G-Dett 03:26, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

This isn't about getting an appology - arbitration isn't here for that. Ryan Postlethwaite 10:04, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

My suggestion was not that we use arbitration to procure an apology, but rather that a proper apology might obviate arbitration.--G-Dett 19:07, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I am opposed to this motion, but not for the reasons stated by others. I think the ArbCom should take the opportunity to look at how CSN operates and consider whether to impose limitations on what it can do. This is nothing to do with PR or Jayjg except that those two were players in an opera that shows how necessary such a review is. If nothing is done, CSN behavior is going to look more and more like like mob violence. --Zero^talk 13:04, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

That's not a job for arbitation, that's a job for the community to decide - if there's a problem with CSN, then you can take it to the talk page or start another MfD. Ryan Postlethwaite 15:50, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

To SlimVirgin. Could you please start listening to what people think about Jayjg and stop repeating your infamous people using this or that platform to attack Jay rhetoric? Your comments usually follow Jayjg's ones. Jay said I am proposing a permanent block at this point at the end of his CSN comment. He only apologized after a long long time. He hasn't even taken time to explain to us his long long blocks of PR though he edits the same articles as him. While PR was blocked from editing articles, Jay was doing just that, editing! And now he apologizes. These are good news but where has he been all these days? People disagree w/ Jayjg when he's wrong and you don't need to tell those people what to do! Please ask Jayjg on my behalf to justify his long blocks. Keep in mind that i am for closing this ArbCom case but with all dignity to PR. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 21:01, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Support closure. There is nothing remaining to arbitrate. As for leaving some "issues" unresolved, virtually all of the WP arbitration cases that I have read, have left something that someone thought was an issue, unresolved. In some cases there were issues that I myself would have liked to have seen resolved, but the arbitrators went only so far as they felt they needed to go. Sometimes that leaves what someone may think is a "cloud" over them or someone else, but that is just the way the system works. Right now, for example, there is an arb case pending that (at last count) has 62 proposed principles and 31 proposed remedies, and based on the discussion I have a strong feeling that a substantial number of the issues raised are not going to be answered by the committee one way or the other. I also have no doubt that to at least some people, "clouds" and "chilling effects" will remain when that case is concluded. The same may be true here, except that this case is the proverbial "picnic" compared to the other one. 6SJ7 18:36, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

This looks like a dead case to me. PR has been told he is fully unblocked, nobody else seems interested enough to say that there is still a dispute about the facts of this case. (There is of course, the never ending dispute between the pro-Israeli and pro-Palestinian factions among Wikipedia editors, but we aren't going to solve that in a single arbitration case.) Can one of the arbitrators hop over to proposed decisions and start the funeral for this case? (In other words, I agree now with this.) GRBerry 13:48, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I am deeply unhappy. I don't know the way forwards, but it cannot be satisfactory that this kind of thing can happen and the system not be able to cope with it. It's not as if lessons have been learnt - yesterday I noticed another case of blatant ethnic/religious bias ruining an article and imposing very nasty smears on a man who (I'm pretty sure) is entirely honourable. My documenting of this is, yet again, not ignored - but greeted as if it was me trying to inject the nastiest kind of religious bigotry into the discussion.[11] There may be many other weaknesses in my edits, but my real crime is protesting against bigotry/racism in articles. Earlier, I was blocked for a month simply and solely for speaking out against divisive ethnic labelling of people in articles - see [12] and [13].

You're absolutely right that the Palestine topic is polarised and the ArbCom has no chance of solving it. (Or even levelling the playing field). However, this ArbCom did have a chance to stop what we saw happening, which was content dispute resolution by 1) personal attack 2) by blockings and then 3) by more personal attack. I don't know how this case might have turned out (I might be declared temprementally unsuitable to be an editor). But the case stalled because of the nastiness of the debate - the very thing it was called to deal with. I don't think it's unreasonable to want exoneration from the specific allegation laid against me, and I can't believe anyone else thinks it's unreasonable. You're quite right to say "nobody else seems interested enough to say there is still a dispute about the facts" - but any dispute about the facts lasted at the most a few hours. The problem comes entirely from a different fact - my accuser/s make it clear I'll not get any retraction. That doesn't augur very well.

PS - I am working on drafts for several new articles, one in particular (if I get there before someone else does). It won't be perfect by any means as it falls from my fingers. But it could become a good article - if the system is allowed to work as it was designed to do. PalestineRemembered 17:06, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Template

3)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Proposed temporary injunctions

[edit] Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Template

2)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Template

3)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Template

4)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Questions to the parties

[edit] Proposed final decision

[edit] Proposed principles

[edit] Community bans

1) Community bans are enacted where a user has exhausted the community's patience to the point where he or she has been indefinitely blocked by an administrator—and no one is willing to unblock them. If there is not a strong consensus for a ban, then it should not be enforced.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Absolutely. A community ban is a block that no administrator will undo. Mackensen (talk) 15:02, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. Ryan Postlethwaite 21:45, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Right this I assume means that community bans are not a vote correct? It is useless to speak about percentages, if uninvolved editors in good standing object to a ban, then its not time to ban. —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 23:46, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Community bans have never been a vote. The key point is that the user "has been indefinitely blocked by an administrator — and no one is willing to unblock them". In this particular case, no ban was in force - Jayjg was soliciting a ban, not implementing one. Strictly speaking, the discussion was a misuse of the community sanctions noticeboard (though it's not Jay's fault, since he originally posted his ban request to WP:AN/I and it got moved to the CN by someone else). -- ChrisO 23:22, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I altogether dislike the idea of the community sanction noticeboard for the same reason as above. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 04:29, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I've written up a slightly better wording of the two general requirements for a community ban bellow. (Must be consensus supported, must have followed the exhaustion of other options.) --Barberio 18:03, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Citing sources

2) It is improper to copy a citation from an intermediate source without making clear that you saw only that intermediate source.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I apologise for breaching this valuable guideline. PalestineRemembered 17:54, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Oppose - it seems this guideline (though in my IMHO valuable) is disputed. There is no consensus to call the practise of which I'm accused "improper".

