Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 3/Evidence

Main case page (Talk) — Evidence (Talk) — Workshop (Talk) — Proposed decision (Talk)

Case clerk: TBD Drafting arbitrator: TBD

Any editor may add evidence to this page, irrespective of whether they are involved in the dispute. You must submit evidence in your own section. Editors who change other users' evidence may be sanctioned; if you have a concern with or objection to another user's evidence, contact the committee by e-mail or on the talk page. The standard limits for all evidence submissions are: 1000 words and 100 diffs for users who are parties to this case; or about 500 words and 50 diffs for other users. Detailed but succinct submissions are more useful to the committee. This page is not designed for the submission of general reflections on the arbitration process, Wikipedia in general, or other irrelevant and broad issues; and if you submit such content to this page, please expect it to be ignored or removed. General discussion of the case may be opened on the talk page. You must focus on the issues that are important to the dispute and submit diffs which illustrate the nature of the dispute or will be useful to the committee in its deliberations.

You must use the prescribed format in your evidence. Evidence should include a link to the actual page diff in question, or to a short page section; links to the page itself are inadequate. Never link to a page history, an editor's contributions, or a log for all actions of an editor (as those change over time), although a link to a log for a specific article or a specific block log is acceptable. Please make sure any page section links are permanent, and read the simple diff and link guide if you are not sure how to create a page diff.

The Arbitration Committee expects you to make rebuttals of other evidence submissions in your own section, and for such rebuttals to explain how or why the evidence in question is incorrect; do not engage in tit-for-tat on this page. Arbitrators may analyze evidence and other assertions at /Workshop, which is open for comment by parties, Arbitrators, and others. After arriving at proposed principles, findings of fact, or remedies, Arbitrators vote at /Proposed decision. Only arbitrators and clerks may edit the proposed decision page.

Evidence presented by user:Ykantor

User:Malik Shabazz is a strict anti Israeli editor. He is using an extreme Wiki lawyering in order to find a flaw in an sentence which might seem to be a pro Israeli text. Otherwise, he is rather good editor. If possible I would like him to recognize his questionable attitude, but I do not support an adminstrative action against him.

• User:Malik Shabazz placed an [WP:ARBPIA alert] in my talkpage. I asked him to apologize and to undo himself but he refused. In my opinion, his motivation was his clear anti Israeli attitude, although the relevant sentence was undisputed and factual text. (BTW I am an Israeli editor.)
• Sometimes, User:Malik Shabazz does not respect the wp:civil policy:

1. Being rude: Stop the silliness about...
2. Hints that my quote does not reflect the source: "I will repeat my caution. ... I suspect there's a letter or word missing from the last phrase as well." Ykantor (talk) 12:39, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Evidence presented by Hammersoft

I strongly and vociferously object to ArbCom's attempts to sweep the misconduct of (now former) administrator Malik Shabazz under the rug as not being pertinent to the arbitration case at hand. The drafting arbitrator has apparently elected to wipe clean any evidence previously submitted regarding this case. I am stunned.

A sitting administrator, deeply involved in the very articles this case was brought to discuss, went off on a nearly two week long bender spewing a long slew of insults. Most egregious of this was "Now when the fuck is somebody going to address the fact that the Jewboy is harassing me? Or is only okay to hound niggers off Wikipedia?" [1]. The subject of this arbitration is Palestine-Israel articles. A sitting administrator issues a Jewish racial epithet embedded in a number of other insults and you conclude this has nothing to do with Palestine-Israel? What? The discretionary sanctions explicitly state "[Editors] are not expected to trade insults or engage in character assassination". This is precisely what happened, but we are to ignore this and move on as if nothing happened?

For years now WP:NPA has been abused, heavily violated without sanction and in many cases outright ignored. If ArbCom refuses to consider abjectly abhorrent behavior using a Jewish epithet in a dispute involving Israel related articles, then ArbCom might as well declare WP:NPA null and void. If it doesn't apply here, where it absolutely must apply in order for us to enable an encyclopedic environment, then there is no case to be made that it would apply anywhere else. This isn't about Malik Shabazz (who is gone from the project anyway), but about the need to have available sanctions in place that immediately and unequivocally allow an administrator to use harsh tools to immediate effect when a person in this highly controversial area uses racial epithets regardless of provocation. Such wording does not exist now. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:28, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Evidence presented by Settleman

Lets say it out load - in the 'Battle of Wikipedia' Israel has undeniably lost

I have recently joined Wikipedia so I can speak only of my own experience but it wasn't pleasant, to say the least. While some editors, like Kingsindian, have integrity and others like Zero0000 and Huldra are very interested in actual knowledge from actual books, some are here to smear Israel and eliminate any chance of NPOV. The 1RR is a simple (and in a sense stupid) that makes it easy to enforce but the way some editors play the rules and write with bias, should command a rewrite of WP:POVPUSH definition.