And accusations of breach have even been associated with absurd bias amounting to zealotry. Seen at ^[1] and quoted in the WP at No.38. Alan Dershowitz says of his detractors: "...... [t]heir absurd accusation is that I should have cited these quotes not to their original source but rather to the secondary source in which ­they erroneously claim ­I first came across them. No one but anti-Israel zealots takes these biased charges seriously ......". PalestineRemembered 15:51, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed. The wording is taken directly from WP:CITE#Say where you got it. -- ChrisO 23:30, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

This could be a little stronger. As WP:CITE#Say where you got it says, one should actually cite the intermediate source. I wonder how this can become an enforceable policy rather than just a guideline as WP:CITE seems to make it. Having an ArbCom ruling would be a start, but somehow this should get into an official policy page. With the status of WP:ATTR still up in the air, where should it go? --Zero^talk 12:21, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Evidentiary basis for banning

3) Proposed and enacted bans must be based on well-documented evidence of misconduct.

Comment by Arbitrators:

I suspect the casework for this is thin, if only because this business at WP:CN is such a new development. There's really no agreed policy for such a thing, whatever certain partisans have argued. Quickpolls, as I recall, never claimed to "ban" anybody. The whole idea behind a community ban was that no-one could forsee undoing the block, which was obviously not the case here. Complicated cases went to the Arbitration Committee, who had the time and patience to review the evidence. Even Arbcom doesn't "ban" longer than one year most of the time. Mackensen (talk) 15:05, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. A very basic principle, though surprisingly enough it doesn't seem to be listed in Wikipedia:Arbitration policy/Past decisions. Maybe an arbitrator can provide guidance on whether this has already been established? -- ChrisO 23:42, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Necessary for basic fair process. The default reaction to a proposal that doesn't include well-documented evidence should be to laugh it off the CSN page. Any anyone enacting a ban should be responsible to make sure there is a collection of such evidence somewhere (even if that somewhere is a temp page to be deleted for BLP concerns), and link to it in the indefinite block summary or a contemporary note on the subjects talk page, so that the evidence will be available later for other admins to review or to reference in a request for checkuser. Admins leave Wikipedia for various reasons, and leaving the justification for their actions behind is worthwhile. However, I don't know if this is a needed finding. GRBerry 17:14, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Use of single purpose accounts

4) The use of a single-purpose account for a given class of edits is permitted. However, it does not give an editor free rein to use that account abusively.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I can confirm that I have never used this account (by itself or in conjunction with others) in a deceitful or abusive fashion. I'm not aware of anything that would suggest abusive use. PalestineRemembered 18:11, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed, based closely on wording in Wikipedia:Arbitration policy/Past decisions#Sockpuppets (and related principles). The key principle here is that SPAs should not be used abusively. See also Wikipedia:Single-purpose account. -- ChrisO 08:44, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Alternate accounts should not be used either to give the impression that there is more support for a position than actually exists, or to avoid the scrutiny of other editors by ensuring you leave no audit trail. WP:SOCK says:

Using sock puppet accounts to split your contributions history means that other editors can't detect patterns in your contributions. While it may be legitimate to do this from time to time (for example, by creating a special account to make edits that might serve to identify you in real life or to avoid harassment), it is a violation of this policy to create multiple accounts in order to confuse or deceive editors who may have a legitimate interest in tracking your contributions.

If PR did this, then he's in violation of the policy, which means the account should be indefblocked, and the main account blocked at the discretion of the blocking admin. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:05, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

If, if, if. Where's the evidence that a) he is a sockpuppet, and b) that he has attempted to deceive anyone? Mark Chovain 22:01, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps we should ask for a check user. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:04, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't there need to be probable cause or evidence of some sort to do this? Or is idle curiosity considered sufficient?--G-Dett 22:38, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. There's no evidence of sockpuppetry that I'm aware of, and I've not seen any evidence that PR has been attempting to "confuse or deceive editors". Absent such abuse, the use of SPAs is entirely legitimate. I should emphasize that "single purpose account" is not synonymous with "sockpuppet". -- ChrisO 22:20, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Does it mean nothing to you that he has done nothing wrong? Mind if I send some investigators around to go through your home? If you want to know if he's a sock-puppet, just ask him (don't forget to say "please"). Mark Chovain 22:42, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] One hat at a time

5) Administrators must relinquish their administrative roles when involved in editorial or personal disputes with good-faith editors. If administrative duties are called for, "involved" administrators are expected to seek assistance from uninvolved administrators.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. The quality of this discussion is poisoned by the number of editors commenting here who have been blocked or threatened with blocks by other editors here. Jd2718 04:58, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Outside comment: Agreed. Would be more likely to have less admin abuse, thus less RfC's, RfArb's, AN/I is less cluttered, less complaining, you get the idea. Brining in another admin may cause problems, but it's adding in a third party, which hopefully will be neutral. Whsitchy 20:54, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

My intention in proposing this was genuine. I lifted it from the Zero/Zeq proposals. However, what had been passing 4-0 was eventually defeated 4-4, with [some very strong reasoning against] ([and here]).I would suggest that there is a problem that still needs to be recognized, but in a different way: In articles covering dispute X vs Y, where most of the editors are quite openly Pro-X or Pro-Y, that it is a problem for admins who edit Pro-X to take admin action (or make admin threats) against Pro-Y editors, and vv. Can't we get language that does [this] without inviting trolling?

I can see and accept the reasoning of the arbitrators in the Z/Z case - admins have to be trusted. An over-reliance on "process" is going to hamper good administration. But nobody can deny there were big problems in this PR case. There was rampant partisanship in the attempt to block me eg we've had an enormous amount of bluster and horrendous accusations against me and others - but still no scrap of evidence (or argument) that I was really acting in a disruptive fashion. I was striving to make unpopular edits - but they were all based on "information", and much of it was provably good.

Policy specifically allows me to act as an SPA, a "Single Purpose Account" in order to make edits which may be partisan (or consistently unpopular for any reason). But I don't see that policy does (or ever could) allow anyone to be similarily partisan while setting policy, or while sitting in judgment. This may be the crux of the problem that the ArbCom needs to look at - when can members of the project act as if they're prejudiced and when can they not? PalestineRemembered 18:53, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Community bans require community consensus.