I find Pluto's 'evidence' a bad joke. Where are all those pro-Israeli editors? Since I have started editing Susya which contained falsification by 'Human Rights NGOs' and basically said "The Israeli expelled the Palestinians again and again and then several times more", I was pulled into endless discussions on the talk page, many of which were completely baseless which can only fall under WP:CPUSH. Pro-Israel editors such as Igorp_lj, and E.M.Gregory seldom showed up, but it was extremely hard to get rid of material that didn't belong to begin with b/c of some editors behavior.

The 1RR proposals below are good tools to keep things quite but when one side has already 'won', the proposal to exempt "long-and-good-standing contributors" from 1RR tool only meant to ensure the 'other side' will never be able to recover. If Wikipedia is serious about being neutral, this case should be about - how do we fix the current bias that exists in so many articles?

Here is a list of some of the issues I have faced or saw in other pages –

• Being a victim for an attempt of 'targeted killing' by an editor hardly (if any) involved in the discussions.
• Morally wrong POVPUSH – [2] [3] [4] [5] The assailant is presented as the victim. How about this – Two brothers, Saïd and Chérif Kouachi were shot dead after (allegedly???) killing 11 people at Charlie Hebdo.
• Talking of this type of articles, the whole article is full with Ma'an news links while arutz 7 is out which has been pushed from previous articles in the 'series'. But according to this, they are completely comparable.
• Severe POVPUSH – This one speaks for itself.
• Claiming text resulted from a WikiTalk specifically made about settlements can be used for an organization. [6] [7]
• Using irrelevancy – On Duma arson attack, multiple articles talking about additional fires in the same village to the same family were found irrelevant while on Susya, land confiscation 60 miles away was found to be relevant for describing a murder.
• Claiming repeatedly Havakook's book quoted by the UN, scientific publications and NGOs on both sides is unreliable.
• Claiming WP:NOYT has nothing to do with a youtube clip. (How do you even answer that?)
• Personal attacks – "arguing on behalf of organizations with an ethnic cleansing programme" and continuously resist from deleting it.
• Claiming pro-Palestinian NGO are RS while pro-Israeli aren't while they are both involved in the case at Supreme Court b/c when David Dean Shulman, or Arik Ascherman go out of their way to write books, draw up legal documents, and represent Palestinian rights under the conventions of international law, they are not doing so to defend a personal interest. Personally, it makes no difference to their material lives how cases work out. When Regavim et al. draw up legal documents, they do so for an express political and community interest, to nab more land, and drive Palestinians of. – This is the definition of POVPUSH clearly stated.
• Repeating removal of 'Seasonal' from the lead though it is based on RS b/c Havakook doesn't say 'from 1830'. Several suggestions for text were made and removed. Requests for collaboration and building consensus for text were denied.[8] [9]
• Putting back falsification of source with a touch or OR.
• Checking RSN will result in multiple claims about 'settlers mouthpiece/organ/agenda' etc while every anti-Israel blog is 'raliable depends on context' but somehow the context is usually right.

To sum this up, the articles I edited extensively are controlled/patrolled by editors with extreme bias. Some of them will make ridicules claims and drag one into endless, senseless discussions. If Wikipedia wishes to get anywhere close to Neutral, things cannot keep going the way they are now but change in a major way.

1RR

A very efficient rule, no doubt. But maybe too efficient. Some cases are clearly WP:EDITWAR and should not be tolerated but I find myself (and other editors) breaking it by mistake while working on one part of an article and later move to another part. If someone edited something in between, we might find ourselves breaking 1RR. In other cases, editors are quick to remove a complete edit though only attribution is due or another minor fix. Waiting for 24 hours is counterproductive.

In other words, when partial revert is well explained and justified (and not a simple UNDO), the rule shouldn't apply automatically and editors who constructively contribute should at least enjoy the benefit of the doubt and given a chance to self revert before being reported. It is done between many editors anyway.

RS issues

Biased standards in what is considered RS

Arutz Shave, a major (undeniably biased) news group whose weekend (free) paper surpassed Haaretz in exposure is repeatedly removed by editors as non-RS because it is 'advocacy' or 'mouthpiece' of "settlers"[10][11][12] while numerous activists blogs (ex. +972, Mondoweiss) and biased NGO some considered radical (ex. Ta'ayush) are repeatedly considered RS.

In editorials on Jpost two NGO members falsified Yaakov Havakook book. While the Regavim person was 'demonstrating the unreliability of Regavim', B'tselem person was found to have 'impressions of reading Havakook's book'. I can see no reason but PPOV.

In short, every 'human-rights' NGO is RS while those who support settler are not. Activists doing it out of pure selflessness while settlers just 'nab more land'.[13] Arutz 7 is swiftly dismissed as for settler'. I called RHR to ask for their source (Grossman on Susya which I checked and they falsified it. People have done it in the past for worse then humanitarian reasons. There is no point to get into a conversation of who is right or wrong b/c WP:NPOV means it doesn't matter.

BIAS issues

Using WP:LABEL by biased parties

"described as 'fanatics' by David Dean Shulman" - an academic and member of redical left NGO Ta'ayush.