6) Community bans are enforced when it is assured "there is a consensus of community support for the block". A plurality or numerical majority of admin choosing to place an indefinite block is not a community ban.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. --Barberio 18:00, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment: What defines "consensus", is it a majority? That may lead to problems down the road if it isn't defined. Whsitchy 20:58, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Consensus. --Barberio 17:20, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for linking to that, appreciate it. None the less, I'm having a hard time understanding that. What I'm interpreting is that "if most of the community agrees with it, it's ok, and that the dissenting parties have to go with it", which sounds to me like another way of saying "lets vote on it". m:Polling is evil says we shouldn't vote. Personally, community bans are abuse potential for "weeding out" "unwanted" members. I think there should be some requirement to put someone up for a community ban, which I'll outline below. Whsitchy 18:35, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

No, weight of opinion is dependant on the arguments made. If there's a significant number of holdouts who are making competent arguments for their position, it's not consensus. On the other hand, if there's a number of people just 'voting' against or for something, those can be ignored as not bringing 'rational arguments'. If instance consensus says 'The sky is blue', and someone says 'No! The sky is orange and purple polka-dots!' that doesn't break the consensus. But if someone says 'Sometimes, the sky is black', that does break consensus. --Barberio 15:41, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Community bans require rational attempts to resolve the situation.

7) Community bans are enforced "where a user has exhausted the community's patience". Community bans should follow after other attempts to resolve the situation through dispute resolution, warning or short term blocks. These attempts should have been recent, and related to the current situation. Exceptions to this should be made only when it would be clearly and unarguably purposeless to attempt dispute resolution.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. --Barberio 18:00, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry I oppose this. Principal 1 comes straight from WP:BAN, and gives the definition of a community ban - which is when no administrator is willing to unblock - this gives it a similar meaning, but not the same one as quoted in policy. Community bans can be enacted before dispute resolution as well. In the case of abusive sockpuppets - they are still banned but we don't send them through an RfC. Ryan Postlethwaite 10:16, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Edited to try and address this. Intent was to try and suppress use of unrelated distant history to say "we don't need to go through dispute resolution with this guy, he's obviously bad!". --Barberio 15:55, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Blocks are used for project protection and to halt disruptive behaviour, not to enforce content guidelines and policy.

8) While the article content guidelines and policies are fundamental to Wikipedia, blocks should not be placed for failing to meet the article content standards. Problems with an article should be corrected with consensus editing, using the dispute resolution process if required. Blocks should be placed only when a user's actions are disruptive or threatening.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

It goes without saying that blocks are about protecting the project from disrupton, not enforcing content standards. PalestineRemembered 21:45, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed. There are some people who seem to think 'violating WP:CITE' is reason for a block. What's next, blocking for 'persistent spelling mistakes'? --Barberio 10:12, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

No, blocks can be issued as a protective measure if users are consistently failing to meet the article content guidlines, we block persistant creators of new pages against our guidlines, we block users for not citing cources in living biolgraphies - there's a lot of things users can get blocked for regarding article content guidelines. Ryan Postlethwaite 10:18, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and consistant poor citations is clearly grounds for a block - it's effectively adding illigal material. Ryan Postlethwaite 10:19, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

If that's so, then the the blocking guidelines are wrong when it says blocks are to protect the wiki, not punish transgression. Persistent creation of speedy deleted material is disruptive behaviour, not a content issue. Putting potentially libellous material in a living biography is a threat to the wiki. Neither of those are rooted in the content issue, but the user behaviour and it's impact on the wiki as a whole. --Barberio 13:10, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Continuously poor citing sources could result in a block. Ryan Postlethwaite 15:49, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

By that reckoning, we should be blocking most casual editors! --Barberio 17:08, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

No, you misunderstand. Let me give an example. I monitor a certain slang list where it was decided to employ strict sourcing criteria for inclusion of new items. Certain editors were upset that they couldn't add their favorite neologism, so would they began to make up false citations to re-add the word. I went up the ladder of {{uw-unsourced1}} warnings and they eventually stopped. But if they were to continue, I think that would be an example of a blockable offense. In general, when a person persistently abuses citations in bad-faith, then it's an easy reason to block. nadav (talk) 17:45, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, and that would have been disruptive vandalism, and the block would have been to protect from vandalism not because of a incorrect citation. --Barberio 20:00, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

It's not exactly vandalism (in the sense of WP:VANDAL) because they may really believe that adding the content is useful or important to Wikipedia, but don't have or are too lazy to find sources. For example they might be pushing a POV, say, or they insist on adding a true-but-unsourced negative comment to a BLP. There are many such cases where it's not vandalism but a breach of WP:CITE that could lead to a block if it becomes habitual. Indeed, if a person deliberately and consistently misrepresents sources, then they should and must be blocked, even though this doesn't neatly fit into any of the vandalism categories. nadav (talk) 21:04, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I think it's dangerous to block people for what are essentially content disputes. Determining reliability of a source is a subjective process that people have strong disagreements over when it comes to contentious articles and issues. Tiamut 13:01, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but I wasn't talking about that. I was talking about people who just invent the sources, not about reliability in the sense of WP:RS. nadav (talk) 15:48, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AGF is particularily important when community decisions are being made

9) "The principle of Accept Good Faith is an important part of the project. It is particularily important between editors when they are discussing accusations that have been made, evidence taken, decisions handed down and sanctions imposed. Participants will wish to be non-personal, and will wish to treat evidence in a constructive and non-partisan fashion. This duty becomes progressively more important with experience. If participants feel they have posted hastily or made other mistakes, they may wish to withdraw comments and in exceptional cases express remorse."