Gideon Levy, Amira Hass etc'

The criticism about them can be viewed on their article (Haas should probably be expanded). Levy recently was criticized[14] by Isaac Herzog leader of Israeli left as a "one trick pony" and "fear-mongering messianic". My point - they write for a major Israeli publication but their opinion represent tiny part of Israeli public opinion. If they are notable enough to have their opinion included on many articles, why not balance it with writers of the other extreme? Seem to me like basic WP:WEIGHT.

Conclusion

The main problem with Palestine-Israel articles isn't necessarily the new editors or socks but rather some of the old editors who know how to play the rules and transfer Wikipedia into an outlet of propaganda instead of outlet of neutral knowledge. The only way to create a change is effective enforcement and punishment against editors who constantly violate the rules.

Evidence presented by Pluto2012

Evidences

Wikipedia is the target of external advocacy groups whose aims are opposed to our policies:

• The Right's Latest Weapon: 'Zionist Editing' on Wikipedia, Haaretz, August 18, 2010.
• Wikipedia Editing for Zionists, New-York Times, August 20, 2010.
• Zionist Internet Struggle to Hit Wikipedia, Arutz Sheva, March 2010.
• Aligning Text to the Right: Is a Political Organization Editing Wikipedia to Suit Its Interests?, Haaretz, Jun 17, 2013.

According to Jimbo Wales, NPoV should be respected by each contributor and should not be a matter of balance between several groups:

• Inverview of Jimbo Wales:
  Mehdi Hasan: There’s also the issue, of course, of really, really contentious issues that people feel strongly about on lots of different sides. A few years ago, I believe, an Israeli lobbying group was accused of encouraging its members to become Wikipedia editors so that they could control the narrative on the Israeli conflict. How, then, can I take any pages on Wikipedia seriously about Israel-Palestine?
  Jimmy Wales: There's one model people have of how Wikipedia should work, which is a battleground. So the battleground is: Wikipedia will get to neutrality because people from different sides will fight it out until they somehow have to come to a compromise. We reject that approach. That approach is not healthy. That approach just leads to endless conflict. Instead what we like to say is, “Look, Wikipedia - every Wikipedia editor has a responsibility to try to be neutral. To try to take into account different perspectives on an issue, and if there is no one…”

Background

I'd like to say that English is not my mother tongue and that I am mainly contributing on wp:fr (MrButler). There I have written 7 FA, all of them dealing with the I/P conflict and 3 of them dealing directly with topics that could be taggued pro-I (fr:Special Night Squads, fr:émeutes de Jérusalem de 1920, fr:Bataille de Latroun). 2 of these 7 articles were also translated from wp:fr to wp:en. I am also a former ArbCom member from wp:fr (15th CAr election). Pluto2012 (talk) 19:51, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Unefficiency of WP:RCU

It is suggested a broader and faster use of WP:RCU. I fear it is not efficient. On wp:fr during last 3 yearswe faced a group of an unidentified number of contributors who were using around 10 accounts and for which WP:RCU proved not efficient due to the use of proxies. They were editing from China and the USA. Socks will adapt.

Gaming of the system by some "newcomers"

All newcomer are not problematic. Problematic editors are those who come on wikipedia but are WP:NOTHERE, know how to game the system in using Civil PoV pushing and the obligation of WP:AGF.

At the contrary of what Warkosign says, I don't think wp:civil is an issue. I think we could be very patient with contributors who make mistakes in behaving like on forums or from the internet and do not "master" the unusual (but important) standards of civility used on wikipedia. There is nothing harmful if you are accused of being biaised or insulted (once) if after we can discuss and explain our rules (per Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers). Of course, the newcomer has to change this (potential) behaviour but it is not a big issue.

The issue is facing "attrition wars" from newcomers who are just there to push a given pov. This is stressful, tiring and demotivating. We have the exemple of Malik Shabbaz that illustrates this. Everybody has to understand the frustration of a situation in which they arrive, WP:BATTLEGROUND, are driven out and then blocked but who come back -fresh- again and again.

Proposals

1RR and 3RR

1RR is a very efficient rule. It has been so efficient that people learnt how useless is editwarring and the 1 revert that is allowed is even not often used. I think that we have to keep this rule. On the other side, the "newcomers" familiar with the system use this in combination with WP:Civil PoV pushing to start attrition wars with never ending discussions justifying their pov pushing and potential revert.

I suggest that the 1RR restriction is left for a group of long-and-good-standing contributors and who proved they are there to build an encyclopaedia in order to counter the abuse of 1RR by newcomers. The LaGSC would be tight to 3RR as everywhere else on wp:en but would certainly not use this, except against "problematic contributors". In case of "abuse" or misconduct, WP:A/E could shift them back to 1RR. No big deal.

The big advantage is that "newcomers" would be forced to bring real arguments on the talk pages in order to see their material introduced in the articles because if they want to fight ou "passer en force", they will lose their time (in 1RR vs 3RR). This way we would enforce good faith and prevent civil pov pushing.