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. When the community is discussing admonishments or sanctioning of individuals, it is of the utmost importance that other editors feel they can contribute without suffering personal attack for it. PalestineRemembered 21:58, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bigotry has no place in the project

10) Bigotry has no place in Wikipedia - but neither do reckless accusations of bigotry.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. If there is only one lesson from this affair (and the subsequent behaviour associated with this ArbCom) then it should be that accusations of bigotry are poisonous to the workings of the project (almost as serious as a breach of WP:AGF), and must only be made with great care. PalestineRemembered 18:35, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Template

11) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Proposed findings of fact

[edit] The Community ban discussion failed to reach a consensus

1) Despite initial support, the community ban discussion failed to reach a consensus.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. Ryan Postlethwaite 21:51, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree here, though there was an attempt to close this as a "speedy ban" (my term) something less then 2 hours after it was opened. Thats not nearly enough time to dig for evidence. —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 23:48, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with this. By my count, there were 28 for a ban, 17 against, and three unclear. And this was a very dubious result, because the initial charge (of copying from a holocaust denial website) was totally unfounded and false. I don't see how this can be interpreted as community support for an indefinite ban. RolandR 00:51, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Right, but bans are not a vote, if upstanding editors that are not involved in the dispute object to the ban, it should not be done. (Also keep in mind that a ban is only an indef block that no other admin will undo) :) —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 01:58, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Agree. No need for counting as there was no evidence for the charges. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 01:57, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Locus of dispute

2) The locus of this dispute is the sourcing of a quote from the Auckland Evening Star newspaper.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. -- ChrisO 07:40, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Miscitation of source

3) In editing Zionist political violence PalestineRemembered erroneously cited a quotation from the Auckland Evening Star as coming from the original source, but failed to note that he had obtained the quotation from a secondary source.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I was attempting to add 4 seperate pieces of information to this article, all relatively uncontentious and well accepted. My attempts to improve this article met a wall of resistance, none of it based on potential unreliability in my material. If I'd been challenged in any fashion as to the provenance of my sources I'd have provided full detail, as I did very promptly when, without warning, I was faced with a perma-block for alleged citation to Holocaust Deniers. Only 2 of my "pieces of information" are currently in the article, but one of those pieces is the very one that I was challenged over. As I said, they're all well known and uncontentious. When all this is over, I look forwards to adding the rest of the material to the article, where I believe all of it belongs. PalestineRemembered 22:17, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed. PR has already admitted this, I believe. -- ChrisO 23:28, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Controversy over source

4) In proposing a community ban of PalestineRemembered, Jayjg asserted that PalestineRemembered had obtained the disputed quotation from a Holocaust denial website. In his defence, PalestineRemembered asserted that he had obtained the quotation from a mainstream work of scholarship published in 1989.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. This reflects the arguments and counter-arguments that have been put forward. -- ChrisO 07:52, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Evidentiary problems

5) Jayjg's initial proposal for a community ban presented no evidence that PalestineRemembered had used the Holocaust denial website as his source. No effort was made to verify this assertion and the possibility that other sources existed was not addressed.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. See my comments on the Evidence page. -- ChrisO 23:35, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dispute resolution not undertaken

6) Jayjg and PalestineRemembered did not discuss the disputed quotation prior to the community ban proposal, and dispute resolution was not undertaken.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed, based on the established sequence of events. -- ChrisO 07:59, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Dispute resolution wasn't undertaken before the RfAr was filed either, which is one of the reasons this case is inappropriate. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:47, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Let's not forget that six arbitrators agreed that the case was appropriate. It's their opinion that counts here. You might want to look at their reasons to refresh your memory. -- ChrisO 22:23, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

The ones who gave a reason seemed to think PR was going to be banned. But he isn't, so what's left to be done? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:46, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, as has already been pointed out, there's the not-insignificant issue of the outstanding allegation against PR. Is he guilty of plagiarising a Holocaust denial website and passing this off or isn't he? Do you still stand by your support of this claim? More importantly, does Jay? -- ChrisO 01:10, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Single-purpose account

7) PalestineRemembered is a self-acknowledged single-purpose account created for the purpose of editing articles relating to the Arab-Israeli conflict, a particularly contentious topic area.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I always believed my use of this account was sensible and reasonable. I trusted it would be to policy. As we now know, that proved to be the case (WP:SPA).

However, the concerted (and sometimes quite personal) attempts to make it seem otherwise have helped make it very, very difficult for an inexperienced editor to adjust to the ambience. I don't feel like a bitten newcomer but like a thoroughly chewed one. PalestineRemembered 19:21, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed. Should be uncontroversial, nobody disputes this. -- ChrisO 08:12, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Does this mean he's a sockpuppet of another editor? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:07, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe there is any subtext here. The proposed finding is only that his account is used for editing a narrow range of contentious articles; nothing more. If anyone wants to claim that PR is a sockpuppet, then that will need to be done separately, and would require a completely different set of evidence. I don't think anyone has anything to gain by mincing words or overloading meanings. Mark Chovain 04:42, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

If he's not a sockpuppet, what's the point of this finding, and what's the meaning of "self-acknowledged"? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:58, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

That's exactly the point I'm working towards. The fact he is a single purpose account was used as an argument for banning in the CSN discussion by a number of editors. No evidence has ever been presented that he is making any attempt to deceive other editors. The point is that this is a non-point. It's a little like a finding of "I woke up this morning". It doesn't mean anything, but other editors seem to want to bring it up over and over again. Mark Chovain 21:55, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

And where does he acknowledge it? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:45, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Who? PR? No-one in the case has asked him if he is a sock-puppet or not. Without any evidence of wrong-doing, why would it matter? If it's just for your own curiosity, then why not ask him yourself? Mark Chovain 22:05, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Chris O's proposal is "PalestineRemembered is a self-acknowledged single-purpose account ..." (emphasis added). My question is: where has he acknowledged it? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:35, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Single-purpose account#PalestineRemembered is an SPA. -- ChrisO 22:47, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Ah yes, sorry. And further to ChrisO's link, I can confirm that PR still stands by that statement. Mark Chovain 22:50, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

And further still to my link, an SPA is not synonymous with a sockpuppet. -- ChrisO 22:56, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

The SPA issue is a red herring. There are numerous SPAs on Israel-Palestine pages. Some have been at it for years and have even risen to the level of admins. PR has only been editing for a few months, and we really don't know what sort of range of interests he may or may not develop. That's his business, not that of Arbcom. Many editors begin by editing almost obsessively in a particular area, and then spiral outward from there. Maybe he will, maybe he won't, but it's beside the point. The only reason the SPA issue even came into the discussion is because several editors in the CS-discussion were under the erroneous impression that editing as an SPA was a bannable offense, whereas in fact it's specifically allowed. The SPA issue is relevant only insofar as it points to yet another way in which PR has been singled out.--G-Dett 13:29, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Contentious editing