-> 1RR-rule should be left for some contributors.

1-sided contributions and NPoV

In a difficult area such as the I/P conflict, contributors who are deeply involved should not work in the area. If you have been victim of a rape, don't start articles about this topic; if you are a member of the Scientology Church, don't start editing in that area; ...

That's the same here: if you are member of BDS, don't discuss about BDS... If somebody is unable to report the point of view of the "other side", because that is too hard for him and touched him (it is a war, missiles are shot, there are deaths, people fear for their lives, ...) he should just be banned from editing.

-> 1-sided editing and refusal to modify such editing when it is pointed out by others should be a reason of topic-ban on WP:A/E board.

Comments about Nishidani

Nishidani is one of the contributors who is here to develop and encyclopaedia based on WP:RS sources.

It is normal that he disturbs anybody who is WP:NOTHERE.

I am sure that he would not fait to the "1-side editing" test whereas those who complain about him should as far as I have seen.

Pluto2012 (talk) 18:24, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Evidence presented by Kingsindian

I am not sure how wide the scope of this case is, and I am skeptical that these things can really be legislated. However, I will give some of my concerns.

People concentrating on violations of simply "one-side"

There is doubt about the WP:NPOV policy. See for example the discussion even between administrators at WP:AE here, let alone the participants (some are socks) - for the record, I agree with Sandstein in that discussion. Also note the comments of Zad68 there, who states that 95% of the editors in this area should probably be banned using this criteria. Editors are of course allowed to have POV (see WP:YESPOV), but they should edit neutrally, and reflect the source fully, and try to find sources which contradict the assertions. Admittedly, this is hard to do, but one should strive toward it. People seem to believe that as long as they add stuff which is sourced (without any concern for WP:DUE weight and so on) their duty is done. There are many people who I can name, who I have never seen add anything at all neutral or positive about Palestinians, or anything bad about Israel. For the record, I do not believe that one needs to ban 95% of editors, just some clear guidelines would help.

Clarification
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
My second last sentence (starting with "There are many people...") seems to have confused matters somewhat. I don't want people to badmouth Israel or Palestinians willy-nilly. The aim should be to present different viewpoints, show sources fully and so on. See, for instance, the series of edits captured in this diff. It certainly is "from one side", but I think it moves towards NPOV, rather than away from it (I made the edits, so I am biased obviously). Because the edit adds (undisputed as far as I know) material from many good academic sources about the background, which just happens to "favour one side". Here the comments by Zero0000 at the AE discussion linked above are appropriate. Kingsindian ♝♚ 17:36, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry

Wikipedia WP:ARBPIA is plagued by repeated sockpuppetry. A few of the most prolific ones are Wlglunight93, NoCal100 and AndresHerutJaim. Diffs can be found aplenty by just clicking on the names, so I'm not linking them explicitly.

Long-term edit-warring

Many of the sock-puppeters and some good-faith new users edit-war about the same content over and over again. Some of it is legitimate, some not.

• Example1 About the use of "terrorist" in the lead. Note that many of the discussants on the talk pages are socks of users I listed above, though some are good-faith disagreements.
• Example2 The role of Arafat in the intifada

Many more can be given.

Removal of "suspect" sources on sight

One of the activities of sockpuppets in this area(diff), and also some long-term users (diff), is to remove sources they don't like on sight. This is relevant to Settleman's comment but separate from it. These people do not consider either the text linked, or the author, but simply apply a blind rule - this is Mondoweiss, or +972_Magazine, it must go. As WP:BIASED and WP:IRS state clearly, reliability is always in context. If arguments are given for use in particular cases, they resort to an absolutist tit-for-tat position, saying: "ok if you treat Mondoweiss as RS, I will then treat Arutz Sheva as RS" (see RSN discussion). Most attempts to argue for nuance falls on deaf ears. Secondly, often the information is uncontroversial, and can be found elsewhere. (See discussion here talk page discussion with two socks, both since banned, and talk page discussion for a good-faith long-term user.) But people do not care about WP:PRESERVE and simply delete inconvenient content.

Conclusions

As mentioned in the case opening, firstly, there is a large probability that one is dealing with a sock in this area. In this case, many people who ignore context, and try to wave WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF are simply living in another world. The civility and AGF violations do not occur in a vacuum, but arise out of long-term content disputes, often with socks and trolls. Malik has already retired, and of course he went overboard in this instance, but one cannot ignore the pattern of abuse which led to this behaviour.

Secondly, clear guidelines are needed, on NPOV and sourcing. I am not sure sure ArbCom can or should legislate it, but something should be done.