8) PalestineRemembered has a history of contentious editing and has been blocked on three previous occasions in the past seven months.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I'd like to see this broken into two separate points. The claim of "a history of contentious editing" is subjective, should be quantified, and needs substantial evidence. The claim of three blocks is objective. While these are clearly related, the points are likely to be discussed in very different ways. Mark Chovain 10:19, 20 May 2007 (UTC) Retracted. Mark Chovain 22:06, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I second that very well articulated proposal. Tiamut 10:32, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed. -- ChrisO 08:12, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Unless evidence can be put forward that PR has been disruptive in recent months, I suggest a finding that he has made a good-faith effort to reform and contribute productively to the project. nadav (talk) 23:12, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. His past behavior is really of no bearing here, particularly since no evidence has been put forward by his accusors. Further, I don't understand why he is still being blocked, basically for no justifiable reason right now, and why unblocking is being used as a bargaining chip to get him to end this arbcomm procedure.Tiamut 14:20, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Disagree with the finding as written. I think the evidence shows progress towards reform, combined with continued imperfection. The diffs offered to support the third and the ban proposal are far less numerous than those offered to support the second, and the claim for the first was that nearly every edit was a problem. I don't see any bots as parties to this case, so it is safe to assume (without digging for individual diffs) that everyone in both the pro-Israeli and pro-Palestinian factions is human, and hence makes mistakes. GRBerry 17:21, 22 May 2007 (UTC) (Corrected upon further review of the evidence. GRBerry 01:04, 23 May 2007 (UTC))

[edit] Template

9) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Template

10) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Proposed remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

[edit] PalestineRemembered admonished

1) PalestineRemembered is admonished for breaching the citation guidelines, and is urged to take more care in future when citing sources.

Comment by Arbitrators:

I don't think this is necessary anymore; anyone reading this will have figured that out by now. There is no action to take at all now; this arbitration should be dropped without prejudice. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 15:47, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

PalestineRemembered pleads guilty to posting "Evening Star of Auckland, New Zealand of July 2, 1975".

When I should have said "footnote at the bottom of p59 of Sami Hadawi's Bitter Harvest, A modern history of Palestine. First published 1967, 3 impressions, Revised 1979 by Caravan books, 4 impressions. Revised and updated in 1990 Scorpion Publishing Ltd (with Olive Branch Press). ISBN 0-905906-85-3 - According to the Evening Star of Auckland, New Zealand of July 2, 1975 etc etc"

It might or might not have helped if I'd added "In London, the British Government expressed its regret that Israel saw fit to honor a terrorist act in its public ceremonies. ........ Labor MP David Watkins said "it was sad that 'cold-blooded murderers' should be represented as heroes." MP John Stokes said: "It makes the British people sick."".

However, all this information is well known and completely uncontentious. There is no obvious reason for it to be resisted and reverted from articles in the encyclopaedia. (In fact, others have made sure it is in the article now, though I'd very much like to Wikify it properly).

I plead for clemency on the grounds that it's not always easy to judge how much detail is necessary in an article especially in relation to an incident that is as undisputed as this one.

I also plead for clemency on the grounds that I produced the full citation within 2 hours of being challenged to do so, and then followed it up with scans and a photograph of me holding the book. PalestineRemembered 23:26, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed. This appears to be proportionate to the admitted offence. -- ChrisO 07:39, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Possibly, but this would be better sorted in an RfC, is there a pattern of bad citing of sources? No. Ryan Postlethwaite 22:07, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

As everyone is focused on attacking Jay or FeloniousMonk, it's worth remembering that PalestineRemembered is an editor who has made 206 edits to articles, and whose user page used to look like this:

I only post in on [sic] just one topic because I prefer to give away nothing about my real identity. As a precaution it's useless, the Zionists have vast resources available to track down and harrass people like me. They can again ring prominent people in my neighbourhood and point to what I've posted - but they can no longer pretend to be an individual who just happened to realise it was me.

Note: "[t]hey can again ring prominent people in my neighbourhood ..." Does he think this has been done already?

And:

There are potentially two good reasons for changing my name ... Perhaps "PalestineRemembered" could impact on people's impressions of WP. Mislead the passer-by into thinking that WP is not dominated by Zionists?

When he was asked to change his user page, he edited it to refer to "Onionists," instead of Zionists. [14]

PR has also been sending out e-mails to various people with talk of wild conspiracy theories including how lots of money is at stake and the Zionists want to shut up people like him.

Those who are defending him should ask themselves whether they'd defend an editor in a similar position if his name was User:ZionismForever, and if he'd posted on his user page that Wikipedia is dominated by Muslims; that Muslims have vast resources that they use to harass other editors, including calling their neighbors; and who was sending out e-mails to all and sundry claiming the Muslims are out to get him. And who, in addition, frequently added his own opinions to articles, to the point where almost everyone, friend and foe, was asking him to stop treating Wikipedia as his own blog; and who then, as a final straw, was suspected of mis-citing material.

My guess is that, if this was a pro-Israel editor who'd been behaving this badly, there wouldn't be a single peep out of any of the people who are trying to keep this case going. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:26, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Please note that both Kendrick and I both admonished PR for the two comments you quoted. Here's Kendrick's admonition; here's mine.

To your question about ZionismForever. When an AN/I came up for "Incivility, disruptive editing, and stalking-like behavior from Isarig," here is what I posted. Second paragraph on. I hope this answers your question.--G-Dett 22:56, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

No, it doesn't answer the question, because I wasn't asking about Isarig, but about a hypothetical pro-Israel editor who had gone around posting paranoid abuse about how Muslim editors controlled Wikipedia and were out to get him, including having telephoned his neighbors. User:Daniel575 was blocked several times then indefinitely [15] for exactly that kind of behavior. I don't recall you, Kendrick, or ChrisO objecting. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:06, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

1) Your question was about whether we'd defend fairness and due process even if the person in the dock was an ideological opponent we consider routinely offensive. My answer was yes, I would. 2) Believe me, if Isarig called himself ZionismForever, had greater metaphorical gifts, made silly WP:NOR and WP:NPOV mistakes early on but avoided personal attacks largely and revert-warring altogether, and having spent half of his wikilife in a cage still had a sense of humor – "Onionists" was funny, Slim – I'd defend him against the false charges of pro-Palestinian editors with pleasure, instead of having to hold my nose while doing it. 3)This is the first I've heard of Daniel575. Seems like a charming fellow. [16] [[17]]--G-Dett 23:33, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I recall Daniel575; I was in the middle of a conversation with Daniel around the time of the block. I noticed the ban discussion and, you are correct, I didn't comment one way or the other. But Daniel was given a lot of chances, and an RfC, and didn't change, and there were recent edits to support this. PR has been banned, then banned for complaining about being banned, then banned again, then put up for banning for having been banned so many times. -- Kendrick7^talk 23:31, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Clearly, PR was rather upset by his first block, wherein Jay collects several of PR's diffs, posted them for the community, and within 18 minute got him banned for a whole month, with subsequent votes of support by a number of pro-Israel editors. I wouldn't describe that as "Zionists" ringing "prominent people in my neighbourhood and point to what I've posted" but I'm not much of a poet ...

No, you're right; a block is not "Zionists ... track[ing] down and harrass[ing] people like me." It's also not "[so] [t]hey can again ring prominent people in my neighbourhood and point to what I've posted - but they can no longer pretend to be an individual who just happened to realise it was me." Please take seriously how off the wall this is. Add to it that he's made only 200 edits to articles. This is a big fuss over an editor with a very low signal-to-noise ratio, who could easily ditch the PalestineRemembered account (to his own benefit) and start again. Instead, some people here prefer a circus. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:16, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

You may turn out to be right. It's hard to judge at this point. Was it Larry Niven who wrote Are you really paranoid if they are really after you? Somehow, I get the feeling not WP:BITing someone with so few edit would have gotten us much further down the road here. -- Kendrick7^talk 23:31, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

But this is just rehashing again, why he got his second block. I seem to have been the one who gave him the idea about Onionists ([18]); I happened to to find that last diff amusing.

If a pro-Israeli editor had been acting badly last year, I wouldn't be bringing it up five months later at every turn. -- Kendrick7^talk 22:55, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jayjg admonished

2) Jayjg is admonished for proposing a community ban without a sound basis in evidence, and is urged to take more care in future when taking such actions.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Let's see. Rather than acting unilaterally, Jayjg asked for opinions, and provided his reasoning. That's cause for praise, not admonishment. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 00:24, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. Jay's inexplicable carelessness in initiating this controversy on the basis of an unverified assumption needs to be acknowledged. We need to make it clear as a matter of policy that bans must be imposed on the basis of hard evidence, not unverified assumptions. -- ChrisO 07:39, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

No way, Jay brought it for community review - he didn't just jump in and block - no need for this. Ryan Postlethwaite 22:06, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Not quite - Jay solicited a ban ("I am proposing a permanent block at this point.") He didn't present his case and say "what do the rest of you think of this?" It does neither Jay nor the community any credit that Jay acted without any hard evidence whatsoever, and that around 25 editors, including the two admins who actually blocked PR, then supported Jay without trying to verify his assertions. As an ex-arbitrator, Jay of all people should know the importance of basing administrative decisions on firm evidence. We should all know this. Too many of us failed in our responsibilities as admins in this incident. This isn't a matter of pillorying Jay; but we do need to acknowledge that this needless controversy is essentially the result of very poor judgment all round. -- ChrisO 22:40, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

In response to jgordon's comment above. He made false claims, which he still hasn't retracted, even in the face of the strongest possible evidence otherwise. Other editors are still repeating his claims as gospel. Rather than giving PR a chance to provide his referenced, he went in with all guns blazing to try and get an editor with whom he frequently disagrees with banned. This looks far too much like an attempt to silence a competing view-point to just let it go. It's that behaviour that got us here in the first place. Mark Chovain 00:35, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

And I'd like to remind everyone again, that while we have evidence of Jayjg bypassing the dispute resoltion processes, and no evidence against PR of any wrong-doing, PR is still not allowed to edit. Why would anyone see 'praising' Jayjg when he clearly made a mistake as a higher priority than getting rid of this unfair limitation on PR? Mark Chovain 00:40, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Please. No evidence of any wrong-doing on PR's part? We have clear evidence of a violation of WP:CITE, acknowledged by PR, and subject to a proposed admonishment by ChrisO. Isarig 02:11, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

That's trivial - If I look through your edit history, will I find absolutely no instances where you forgot to cite? Since when is it a blockable offence? He supplied the reference a couple of hours after it was requested. He's being accused of much worse things here than forgetting to cite. He's currently blocked without a shred of evidence of any of the accusations being presented. No-one has even been able to tell him why he is currently not allowed to edit! Is it because he forgot to add a citation? If that's the reason, we better all be very careful about any edits we make - any one of could get an indefinite block. Mark Chovain 02:41, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

It is not trivial, it is a violation of WP guidelines, and this is evidenced by the fact that one of the proposed remedies is to admonish him for it. I am not arguing that this is a violation worthy of an indefinite block (in and of itself), I am arguing against your hyperbolic "no evidence against PR of any wrong-doing,". If you want to do a credible job as an advocate, you should avoid that kind of provably wrong assertion. Isarig 04:04, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok - so you object to the way I asked the question. Let's get back to my original question: Why is PR blocked. Alternatively, why isn't Jayjg currently blocked? Mark Chovain 04:37, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

PR is not blocked. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:43, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

PR has been unblocked on the condition that he not edit any pages whatsoever besides the arbcom pages, his own talkpage, and Mark Chovain's talkpage. nadav (talk) 01:00, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

While I'm sure he'd love to take your word for it, I suspect you might be guessing. As I keep on saying - he is not permitted to edit articles other than his RfArb and his talk page. Are you arguing semantics, or do you genuinely believe there are no restrictions on PR's right to edit? If you believe he is free to edit, perhaps you might like to explain this Mark Chovain 01:12, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I suggest the following wording instead: "Jayjg is admonished for making grave negative allegations about PalestineRemembered without a sound basis in evidence, and is urged to take more care in future before making negative assertions about an editor." nadav (talk) 01:00, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

jpgordon, with all due respect, I'm afraid you've missed the point. Nobody is complaining that Jay acted unilaterally. The complaint is that he acted without any evidence and made no effort to corroborate his assumption. Are you sure that you want to endorse the principle that it's praiseworthy to make unevidenced allegations in order to get other users banned? -- ChrisO 01:01, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

With all due respect, I disagree with your characterization. It was a mistake to take on this arbitration in the first place (as I said in this probably accidentally removed comment) and this entire action needs to vanish. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 16:37, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

As I wrote above, but someone removed it, PR did not accurately quote the book he says he used, which is where the confusion comes from.