Thirdly, admins should police this area actively, instead of being passive receivers of complaints. Kingsindian ♝♚ 17:27, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

A note on civility

If this was not clear in my above remarks, I oppose the comments by WarKosign on "low-key incivility". Most "low-key incivil" remarks have real content disputes behind them, and it is easy to differentiate genuine personal attacks from merely strong disagreement (which is often acccompanied by exasperation against the editor which you disagree with). In my opinion, lowering the threshold of "incivility" is a standing invitation for trolls and socks to bait people, leading them to transgress the lower threshold and getting banned. There are a hundred different ways for civil POV-pushing and trolling (WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and passive-aggression being the most obvious ones), which will not be caught by this low threshold. Kingsindian ♝♚ 11:14, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Comments on editors

Since my statement was already so long, I did not want to add more. However, I object to the last two humongous comments directed against specific users, Nishidani in particular. I thought this case was to investigate general matters in this area, not target any editors. In my own comments I did not finger any editor, but talked about areas of concern. Insofar as editors were mentioned, it was always in passing as illustrating a larger problem. If there are problems with Nishidani, WP:AE exists. The responses again bear out my point above of people seeing this as if you include a "pro-Palestinian" source, I will include a "pro-Israeli" source and vice versa. This kind of mentality is corrosive to WP:NPOV editing in this area. Kingsindian ♝♚ 16:31, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Evidence presented by StevenJ81

• I request that ArbCom consider statements both on this page and in the original case request involving Malik. Regardless of whether word limits, etc., were honored, and leaving aside issues specific to Malik (and his interlocutor), much serious and useful evidence is there.
• For the record, just about every problem that has been mentioned here goes both ways. I make no claims as to whether it goes both ways in equal volumes. However, there are certainly editors here (trolls, etc.) who also have nothing good to say about Israel or Zionism, and are not willing to criticize Palestinians. It would not be correct to characterize this as a one-way street.
• I don't need to add to Kingsindian's comment on sockpuppetry. Consider that incorporated into what follows.

Functionally, WP:Anyone can edit is already dead in this topic area

Mostly, I avoid editing in this area. It is not fun, and it is not rewarding. And people who try to stay in the middle to edit in a balanced way (notwithstanding their IRL POV) simply get squashed. My own recent example was around United Synagogue, a British Jewish umbrella organization for Orthodox synagogues. Most of its work is domestic, but as with many Jewish groups, there is some Israel advocacy involved. A WP:SPA insisted on a lengthy description of outside criticism of this advocacy. I had not been following the page. But I stepped in to try to mediate, mostly noting that Israel advocacy was only a fraction of the organization's work, and offering to work with the SPA in a sandbox to create an appropriately weighted and balanced contribution. I also said I'd be available the following week for this. She agreed to work with me—and then proceeded to ignore our agreement and resume adding the same material. At this point, she stated (contrary to Pluto2012's quote of Jimbo above) that she was entitled to add anything sourced, in any quantity, and that it was up to the rest of the world to provide balance and weight to counter. And I have had many such encounters with SPAs and IPs who are not WP:HERE, and therefore mostly don't care about rules that don't help them do what they want.

Other very experienced editors have also told me that they no longer edit in this area, though I will let them tell their own stories. But my conclusion is: When experienced editors—editors who are HERE—can no longer tolerate contributing here, then it is no longer true that anyone can edit. And if that is true, then I believe we are entitled to favor trusted editors over WP:NOTHERE contributors.

This may require a two-stage solution

The problem of trolls (etc.) overwhelms all other problems and questions here. I'd like to think that if we got rid of NOTHERE contributors in this topic area, and otherwise enforce the regular rules, the rest of us would have sufficient goodwill to get things right. But I see no way to know that for sure until we get rid of the known, pervasive problem of trolls. StevenJ81 (talk) 18:44, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Evidence presented by WarKosign

Everyone has bias

I will not name names or link to specific edits/talk page discussions, but examples are easy to find.

Unless an editor makes purely gnomish edits that do not modify the meaning of the articles, every edit can be seen as having a bias and promoting a POV, sometimes the same edit can be seen as biased towards different sides by different editors.

A slightly biased editor would always see more editors with the opposite bias (since it appears that those who are nearer to true neutrality are also biased). Anyone making what appears to be biased edits is perceived as a "bad guy" since they are seen to be helping aggressors/terrorists, and thus it seems justified to assume bad faith and to be less than perfectly civil to an "agent of the enemy".

Worst case is a (very) biased editor who is absolutely sure they are being neutral. These editors are utterly dogmatic and are impossible to reason with.

I think that the above bias cannot be helped due to the real-world nature of the subject. The best we can achieve is to allow and force the editors of different bias into civil discussion so a series of biased edits and compromises would hopefully result in mostly balanced articles. An editor employing civil POV pushing and/or low-key incivility poisons the environment for everyone else and has to be dealt with swiftly. It is important to distinguish between genuine good-faith disagreement (arguing for a position that the consensus eventually rejects) and civil POV pushing (gaming the system to try and force the POV).

Proposed remedies

Two major problems are edit warring and sockpuppetry. WP:1RR is supposed to alevate edit warring, but in my opinion it fails short. Examine the following sequence which happens quite often:

1. Editor A makes a bold change.
2. Editor B reverts the change. B exhausted their 1RR quota here.
3. Editor A reverts B's revert. A exhausted their 1RR quota here.

The result is: A's edit is in, B has nothing to do about it, nothing is forcing A to follow WP:BRD and to discuss the edit. B can open a discussion, hoping that A is willing to respond, rather than simply re-do the edit 24 hours later.

Since any editor is able to force their changes, even if only temporarily, it increases the temptation to use sock puppets.

I suggest to consider A's first edit a revert for 1RR limitation, it would stop the sequence after 2, thus forcing the editors into following WP:BRD and greatly reducing the benefit of employing sock puppets.

To address Zero0000's concern: consider this edit as a revert only *after* it has been reverted. If an editor made several changes and they all were reverted the user is still not in violation of WP:1RR, but should not be making further reverts or bold edits in the next 24 hours. “WarKosign” 10:39, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Another remedy would be reducing tolerance for uncivil remarks and low-key personal attacks. At the moment editors are permitted to make harsh and unpleasant remarks during discussion, and over time it takes the toll and may result in an outburst. While outright violation of WP:CIV (as seems to be the case with Malik Shabazz) is unacceptable whatever the cause may be, it would be better to somehow codify strict civility standard, it would make discussing controversial changes a much more pleasant experience. I'm taking about expression such as:

• POV-pusher
• X-hater
• anti-Y
• "nonsense" "crap" "propaganda" etc when dismissing an opponent's argument or diminishing the merit of the edit instead of describing the perceived problem.

When an editor is alerted to their minor incivility, they should be considered warned and ideally strike the comment out. If such warnings accumulate, the editor should be sanctioned in some form. “WarKosign” 08:33, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Evidence presented by Zero0000

I have been editing in the i/p area for 13.6 years, 11 years as administrator. I'll surprise some people here by saying that I don't think matters are worse now than in the past. There were times, especially before the 1RR rule, when trying to improve an article was like fighting off a pack of wild dogs. However, it remains one of Wikipedia's problem areas and improvements are desirable. Zero^talk 10:32, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

1RR rule

I think that WarKosign's comments on 1RR are worthy of serious thought. The 1RR rule is one of the best things that ever happened to the I/P area of Wikipedia, but it does have its imperfections. WarKosign's proposal doesn't quite work though, as someone should be able to insert different new material multiple times in one day. Let us consider replacing or augmenting 1RR by this:

• An editor may not insert the same new material twice, or delete the same material twice, in any 24-hour period.

This allows one editor to preserve the article against one opponent. However, I suggest that that is a smaller deficiency than allowing one editor to change the article against one opponent, since it means that one editor cannot easily overrule a previous consensus text. Zero^talk 10:32, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

To WarKosign: That's an alternative, but I'm concerned it will be too complicated to explain to new editors. Zero^talk 10:52, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Sock detection

The problem about socks is that (1) they can do a lot of damage before being detected and blocked, and (2) they come back, often using sleeper accounts.

One thing that hinders sock detection is the high barrier against CU. It is often the case that new users come along with mature editing skills and knowledge of Wikipedia processes. At the moment CU is usually refused unless evidence is provided linking the new account with a specific older account. I propose instead:

• A suspicious amount of prior knowledge in a new editor, combined with a clearly one-sided editing strategy, should be grounds for requesting a CU.

The CheckUser retains the power to decide if the circumstantial evidence is sufficient, which will prevent gratuitous fishing.

To limit the abilities of socks to come back, I propose:

• When an account is blocked as a sock, CU to look for sleeper accounts should be routine.

Timing the CU for a few days after the block would catch many returning socks. Zero^talk 11:11, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Evidence presented by Igorp lj

* Upd: it's rev.2 of my evidence what is changed according to the following ask.

I'm not a frequent visitor in this section, but after reading the previous and latest evidences, decided to leave my one too. So here is my own feeling about an atmosphere in IP section: it's even not the saddest thing that visiting it isn't pleasure, and sometimes - even disgusting. The saddest one is that some editors and admins :(, who has set control on access information to Wiki, harm its reliability.

RS

E.g., for 3+ months, a very important information in Wiki was simply absent. It's about the fact that the EU continued to apply anti-terrorism sanctions against Hamas just after of procedural decisions of the Court and is going to appeal against this decision. My attempts to change this absurd situation by Wiki tools simply failed.

It is clear that if to exclude "inconvenient" sources, as in the case above, or the most of (pro)Israeli sources - in general, leaving only a few of major Israeli media against a lot of (pro) Arab / Palestinian, anti-Israeli sources and Israeli marginals & foreign agents, the picture is completely distorted.

How it works? Just applying a dual approach to the assessment of a Pro et Contra sources. Only a couple of examples ("double standards?"). It's sad again that I haven't reseived an answer to the following my question: "why (per same criteria) are "pro-Israeli" sources rejected, but "anti-Israeli" ones - supported?" "Gatestone Institute" vs "Max Blumenthal", No.4 "JCPA about Breaking the Silence", etc. And it’s only a reference to someone’s opinion (what is more comfortable for those who takes now control of a source access), an argument for +- decision about a source. Or such example of as if "proving RS":

• "I saw a notice posted by an Israeli group called End the Occupation..."