PR wrote (wrongly citing the Evening Star of Auckland, which he hadn't seen): " ... in 1975, Israel exchanged the bodies of the terrorist assassins Eliahu Hakim and Eliahu Beit-Zouri for 20 Arab prisoners. The bodies 'lay in Jerusalem's Hall of Heroism and were given a military burial on Mt Herzl' (emphasis added)."

The book he says he used as a source does not call these men "terrorist assassins." It just names them. It says: "According to the Evening Star of Auckland, New Zealand of July 2, 1975, 'the bodies of Eliahu Hakim and Eliahu Beit-Zouri, executed for the 1944 slaying of Lord Moyne,' were exchanged for "20 Arab prisoners." The bodies on being taken over, 'lay in Jerusalem's Hall of Heroism and were then given a military burial on Mt. Herzl'."

The Holocaust denial site does call them "assassins." It says: "Years later, on July 2, 1975, The Evening Star of Auckland revealed that the bodies of the two executed assassins had been exchanged for twenty Arab prisoners for burial at the "Heroes' Monument" in Jerusalem (emphasis added)."

PR then added his own "terrorist" flourish, a term not used by any of the three potential sources.

The above is based on Zero's analysis of the texts. [19]

So what we have here is a sitution where PR (a) cited a source (the Evening Star) that he hadn't even seen; then (b) wrongly attributed the term "terrorist assassins" to the book he says he did use as a source, but which doesn't use either of the terms "terrorist" or "assassins"; and in addition (c) seems to have partially quoted the Holocaust denial site that he says he didn't look at, which is the only source that does use the term "assassins."

It's no wonder that it's difficult to be sure what he based his edit on.

I suspect that Jay did a Google search for the key words, including the men's names, the word "assassins," and the Evening Star of Auckland, and found the Holocaust denial site. It's an understandable error, if that's what it was, given PR's misuse of the source material. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:38, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Understandable had it been presented as tentative speculation, yes. Presented as a positive conclusion, and unretracted for eight full days in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, it's understandable only as either a) a gross but anomalous lapse in administrative judgment, or b) a symptom of some larger problem. --G-Dett 19:02, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

If you look at PR's first edit to that article, [20], he wasn't making a direct quote, just providing context. (The entire edit was removed an hour later with the summary "rv irrelevant time zones or WP:WTA" [21], though a better choice would have been to only remove "terrorist" as a WP:WTA, IMHO). -- Kendrick7^talk 19:07, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

He doesn't wrongly attribute the "terrorist assassin" thing, rather uses the words "terrorist assassins" to characterise the assassins, he would be attributing it if he included it in quotation marks. He may well have got the words 'terrorist' or 'assassin' from the preceding sentence in the wikipedia article "After the 1944 assassination of Lord Moyne, the Jewish Agency Executive condemned the act and declared a series of measures against what they called "terrorist organizations" in Palestine". --Coroebus 19:24, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

But PR's source, Bitter Harvest, does describe Hakim and Beit-Zouri as "terrorists" and "assassins". The very footnote that Zero quotes continues overleaf, on page 60: "In London, the British government expressed its regret that Israel saw fit to honour a terrorist act in its public ceremonies. Two British members of Parliament called the ceremony the 'honouring of assassins' and said it conflicted with Israeli complaints of Palestinian terrorism." And in the body of the text, Hadawi quotes Winston Churchill saying in the House of Commons on 17 November 1944: "If our dreams for Zionism are to end in the smoke of assassins' pistols and our labours for its future are to produce a new set of gangsters worthy of Nazi Germany, many like myself will have to reconsider the position we have maintained so consistently and so long in the past. If there is to be any hope of a peaceful and successful future for Zionism, these wicked activities must cease; and those responsible for them must be destroyed, root and branch." PR's language seems quite restrained in comparison. --RolandR 20:52, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Roland, my point was that PR didn't say where he took his material from, then didn't stick closely to the book he says he used as a source. If you want to call people "terrorist assassins," you have to say something like: "X condemned what he called the 'terrorist assassins," and then cite the source you yourself have seen. He didn't do any of that, so it's not surprising that people got confused. The reason the benefit of the doubt wasn't extended to him is that he'd engaged in previous poor editing, lots of personal attacks, and hasn't made many edits, so he wasn't an editor in good standing. I think he needs to accept some responsibility for what happened.

What puzzles me most is why he didn't simply start another account when he was blocked. With only 206 edits to articles, many of them troublesome, he wouldn't lose anything by simply ditching that account and starting afresh; in fact it would be to his benefit. Instead, we have this pointless circus. It's starting to look like trouble for its own sake. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:06, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

No, your point was that PR "had no source" [22]for his phrasing and hence "seems to have partially quoted the Holocaust denial site that he says he didn't look at."[23] You thought this because you still, at this late stage, haven't looked at PR's source and in fact only became aware of it a couple of hours ago, and over a week after he provided it. Now that Roland calls you on it, you say your point was only that "PR didn't say where he took his material from." This chronic pattern of grave-insinuation-followed-by-shrug-of-denial is the core issue here; it is far more serious than the innocent violation of WP:CITE that formed the pretext.

As for why PR "didn't simply start another account when he was blocked," I doubt he even knew this was permitted. I sure didn't.--G-Dett 21:24, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Has PR ever actually violated WP:No Personal Attacks? That's mentioned in his block log, but I don't believe any evidence of this was ever brought to the attention of the community. -- Kendrick7^talk 21:38, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Looking through the evidence Jayjg proffered and linked to when proposing the first block (linked to in my offering on the evidence page here), I don't see anything that violates it.

Looking through the evidence proffered and linked to for the second block proposal (also available via the same section of the evidence page) there are some diffs that appear to be violations of that standard targeted at specific editors, and at least one was certainly considered such by its recipient (from those diffs).

There are many diffs in the evidence proffered for the second block proposal relating to discussion of Zionists that are problematic, but not clearly and explicitly targeted at any specific contributors. As such they are more of a grey area, but PR has previously acknowledged that they were undesirable and stated an intent to cease performing them.