Therefore, first of all, I'd suggest to create a group what'll check RS of all sources from both the sides.

NPA

I consider it unacceptable that some editors allow to themselves such personal attacks against opponents as"

• series of insults [(link is removed at the moment)]
• such reaction on my technical question as:
  • "You are, as on several other pages earlier, not understanding the points made, and engaging in a personal polemic. The connection is made in the text..." (IMHO, not in source, but...)
• The same coarse invectives in response to my exact quoting from the source [main link is removed] p.156, p.218:
  • "I've tried to be nice and helpful. It's evident that you don't understand rules, grammar, nothing. It's pointless interacting with you. 'Palestinian citizens of Israel (subject) took to the streets to demonstrate' cannot be rephrased as 'Palestinian citizens of Israel" demonstrations,' for the simple fucking reason..."

The same such examples may be found here, as well as

• "The fact that you have the primitive idea"; "You have shown nothing, zero, zilch."

in other case [link is removed], etc.

NPOV / DISRUPT

I consider it unacceptable that some editors allow to themselves:

• to add to an article only what corresponds to his vision, whether it is written in the sources, and then to insists in a mentor tone on incorrect information. See a "peaceful's saga" in respose to my {{cn}}{{clarify}} [link is removed] & compare it with a final var reached with other editor, not with "peaceful" one)
  • "Please desist from this bad habit (plunking cn tags when the sources provide the clarification you request" (13 April 2015)
  • As I said, read Cheneweth, who reports that datum. (14 April 2015)
• choosing a worst case from different sources: "children as young as 6 have been arrested for stone-throwing" instead of (7 & 12-old boys, NYT)
• such edit of a LEDE (!) as 14 August 2015
• to make and support such biased articles as 2015-1 & 2015-2, mainly based on one bias source, and
  • to offer to other esitors to clean up after "I built content... here very rapidly since it's not an article that requires deep research". (sic!) IMHO, it's a frank DISRUPT.
• such Selective Quoting & Omitting as in the following cases: 1996 shelling of Qana & Khawaja & LeVine + "Clarity"
• to use wp:TLDR arguments as a combination of statements, what are slightly related to the subject of discussion and should be checked for their authenticity and / or for selective citation.
• to coordinate on a Talk page who will make a next revert in an article.

---

IMHO, just what I've described above prevents civilized cooperation in IP section.

Evidence presented by Ivanvector

Anyone can't edit

One of our founding principles is being an encyclopedia that anyone can edit. However, other commenters here have rightly pointed out that the state of WP:ARBPIA and other topic areas like it have already functionally done away with "anyone can edit"; StevenJ81 explains this eloquently above. This has also been my anecdotal experience with several real people I know who were highly prolific contributors in sensitive topic areas, but who have stopped editing entirely because they couldn't stand the constant barrage of abuse and vandalism by POV warriors with throwaway sock accounts, but moreso because we lack the awareness to see the problem for how serious it is, and we simultaneously lack the willingness to do anything meaningful about it. The dispute which led to this case is evidence of both of these deficiencies. POV warriors will relentlessly push their POV until they win; we have not developed an effective way to stop this. Consider: valued administrator Malik Shabazz is (presumably) gone for good or faces an uphill battle should he decide to return, while banned sockmaster NoCal100 has very likely already created a new account and returned to editing. Our sanctions are meaningless to seriously problematic editors: dodging sanctions is so much like a game to them that we even keep score for them.

Regrettably, any discussion about stricter discipline in topic areas such as these gets waved off with shouts of "too draconian" or similar, with high regard for the standard of "anyone can edit" which the community has admirably set for itself. But we are already at a point where several areas of the project experience a de facto exemption from "anyone can edit", and if we are really serious about creating an environment where anyone can (and is encouraged to) edit, then we absolutely must be able to effectively deal with editors whose only purpose is to push their bias. Pending changes level 2 is often suggested as a solution, although there is no consensus for its use. In other places a much higher confirmation requirement (30 days, 200 edits I believe, versus 4d/10e) for users to be allowed to edit has been used, but as I said before I don't remember which topic area this was so can't ask anyone who edits there if it has been effective.

Of course bias and POV will always be an issue faced by this project, but neutral point of view is as much a policy and principle as anything that we have, including "anyone can edit", and if editors cannot put aside their bias and edit collaboratively then they should not edit. Just like WP:COI, editors who are likely to be biased should be encouraged to avoid sensitive topics, because they are unlikely to be able to see their own bias, and the resulting conflicts have been shown time and time again to be explosive and destructive to the project. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 17:40, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

User Jéské Couriano informed me on my talk page that the topic area currently under a 30/500 edit restriction is Gamergate controversy, as a result of this enforcement thread. Also within that discussion is a note about a similar restriction at Nagorno-Karabakh which has been in effect since April 2012, in response to "the extreme problem of sock editing". Jéské speculates that the restriction has had a positive result regarding sockpuppet accounts. Neither they nor I edit in that area, but I at least haven't seen a single thread about Gamergate at ANI in recent memory, whereas not all that long ago Gamergate basically dominated that entire page. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 20:53, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

@Huldra: I think you're not done, but I'd like to address your suggestion of exempting users from revert restrictions for accounts less than 500 edits old. I can see such a rule being quite open to abuse from socks: they would just clog the noticeboards with whining about inappropriate reverts, which is one of the known tactics of sock farms. In the example I gave above, there is a restriction in the software (maybe it's an edit filter, I'm honestly not sure) which simply prevents accounts below the bar from editing on the affected pages at all, including the talk pages. There is no need to revert, the edits just simply don't go through. The disruption is prevented from happening in the first place. Sure, it prevents some quality editors from editing, but overall the topic area improves. We have seen that there is going to be collateral damage no matter what we do; our goal should be to improve the editing experience overall. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 23:23, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Evidence presented by Huldra

Having edited in the I/P area for 10 years (with a total of 37K+ edits on en.wp, with commons-edits: about 40K; 75% on building articles); I agree that the area has *always* been terribly. Look at this, back in 2005.

One-sided recruitment

There have been several recruitment campaigns for the pro-Israeli/pro-Zionist side: See links in the Pluto2012-section, and links here, in addition to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/CAMERA lobbying. These day, you apparently can even get credits at Uni in Israel for it. This has been going on since -at least- 2008. There has never once (AFAIK) been a recruitment campaign for a pro-Palestinian side.

POV sources

Is Wikipedia to reflect the International view on the Middle East, or the Israeli view? I would argue that it should reflect the International view. I urge Arb.com to clarify this. Keeping that in mind, we should understand that many of the NGOs which are branded as "radical left" in Israel, are nothing more than mainstream, when it comes to international opinion.

That editors use google books for finding the words “taayush radical”", and then puts the result into the Ta'ayush -article: that does not make Ta'ayush especially radical.

I could have used google books for finding the words "respected Ta'ayush", and found this book...by Tanya Reinhart, but that is not the way I edit.

1RR

I would *fully* support either Zero0000 or WarKosigns suggestion. Present 1RR rules favours socks. In addition; I would like to suggest that we can rv IPs, or editors with less than 500 edits, as many times as we want.

Reason for rv IPs, or "new" editors with less than 500 edits: take Mandatory Palestine; where I recently broke the 1RR reverting a Telstra sock. As this was just a "borderline vandalism" (rm the Palestine flag); I am "sitting on pins and needles" for hours, days afterwards, being afraid that someone will report me. That this happen, due to my actions most likely agains a sock who has threatened to rape me and kill me, countless times (see the AN/I-report); makes me more angry than I can express in words.

I have considered the possibility asking for semi-protecting the whole I/P area, however, new editors, or even IPs, sometimes do very useful edits. (Here is an IP correcting my blunder, when I mixed up Beitin and Beita! <facepalm>)

@Ivanvector: I see your point: but that would limit new IPs making perfectly fine edits, say, this yeasterday. But I could absolutely live with your version; what I find untenable is the present situation.

Socks, sock detection

It is not surprising that some of the most pro-Israeli editors in the I/P area do *not* think that socking is a major problem; as the vast majority of the sock-masters are pro-Israeli. I have a personal suspicion that this might have something to do with those recruitment-drives: most people are simply not "cut out" for editing in the I/P-section, so they end up socking instead.

I fully support the suggestions of Zero0000. As an example: I´m 99,9 % sure that User:Gilabrand was back within days of her being indeffed. Yes, I know her new account (one of them!), (But obviously, pr. WP:ASPERSIONS I cannot name it.) I emailed it to User:HJ Mitchell, but it was over 3 months after the new account had registered. However, CU of banned socks would have caught her.

Results

The result is a Wikipedia where, say, coverage of Israeli children killed in the conflict gets 100 times more coverage than Palestinian children killed in the conflict. (This is assuming that articles on either side, are on average, equal length). This and the equally tilted coverage of persons, or NGOs, who have an opinion about the Middle East. (Look out for those: "Controversy" and "criticism"-sections for anyone who has ever been critical of *any* Israeli action). I don´t think Arb.com can do anything about this, as long as the present "beliefs" are in place: namely that there will be no "editorial oversight" of the area. Whatever succeeds Wikipedia might change that. Huldra (talk) 23:30, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Evidence presented by {your user name}

*****Before using the last evidence template, please make a copy for the next person*****

{Write your assertion here}

Place argument and diffs which support your assertion; for example, your first assertion might be "So-and-so engages in edit warring", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits to specific articles which show So-and-so engaging in edit warring.

{Write your assertion here}

Place argument and diffs which support the second assertion; for example, your second assertion might be "So-and-so makes personal attacks", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits where So-and-so made personal attacks.

Results

How does Wikipedia look from the outside.