No new evidence of this was presented in the explanation of the third block or the proposal for the ban. I haven't done a detailed review of the CSM discussion, but diffs are not a prominent feature of that discussion. GRBerry 22:22, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Oppose - Proposing is meaningless, its not like he unilaterally abused admin powers or even thought of doing so.Bakaman 16:13, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Oppose for same reason as Jpgordon and Ryan Postlethwaite. If Jayjg had been trying to sneak in an abusive block, he wouldn't have brought it for community review. Musical Linguist 00:08, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Support The fact of the matter is, Jayjg is a very highly respected member of the wikipedia community, so when he says "jump" most wikipedians, e.g. FeloniousMonk, respond "how high?" Even I initially took his claim at face value, and was upset at myself for ever giving PalestineRemembered any friendly advice, and doubly so as I knew SlimVirgin would now never let me hear the end of it. It's really not Jayjg's fault that he has a pied piper effect on the community, but it's certainly not the communities fault; it's just human nature. It's not even Jayjg's fault for playing the pipes -- that's human nature too. But in the serious situation of soliciting the community to permanently ban an editor, the onus is on the piper to make sure he is playing the correct tune. -- Kendrick7^talk 16:57, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dispute resolution advised

3) PalestineRemembered and Jayjg are advised to engage in calm discussion and the use of dispute resolution when in conflict.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed, based on a nearly identical remedy in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Kosovo. -- ChrisO 07:39, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Felonious Monk admonished

4) Felonious Monk is admonished not to impose indefinite blocks when other administrators, acting in good faith, believe that one is not appropriate.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. A natural consequence of 4.1.1 Community bans and 4.2.1 The Community ban discussion failed to reach a consensus, and should only be adopted if those are both adopted. If they are not adopted, some other wording addressing this block/ban will be appropriate instead. GRBerry 17:42, 22 May 2007 (UTC) (withdrawn, see the end of the conversation between Rayn and myself below GRBerry 21:57, 22 May 2007 (UTC))

No, the ban was enforced early on in the discussion, when there was little opposition for it so although Felonious may have been a little quick, it doesn't deserve him being admonished. Come on guys - ArbCom don't tend to rule on one balls up, there should be a continous pattern of behaviour if people are proposing remedies. Ryan Postlethwaite 17:45, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, I am convinced that the block/ban needs to be addressed in some format. Please propose a better alternative. GRBerry 17:51, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I have to disagree, if Felonious Monk went around prematurely blocking users all the time, I could understand ArbCom ruling on it, but as far as I'm aware, this hasn't happened yet. I think all that's needed here is for someone to have a polite word with Felonious and tell him that the block he made this time was not the best idea. So far there's nothing to rule on, and nothing to suggest the community can't handle this themselves. The only thing that might possiblty be required is an RfC for PR. Ryan Postlethwaite 17:54, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Agree with Ryan. If a block is overruled, it's overruled. I see no evidence that FeloniousMonk has a history of jumping the gun and dishing out indefinite blocks. Such a ruling, made against an administrator who took a good faith administrative action based on information available at the time would make other administrators nervous about issuing blocks when they really are necessary. Musical Linguist 12:41, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree that an RfC on PR is the best way forward. He's engaged in some very poor editing and lots of personal attacks, a combination that has attracted blocks. It's premature to ask the ArbCom to deal with it before either going forward with a community ban, which has been rejected, or trying alternative dispute resolution. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:45, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

If that were coupled with an RfC on Jayjg, it might find some support. If not, not.--G-Dett 18:57, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. People like yourself are determined that an attack page on Jay should exist; whether you call it an RfC or an ArbCom case is irrelevant to you. All Jay did was ask for input on AN/I. If he made an error over the source, it was an understandable one given PR's misuse of the source material as outlined above, and he has apologized for it. Other than that, Jay had no further involvement in the situation that I'm aware of. Yet the predictable attack hounds are out in force. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:07, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I can't agree with the premise that an RfC on an editor you hate should be called an "RfC," ...

Stop following me around misinterpreting everything I say. I don't "hate" anyone. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:42, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

... whereas an RfC on your ally is called an "attack page." The second sentence of your generally hypocritical and posturing post is especially remarkable, given that you have alternately called for PR to be blocked, banned, Checkuser'ed, and now RfC'd – based on what? One speedily admitted violation of WP:CITE, coupled with your "recollection" of him as somehow vexatious to you. And while you continue to throw around these slurs, smears, petty insults, and innuendos (a standout among which is your suggestion that anyone who uses the word "Zionist" pejoratively is likely to be dabbling in Holocaust denial), you rather blithely admit that you haven't been following the facts of this case, that you hadn't even bothered to take note of the central fact of this case – namely, PR's source for the Evening Star material. [24] Not listening, not following, not paying attention, but ready to block, ban, and interrogate. This kind of abuse is the problem that got us here in the first place, Slim, and without looking at the problem critically we won't be able to move forward.--G-Dett 19:43, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

G-Dett, you don't need anyone's permission here at RfArb to file an RfC re Jayjg, or anybody else.Proabivouac 01:49, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

(response to Ryan, for the avoidance of doubt) PR is pseudo-block/banned currently. (Ie, not in the software but in the community's expectations of his actions.) In some form or another that pseudo-block needs to be addressed. Whether FM is mentioned in that addressing is an open question, but it needs to be either lifted or made definitive for some time period. That is what I meant by "the block/ban needs to be addressed". GRBerry 19:03, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

It's on AN/I now regarding it being lifted (I see you've commented on it), whether Felonious Monk lifts it or any other admin, it's just going to be a matter of going to PR's talk page and saying "PR, your block has been fully lifted, your free to adit anywhere you wish." - From what I can remember when I last checked it out, there was support for the 'unblock'. Ryan Postlethwaite 19:40, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

And with that done, this is no longer needed, and I withdraw the proposal. GRBerry 21:57, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

You beat me to it .... I was going to say I couldn't support this proposal. Felonious Monk is entitled to rely on the information he's provided, just as we are. PalestineRemembered 23:06, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Template

5) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Template

6) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Template

7) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Template

8) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Template

9) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Proposed enforcement

[edit] Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Template

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Template

3) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Template

4) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Template

5) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Analysis of evidence

Place here items of evidence (with diffs) and detailed analysis

[edit] Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] General discussion

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others: