Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Israeli apartheid/Workshop

This is a page for working on Arbitration decisions. It provides for suggestions by Arbitrators and other users and for comment by arbitrators, the parties and others. After the analysis of /Evidence here and development of proposed principles, findings of fact, and remedies. Anyone who edits should sign all suggestions and comments. Arbitrators will place proposed items they have confidence in on /Proposed decision.

Motions and requests by the parties

Request for Fred Bauder to be recused

Comment by Arbitrators:

There is no basis for recusal. Zeq asked me to look at the article and I gave a first impression. Obviously I was wrong as googling for "Israeli apartheid" gives about 277,000 hits. It was not too long ago that Zeq was demanding I recuse after I disclosed my opinions of Zionism to him (they are mixed). His remark below seems to be directed at you. Fred Bauder 21:13, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Earlier comments by Fred suggest he cannot be impartial in regards to this particular case:

"I think you made some very good points on the talk page. I don't like that article. Apartheid really should be used only in the South African context. (Not that the Palestinians don't have legitimate complaints)."[1]

Given Fred's stated bias against the article at issue he needs to recuse himself as his statement puts him on one side of the issue and it would be reasonable to conclude that it also puts his sympathies with one of the two sides in this dispute. I am concerned that if Fred takes the lead in framing the process (eg the "principles" in the case) he will be influenced by his POV on the article to the detriment of other issues and concerns that have been brought up. At the very least there is an appearance of a bias which should be taken seriously.Homey 18:56, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Motion withdrawn due to lack of support. Homey 19:07, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

I oppose this request to recuse. Fred certainly has his own POVs on issues, as he's entitled to, but I trust him enough to believe that he won't let this dictate his decisions on the issues raised in this arbitration. If we asked everyone with a viewpoint on the Israeli-Palestinian issue to recuse themselves I doubt if we'd have anyone left to arbitrate. :-) -- ChrisO 21:05, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I think it is a shame that this was withdrawn, because Fred really should have recused in this one. Fred has long had a barrow to push over these articles, and has consistently delivered minority opinions biased against one side on every single case with regard to Israeli-Palestinian issues that I can remember. It is to the credit of the rest of the committee that these have without fail been struck down, but Fred really should know better than to try to pull this sort of thing in the first place. Rebecca 02:49, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Can you direct us to evidence to support your claims above? Without evidence is it just heresay like so many things with regards to these topics. --Ben Houston 02:52, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I invite interested people to peruse the proposed decisions on past Israeli-Palestinian cases. That said, for a change, it seems that his proposals here are bizarrely disproportionate not only to one side, but with regard to all involved. Rebecca 03:11, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Un usual circumstances

By Now, it is becoming clear that excellent, usually cool headed editors have become engaged in an edit war on issues that has dragged for too long without any way to resolve it.

Like the Gordic knot this issue required a decisive action (a bold move) to get it untangled.

It is wrong of ArbCom to focus only on the actions that transpired after this crisis has been festering for a two months. The events and editors who caused this crisis by behaving un responsibly (and violating any possible Wikipedia policy) have somehow escaped examination by ArbCom. Such a ruling only invites them to continue Policy violations by banning those who tried to prevent their one-sided editing.

Editors like Humus Sapiens are well respected by this community, among other things for being fair minded and striving toward NPOV. ArbCom should focus on how come the situation brought Humus Sapiens, Slim, Chris O, JayJg – all talnted and respected editors – to do what they did. Not taking care of the root cause just invite continued use of Wikipedia to what it is WP:Not by those who caused this crisis. I move that the scope of this Arbitration be expended to the root cause of the root cause of the crisis. Zeq 04:10, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Clarification about scope

2) There seems to be confusion about the scope of the case. COuld the ArbCom please clarify this. I am going by my own statement (Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Israeli_apartheid#Statement_by_KimvdLinde) for the moment, if this should be limited, please let me know. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 22:30, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I also would like to know specifically what is being arbitrated here, and I am not alone, as there are comments below by several others, either asking similar questions or expressing opinions about what the scope is, or should be. Kim has suggested a very broad scope, and one of the arbitrators has responded, "Too much already on our plate", but I am not sure where that leaves us. I see a couple of people suggesting, or appearing to suggest, that the scope is limited to the page moves that occurred on July 4. If that is the case, that's fine with me (and not simply because that would remove me as an "accused party" -- I would remain involved anyway because I have participated in all of the dispute resolution efforts regarding these articles and I think I can help provide a context for what happened on July 4.) But if that is the case, or some other scope is to be selected, I hope we can know soon, because it affects what I need to say and what evidence I need to gather. Also, if the narrowest possible scope is chosen, it would be helpful to have a decision about the relevance of some of the evidence on the Evidence page, as some of this clearly is relevant only if the arbitration has a rather wide scope. Hopefully any irrelevant evidence could be moved to a sub-page, so that people know what they need to respond to and what they don't. 6SJ7 01:49, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I personally think that the scope should not be to narrow, as that would not address the issues sufficiently and that has as a risk that the problems in a narrow section might be solved, while the wider problem remains. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 01:56, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

But the "wider problem" -- and it is a problem that goes well beyond this group of articles, it's just that these have been the most contentious ones recently, perhaps now supplanted by the war over the new war -- anyway, the "wider problem" will remain anyway. The only way the "wider problem" will be resolved, even concerning this group of articles, is if the arbitrators take evidence and make rulings about the future existence, title, text and sources used in these articles. Several arbitrators have already said or implied they are not going to do that, and it is my understanding that this is in keeping with past arbitration practice. (Even then, the only way to preserve their rulings would be to protect the articles, forever, from all editing that is not supported by a consensus, and we all know that is not how Wikipedia operates.) 6SJ7 02:18, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with this. I think the ruling should be in conduct and policies, and if that is taken in am appropriate wide context, it will make a lot clear to a lot of people, and will facilitate the required mediation afterwards. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 14:19, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed temporary injunctions

Request to restore

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Not a good idea as a preliminary injunction. They should only be made if irreparable harm would be result unless they were done. The article can be moved back at any time. Fred Bauder 21:52, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by Nagle (talk · contribs) In response to the Facts on the ground section below, a temporary injunction to undo the out-of-policy move and restore Allegations of Israeli apartheid back to Israeli Apartheid, at least until the conclusion of the arbitration would be appropriate. Edits to the article are now being made on the assumption that the name "Allegations of Israeli apartheid" is permanent. This is inappropriate. --John Nagle 20:43, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Evidence for above: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Israeli apartheid/Evidence#Use of out of policy move to justify edits to article --John Nagle 00:56, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed final decision

Proposed principles

WP:NPOV

1) All Wikipedia articles, including the title, must be written from a neutral point of view, representing views fairly and without bias. This includes maps, reader-facing templates, categories, and portals.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Neutral article titles is a part of NPOV. Fred Bauder 17:32, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Proposed -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 03:20, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment by Nagle (talk · contribs) This is going to be tough. One of Wikipedia's minor guidelines is that editors should be able to "write for the enemy". Things are so polarized here as to make that look out of reach. I suspect the only workable solution will involve banning some of the more partisan editors from contributing in this area.

I don't see it as at all impossible to write neutral articles on this subject. One may have to take a "pox on both your houses" approach, and point out that both sides in this conflict have committed excesses. That's probably the most useful direction for Wikipedia readers. If you want to read the point of view of either side, there are plenty of links for that.

A quote: "Maybe they is not evil. Maybe they is just enemies". --John Nagle 04:26, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Just very blunt. If you can not write NPOV, you are at the worng article, and that should be a red flag for yourself and you should NOT to edit that page. Along the lines of writing your own autobiography WP:AUTO. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 11:45, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Is this arbitration about the article content, or about the title, or about the moves? Jayjg ^(talk) 21:26, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

1a) Wikipedia users are usually expected to discuss changes which are controversial; while this does not necessarily mean discussing the edit before making it, if an edit is reverted a user should make an attempt at discussion before changing it back.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comments by parties:

Added by ChrisO 18:49, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

This is an established principle (cf. Wikipedia:Arbitration policy/Past decisions#Neutral point of view (and associated principles)). Although it talks of edits rather than moves, it should logically apply to moves as well, particularly if there is good reason to expect them to be controversial. It would be preferable if this principle could be endorsed. -- ChrisO 18:49, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

There was lengthy discussion about the naming; it wasn't discussion that was lacking. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:28, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Humus sapiens neither sought nor obtained consensus for his actions; he simply did it, then posted a retrospective justification. The proper way to do this would have been to say "I propose to do x..." and then seek at least a significant majority for his proposed action. Instead he presented the community with a fait accompli, achieved by abusing his sysop powers. I can't see any way that this is compatible with the ArbComm decision quoted above. -- ChrisO 22:21, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

My contribs (in reverse order) disprove an accusation of "retrospective justification":

• 12:11, 4 July 2006 (hist) (diff) Israeli apartheid (moved Israeli apartheid to Allegations of Israeli apartheid: NPOV title)
• 12:11, 4 July 2006 (hist) (diff) m Allegations of Israeli apartheid (moved Israeli apartheid to Allegations of Israeli apartheid: NPOV title)
• 12:09, 4 July 2006 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Central discussions/Apartheid (→so we have this discussion and propsals and ...)

I made two proposals at Wikipedia:Central discussions/Apartheid actively seeking a NPOV compromise, and the concession I made had/has much stronger support than a POV title. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 23:48, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

WP:RS

2) Wikipedia articles should use reliable published sources.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 03:20, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment by Nagle (talk · contribs) The Israeli apartheid article is starting to drown under citations. There's the problem that most of the sources cited are partisan. (In this field, finding any source accepted by both sides is tough.) But we don't lack for citations. We might need more information indicating which side some of the cited souces are on. --John Nagle 04:35, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Is this arbitration about the article content, or about the title, or about the moves? Jayjg ^(talk) 21:29, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

1. Wikipedia articles may rely on primary sources so long as what they say has been published by a credible publication. The issue in this case is the use of POV sources, propagandistic sources. Zeq 18:24, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Sources in controversial matters

1. For controversial facts, primary sources, publications by acknowledged academics or books by known authors that can not be reasonably dismissed as dishonest can be trusted as sources.
2. contemporary journalistic reports are not as good a source as well considered scholarly works. The more serious and controversial the article the more true this is. In an area such as the Palestinian-Israeli conflict where professionally produced propaganda is part and parcel of the struggle, only the most objective scholarly work is of substantial encyclopedic value. Zeq 18:29, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

WP:CON

3) Wikipedia works by building consensus. This is done through polite discussion and negotiation, in an attempt to develop a consensus regarding proper application of policies and guidelines such as Neutral point of view.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Added by -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 03:20, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment by Nagle (talk · contribs) With the threat of ArbComm action hanging over them, several of the parties whose actions prompted this arbitration have stopped editing the relevant articles. Since then, although there are still major disagreements over content, the disagreements are generally being resolved, or at least are not escalating into out-of-policy actions. Thus, I would suggest that, once the disruptive editors have been identified, that they be banned from editing articles (including the talk pages thereof) in this general subject area. That should quiet things down to a level at which Wikipedia's normal processes will work. --John Nagle 05:05, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

3a) In cases where compromise cannot be reached, users are expected to follow the dispute resolution process.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comments by parties:

Added by ChrisO 18:56, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

This is an established principle (cf. Wikipedia:Arbitration policy/Past decisions#Consensus). In this case dispute resolution was being followed but was discarded in favour of a unilateral imposition by one user of one side's preferred outcome. At the time that the disputed page move took place, compromise had not been reached but it was entirely a matter of opinion that compromise could not be reached. -- ChrisO 18:56, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

It's entirely a matter of opinion that there was not a good enough consensus for the move; there was certainly a strong consensus for it when the vote was closed. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:35, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Consensus subsequent to the complained-of action is entirely irrelevant in this context. At the time of the move, I counted the votes as 16 for, 12 against - a narrow majority but not remotely a consensus and a tally that was subject to change, as subsequent events showed. Moreover, Humus explicitly stated that he had acted without consensus and that no consensus was possible. His edit summaries show that he made no claim to be acting on behalf of, or with the approval of, any of the participants in the dicussion. -- ChrisO 22:39, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Humus is not me, and I counted quite differently. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:03, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough, but the fact remains that this clash arose because of an abuse of sysop powers (not yours, Humus') to force a particular outcome on a content dispute. I think your actions were mistaken, but Humus' were plain abusive. Hence my comments above. -- ChrisO 23:31, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

3b) A lack of consensus is not a valid reason for overriding or terminating an ongoing dispute resolution process.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comments by parties

Added by ChrisO 18:56, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

This is one of the key issues in this arbitration and is the reason that I became involved in the most recent dispute. As was explicitly stated by Humus sapiens at the time, the article move was undertaken on the basis of a personal belief that no consensus was achievable or would be accepted, despite the fact that a move poll was still ongoing. Consensus cannot be achieved if consensus-building is unilaterally terminated. -- ChrisO 18:56, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

This assumes that there was dispute resolution, and that it was on-going. Neither is true. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:35, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

A move poll is part of the dispute resolution process. I understand that an informal mediation process was also taking place with the involvement of Kim van der Linde. -- ChrisO 22:39, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

The informal mediation had ended because I did not see any progress towards finding a solution. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 22:47, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

There was no mediation at all; partisan editors are not mediators. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:03, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying that, Kim. As for Jayjg's comments, that seems a remarkably dismissive and ungenerous claim to make. -- ChrisO 23:31, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Surprisingly enough, nobody has yet asked my personal opinion about the term, but everybody assumes things. But I will express my opinion on the matter in a later stage. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 23:37, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

WP:NOT

4) Wikipedia is first and foremost an online encyclopedia and, as a means to that end, an online community of people interested in building a high-quality encyclopedia in a spirit of mutual respect. Please avoid the temptation to use Wikipedia for other purposes, or to treat it as something it is not.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Should specifically identify the problem, "Wikipedia is not a vehicle for propaganda". Fred Bauder 17:19, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Added by -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 03:20, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

WP:TITLE

5) Generally, article naming should give priority to what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Not adequate for descriptive names. Wikipedia:Naming_conflict#Descriptive_names suggests, "Choose a descriptive name for an article that does not carry POV implications." Fred Bauder 14:15, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

This is a term, not a description. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 15:05, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

The article is not about the term; rather, it gathers just about any allusion of Israeli practices to apartheid, and debates whether or not they are valid. If the article were only about the term itself, and only used sources which used the term "Israeli apartheid", then it would be considerably shorter, and likely less controversial. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:00, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Added by -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 03:20, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment by Nagle (talk · contribs)This is the issue that brought us all the way to arbitration. So, as an outcome of the arbitration, we have to decide on article names and nail them down. This is an issue for at least Israeli Apartheid and Apartheid wall, both of which have had move/rename wars. I'm inclined to go for the plain names, and put the arguments in the article. Wikipedia has dealt with this type of controversy before; see Death tax and Pro-life, and has generally gone with the notable though controversial phrases.

As a side issue, "Separation program" is currently under the name Hafrada, which is not an English word. I'm not sure what that article should be called. "Israeli separation program"?

We also need neutral (perhaps to the point of bland) introductory paragraphs for the articles involved. The controversy and arguments belong in the article body. --John Nagle 04:18, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

• Note about Hebrew:

Both in Hafrada and in Israeli apartheid there are "alleged" translation of Hebrew words which show that who ever used them does not know Hebrew. For example, in Israeli apartheid the disengagement is described as the translation of the Hebrew words "Hafrada" while the word that was used for this in Hebrew was "Hitnatkut".

"Hafrada" is mostly used in Hebrew in the context of separating between two parties who engage in a fight or dispute. Until it was used by PM Barak (Who used a derivative "Hifardut - as a euphemism for withdrawal from the west bank) the word "Hafrada" was most commonly used in the context of marriage gone bad and separation of the couple prior to a divorce. Another use was in a divided highway to describe the small wall separting north-bound trafic from south bound trafic. later, after Barak used it as part of the sentence: "Creating 'Hafrada' from the Palestinians: We (i.e. israelis) are over here and they are over there" the word was used to designate the sepration wall/fence. Zeq 12:07, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

5a) Some article names may have POV implications. However, Wikipedia does not take sides in a political controversy or determine what is something or someone's true, proper name.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Added by ChrisO 19:02, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Some terms will always have POV implications, because they have been specifically devised to express or to lend support to a particular POV. There are many examples: in geography, "Republic of Macedonia" and "Sea of Japan" are controversial because they are seen as making territorial claims; in politics, "Islamofascism" explicitly links Islam and fascism, and "pro-life" implies that holders of the opposite POV are "anti-life". However, merely because a term is contentious and seen as POV, it does not automatically follow that we should take a stance to oppose (or for that matter support) it. Wikipedia:Naming conflict states: "Names can sometimes be controversial because of perceived negative political connotations, historical conflicts or territorial disputes. However, Wikipedia does not take sides in a political controversy or determine what is something or someone's true, proper name. What this encyclopedia does, rather, is to describe the controversy." The proper course is to adopt a title that neither endorses nor opposes the POV expressed in the contended term (see also 5b below). -- ChrisO 19:02, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

"Israeli apartheid" is not a "proper name". Jayjg ^(talk) 22:00, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

5b. The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting views. The policy requires that, where there are or have been conflicting views, these should be presented fairly, but not asserted.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Added by ChrisO 19:02, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

This element of the NPOV policy (cf. WP:NPOV#The neutral point of view should apply as much to article titles as to their contents. In this case, one side regards the "Israeli apartheid" claims as facts and the other side regards them as allegations. The current article name ("Allegations of...") explicitly supports one side's POV. The previous name is not ideal either, as it implies a definitive connection between Israel and apartheid. Where a general controversy exists, precedent exists for acknowledging this in the article name (cf. Creation-evolution controversy) rather than using a name supporting one party's interpretation. I would personally prefer to see the disputed article residing at Israeli apartheid controversy, following the Creation-evolution example. -- ChrisO 19:02, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

This is actually a better argument for the opposite view, that "Israeli apartheid" asserts as fact that Israel practices apartheid, whereas "Allegations of Israeli apartheid" makes it clear that Wikipedia takes no side. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:00, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

"Allegations of..." is as POV as "Facts of..." would be, in that it takes an explicit position on whether the claims made are proven or unproven. The unadorned title "Israeli apartheid" takes an implicit position, as I've said. It's far better to avoid taking any position, implicit or explicit, in the title . -- ChrisO 22:55, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I understand that that is your opinion; however, "Allegation" is neutral, it neither states the claim is true nor false. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:06, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

5c. Qualifying adjectives should be avoided in article titles where no disambiguation is required.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Added by ChrisO 19:02, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

There have been various attempts to qualify the article by adding disambiguation-style adjectives in parentheses, e.g. (epithet), (phrase) etc. However, Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Specific_topic specifies that disambiguation should only be used when there are various terms with the same name. -- ChrisO 19:02, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

First that is only a guideline, and secondly you're cherry picking from it. A disambiguation-style term in parentheses or a renaming was required in this case, because there was a dispute, the dispute needed to be settled, and the term "Israeli apartheid" is clearly controversial. The guideline says: "Rarely, an adjective describing the topic can be used, but it's usually better to rephrase the title to avoid parentheses." So we could have "Allegations of Israeli apartheid" or "Israeli apartheid (term)", or "Israeli apartheid (epithet) or "Israeli apartheid controversy" or "Israeli apartheid," or Israeli "apartheid." To dig heels in and say no to any of these alternatives was not reasonable. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:15, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

"Rarely, an adjective describing the topic can be used, but it's usually better to rephrase the title to avoid parentheses." is an option under: For disambiguating specific topic pages, several options are available. The question here is not whether there needs to be disambiguated, there is only a single article covering apartheid related to Israel. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 22:34, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Parenthetical qualifications aren't NPOV, as they take an explicit position on the issue; not everyone agrees that it's a "term" or an "epithet" and scare quotes should be avoided like the plague. Hence my suggestion of suffixing it with the word "controversy", as this is at least indisputable. (Where did I "dig heels in and say no" to it, by the way? I was the one who suggested it!) -- ChrisO 22:55, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Facts on the ground

6) When a dispute arises efforts should be directed towards resolving the dispute by discussion and negotiation, and, if necessary, use of dispute resolution procedures. It is counterproductive to attempt to create "facts on the ground" by making changes before consensus is achieved or engaging in wheel warring. Illegitimate means are no more effective than legitimate ones and create a great deal more disruption.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 22:01, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by Nagle (talk · contribs) Controversial though it would be, a temporary injunction to undo the out-of-policy move and restore Allegations of Israeli apartheid back to Israeli Apartheid at least until the conclusion of the arbitration would be appropriate. Otherwise, the acts described above were successful, not counterproductive, which will encourage their future use in other disputed areas. --John Nagle 20:38, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I doubt more facts on the ground is the answer. Fred Bauder 20:43, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

A number of parties created "facts on the ground"; consensus supports the "Allegations of Israeli apartheid" name. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:00, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

The creation of several partheid articles, all directed at creating a disambiguation page that will direct anyone looking for the term to articles about 'israeli Apartheid" was the biggest "Creation of facts on the ground". The use of poor (non-WP:RS sources) at the cearly versions of the article as well as the edit war (serious, continues edit war) at the Disambiguation page shows that this was a misuse of Wikipedia. Zeq 08:48, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Unilateral moves and Wikipedia:Consensus

7) Wikipedia works by building consensus. When unilateral moves are challenged and there is afterwards no consensus for the move, it should be undone as it was not supported by consensus.

Comment by Arbitrators:

A basis in policy for choosing one title over another must be developed. Fred Bauder 12:26, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

No, a unilateral move that fails to gain support when challanged is a violation of Wikipedia:Consensus, and as such, already embedded in policy. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 13:56, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

There is a strong consensus for this move, and the vote has been officially closed in favor of this move. Arguing after the fact that consensus can only be allowed to exist at a certain period of time, in purely mechanical ways, is process fetishism and wiki-lawyering. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:00, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Proposed -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 02:11, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Move warring by first unilateral moving a page, and than insisting on community consensus before it is moved back plays in the hands of move warrers, and is gaming the system. As such, unilateral moves that fail to gain community support can be undone, even when there is not a consensus to move it to the original name, a lack of consensus for the unilateral move should be sufficient to move it back, and will prevent POV-pushers from inposing their POV due to a split community that can not reach consensus on anything. (Inspired on the idea that edits by banned users should be reverted regardless the content, as not to reward them for editing while banned). -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 02:11, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Reworded to show clearer context with current Wikipedia:Consensus guidelines. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 14:53, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Kim. In addition, I'll reiterate the point that I made above: it's unacceptable that one side should impose its preferred solution while dispute resolution is still in progress. The fact that the status quo may be controversial doesn't justify imposing an equally controversial alternative. The only viable solution is to find a workable compromise, not to short-circuit such efforts. -- ChrisO 19:06, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

There was no dispute resolution in progress; Kim's partisan attempts to argue for one side of the conflict certainly didn't constitute "dispute resolution"; on the contrary, they exacerbated the dispute. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:00, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Reverting cannot be "allowed" for one side in a dispute, but "not allowed" for another. Consensus is almost always a matter of interpretation. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:00, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

There was no ongoing dispute resolution in this case. There was wikilawyering and votes taking place everywhere, with few people having a clue what was going on. Common sense has to kick in at some point. (Anyway, as I recall, Kim and Chris O moved the page more often than anyone else, both using admin powers to do so, even though both were involved in the dispute.) SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:20, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

It appears that the move is now supported by a weak consensus (about 62%). The arguement makes sense, though. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 04:53, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

It is about 70% now, but only after the unilateral move generated a large additional influx of editors. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 13:56, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

If Kim's comment is meant to imply that the move of July 4 caused the change in the percentage of persons favoring the current title, then it is an example of the post hoc fallacy. There is no logical connection between the two events. The fact is that a consensus (as defined at WP:RM) did develop in favor of the current title, and that consensus was reflected in the results of the poll. The poll has now been officially concluded by a neutral administrator, with the conclusion that the renaming was confirmed by a consensus. There is an effort being made to de-legitimize this poll and the associated consensus-supported article name, just as there was interference with the proper closing of the poll, which will be discussed in more detail later. 6SJ7 19:27, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

The delegitimization of the poll occured when action was taken pre-emptively on the stated assumption (by Humus) that there would be no consensus for the move. Homey 19:54, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

So basically what you are saying is that one person's action (the merits of which will be determined by the arbitrators, not by you) voids the opinions of the 40-plus other people in favor of the move (about two-thirds of those who participated), as well as the action (in accordance with Wikipedia policies) of the uninvolved adminstrator who closed the poll and declared the consensus in favor of the renaming. A very convenient argument, but not very convincing. 6SJ7 20:24, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. Also, it assumes that Homey understand what Humus meant, and that Humus' reasons for moving coincided with the reasons of others. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:00, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Are there meanings of the phrase "no consensus" that I am unware of? These were Humus' words and their plain meaning is clear.Homey 22:30, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Choosing descriptive names

8) Wikipedia:Naming_conflict#Descriptive_names, a guideline, suggests, "Choose a descriptive name for an article that does not carry POV implications."

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 14:17, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

True, if and only if there is no single term available, which is available in this case. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 14:54, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

There is obvious no "single term" available, since many of the sources used do not use the phrase "Israeli apartheid" at all, but rather use all sorts of others allusions and arguments. Even the use of the phrase "bantustan" was considered good enough for inclusion. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:00, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

"If and only if" = more wikilawyering, which is what prevented a resolution being found in this case. There is no "single term available." The one chosen was highly controversial. Changing the name would have ended the dispute (and did). Therefore, the name needed to be changed. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:25, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

The dispute has only ended because a supermajority has been found in favour of the name change and the vote has been properly closed. (Would you consider it "ended" if the poll had resulted in deadlock?) No such consensus existed at the time of the move, and the move poll had not been closed. The fact that the name has been settled now doesn't change the fact that the change was undertaken without a consensus or a closed poll. It's not a retrospective justification of a policy violation, in other words. -- ChrisO 21:55, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Wikipedia is not a vehicle for propaganda

9) Wikipedia is not a vehicle for propaganda, Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_soapbox.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 17:28, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Can't disagree with that, though I have to say that in this particular case I think both sides have been soapboxing... -- ChrisO 00:35, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Use of administrator privileges in relation to unilateral moves and consensus

10a) The use of administrator privileges to undo unilateral non-consensual moves is permissible, subject to the limitations of the 3 revert rule.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Wheelwarring is never acceptable. Fred Bauder 03:34, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, however, this is not wheelwarring but enforcing WP:CON over unilateral controversial moves. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 04:02, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Comments by parties:

Proposed -- ChrisO 19:13, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

This is a necessary corollary to the principle proposed above by Kim (point 7). If Kim's principle is accepted, it will need to be enforced. This will most likely be undertaken by administrators following notification on WP:AN/I (as happened in this case). For the record, my own three reversions of the article move were undertaken in the belief that this principle was applicable to this case. The principle I propose here may be redundant in the light of Kim's proposal, but I would like to see some clear statement of what admins are empowered to do in such situations. -- ChrisO 19:13, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Not only does this assume that there was no consensus, but I see no basis for this rather self-serving finding in policy. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:00, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Why should I assume that? Humus sapiens explicitly stated that there was no consensus when he acted as he did. I'm merely taking him at his word. -- ChrisO 23:03, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I'll let Humus explain what he meant by that, if anything. I repeat, I am not Humus. Nor is SlimVirgin, for that matter. I certainly saw a consensus, as my evidence will make clear. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:13, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Misuse of powers

10b) Sysop powers must not be used to win a dispute about content.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Of course not Fred Bauder 03:34, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Comments by parties:

Proposed -- ChrisO 19:13, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

A well-established principle (cf. Wikipedia:Arbitration policy/Past decisions#Administrators) which is a key point in this case. As the record shows, Humus sapiens twice used sysop powers to perform a fait accompli on behalf of one side in the move poll - imposing that side's preferred solution while the move poll was ongoing. This is a clear-cut example of attempting to "win a dispute about content" through the use of sysop powers. -- ChrisO 19:13, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Administrators

10c) Administrators of Wikipedia are trusted members of the community and are expected to follow Wikipedia policies.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Yes Fred Bauder 03:34, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Comments by parties:

Proposed -- ChrisO 19:13, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Another fundamental principle which was not followed in this case. Humus sapiens unequivocally broke this principle in misusing sysop powers against standing policy. Jayjg and SlimVirgin then acted to uphold Humus' misuse of his powers when they each restored Humus sapiens' article move. As Kim mentions at 7 above, we have a well-established principle that certain serious types of actions against policy (such as edits by banned users) should be reverted regardless of the content so as not to reward the bad actor (cf. Wikipedia:Banning policy). We should take a similar approach towards the misuse of sysop powers (and I speak here as a sysop myself - if I overstepped my authority I would certainly expect someone to correct my misstep). -- ChrisO 19:13, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

It seems odd you would argue for this finding, since you misused your sysop powers to a far greater degree than anyone else in this case. Are you asking for sanctions against yourself? Jayjg ^(talk) 22:00, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I'll point out that there is a very important distinction between acting to defend the status quo until the move vote had been completed (as I did) and acting to win a dispute about content by abusing sysop powers (as Humus did). I note that you haven't disputed that Humus did in fact abuse his powers in this way. Abusive administrative actions are - or should be - just as subject to reversal as abusive editorial actions such as vandalism. -- ChrisO 23:03, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Equating a page move you disagree with (one which even you will concede had a majority in its favor) with vandalism is a grave misunderstanding of policy, as is your claim that "defending the status quo" is carte blanche for any actions you wish to take. Even you do not believe this to be a valid defense; if you did, you would not have been so careful to limit your reverts to 3. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:13, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

You're plainly not in a position to judge what I believe and I would ask that you keep your views on my motives to yourself - I've not attempted to assign any motives to you, nor will I. I limited my reverts to 3 for the simple reason that the 3RR only permits one to exceed that limit "in the case of obvious, simple vandalism", which this plainly wasn't -- ChrisO 23:37, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Edit wars/three-revert rule

11) It is expected that editors, when reverting, will provide an accurate explanation for doing so in the edit summary.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed -- ChrisO 20:52, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

This is an established principle (cf. Wikipedia:Arbitration policy/Past decisions#Edit wars/three-revert rule) to which I've added the word accurate. An explanation for a move should be given and should not misrepresent the reasons for the decision. In this case, one move was undertaken with no explanation at all and a second was undertaken with an explanation that was materially false ( i.e. claiming that a uncompleted vote with a very narrow majority represented "consensus"). -- ChrisO 20:52, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

One should not propose principles that are blatant violations of Wikipedia's WP:AGF policy. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:00, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Content of articles

12) An encyclopedia article is a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject, not a complete exposition of all possible details. See Wikipedia:Arbitration_policy/Past_decisions#Content_of_articles.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 21:03, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Fail to see the relevance. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:00, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I assume this is related to Nagle's comment under #WP:RS that the article is "drowning under citations". I'd certainly agree that not everything that could be included in the article should be included - it's supposed to be a summary, not a dissertation. -- ChrisO 23:11, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

A disertation would be original research. The content of acticles goes two ways. One is that it should be covering the relevant knowledge, while at the same time not deal with every possible small detail. Currently, Apartheid redirects to the South Africa article, which is a very limited scope of the term, while at the same time, several articles are loaded with details that are of limited interest, just to accomodate every possible aspect that someone could possibly object to etc. Often, to much detail results in forking, which is just not a good idea as far as I am concerned. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 23:18, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

This does seem to be straying into a proposal of what the article content should be, which I think the arbitrators didn't want to get into. I agree with the principle, I just don't think it's directly relevant to the issue at hand. -- ChrisO 22:32, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

This point has not much to do with the case as it is developping towards a narrow scope, but I have not yet recieved word of the ArbCom members other than Fred that this is a narrow case, and as such, leave these in. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 04:08, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Banning activists

13) A person who is an activist out side of Wikipedia and uses wikipedia in a way that clearly shows he is using wikipedia to push that POV while violating wikipedia policy to push his POV should not be editing any article in any area in which he uses wikipedia to push his POV/Propeganda.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

proposed -- Zeq 19:10, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

It does not matter is someone is an activist inreal life, if they can not write NPOV, they have no place. It is impossible to check whether someone is an activist, and requires wikipedia editors/admins to search for evidence outside wikipedia, which in turn can be nea impossible to verify for accuracy. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 01:53, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

By Zeq's arguments no one who has a strong pro-Zionist POV or who is a pro-Israel "activist" should be editing any article on Israel or Zionism. Indeed, by Zeq's argument 90% of the people editing the Israel apartheid article should be banned from it. Wikipedia is not meant to exclude "activists" from editing articles. His proposal, if that's what it is, is completely unworkable. As to 6SJ7's comments, I am not an "activist" on Israeli/Zionist issues. If merely having opinions makes me an activist then it makes him and Zeq activists as well. Zeq's comments mean anyone who belongs to a Zionist youth group or, support group or political party, anyone who has ever participated in Israel Day, anyone who has ever written a letter to the editor pro or anti-Israel or posted anything to a blog or message board pro- or anti-Israel is an activist. Indeed, many of the activities on wikipedia by 6SJ7, Zeq, SlimVirgin, Jay, myself, and others with strong views on either side would be counted as "activists" and banned by Zeq's reasoning. Homey 00:49, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

::The above comment uses the motion as a segue to discuss a completely different issue and thus does not belong in this section. Zeq's comments are completely irrelevent to the motion and he does not even say whether or not Fred should recuse or why - unless it is his contention that Fred is a "political activist". Homey 19:51, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Homey, there is no need to play games. You know very well who Zeq is referring to, and it is not Fred. Should Zeq's comment, and our comments, be moved elsewhere? Maybe (but not by me.) 6SJ7 20:32, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I did not say I agreed or disagreed with the particular terminology used by Zeq. All I said was, you know who he is talking about. Evidently Fred solved the "mystery" of whom Zeq was referring to, and now that he has, you have coincidentally moved this section halfway down the article from Fred's comment. I don't care about that, in fact I find much of this drama to be funny, and yet sad at the same time, that this much agony and anger is expended over what is supposed to be a cooperative project. For whatever it is worth, I do not think that being an "activist" on an issue in real life disqualifies one from editing articles about it. I do think that how one conducts themself on Wikipedia should have some bearing on their freedom to edit articles and even more so, to use priveleges and tools that other users do not have. I hope this does not come as a huge shock to anyone, but Homey, I think your behavior in this and related articles has left quite a bit to be desired. I don't care what rallies you organize or attend when you aren't trying to push your propaganda into Wikipedia articles. 6SJ7 01:28, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I hadn't seen Fred's comments until now but in any case they don't change the fact that Zeq was actually not speaking for or against my motion but making a new proposal requiring a separate headingHomey 02:20, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

• I am talking about a very general issue. Indeed, a person who is an activist and have a POV to push and uses wikipedia in a way that shows he is using wikipedia to push that POV (violating policy along the way) should not be editing any article in any area in which he uses wikipedia to push his POV/Propeganda. Zeq 03:44, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

• • Please keep this discussion in the realm of general principles about how to move forward, rather than resorting to personal comments and attacks. JDoorjam Talk 18:38, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
    • I agree with Doorjam. Zeq 01:41, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't believe this is a viable principle. Activists may well bring a level of knowledge of an issue that non-activists don't have, and we should always welcome input from experts. As Kim says, what really matters is whether you follow the NPOV rules or not. -- ChrisO 22:30, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Wheelwarring

14a) Wheelwarring, reverts by administrators, often using powers reserved to them, is unacceptable whatever the excuse. Wheelwarring will be severely sanctioned. Administrators who habitually engage in wheelwarring will be desysopped.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 16:30, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Oppose (see under 14b for detailed comments). I should also point out that the proposal is imprecisely worded, as the definition of wheelwarring ("reverts by administrators") would actually prohibit administrators from reverting anything. I'm pretty sure this isn't what Fred has in mind, but it's what the proposal says. -- ChrisO 22:17, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Wheelwarring (alternative)

14b) Administrators are given special powers for maintenance tasks such as deleting and moving pages and vandalism fighting such as blocking of disruptive editors. They should not use these powers to win content disputes, but can use them to undo disruption by editors and admins alike. Administrators who habitually misuse their sysop powers will be desysopped.

Comment by Arbitrators:

An administrator undoing the "disruption" done by another administrator is called wheelwarring and is not acceptable. Fred Bauder 00:08, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Proposed -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 18:21, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

The proposal of Fred Bauder effectively makes it impossible to undo sysop misuse in content disputes, and facilitates the misusage of those powers, because to get a unilateral, not consensus based and controversial move undone, the effort to get it undone is a multitude of the misuse in the first place. This can effectively be used by regular editors by moving a page, do a null edit on the newly created redirect page after which sysop power are required to move the page back, which then becomes misuse by the description of Fred Bauder. As such, distinctions between misuse and undoing misuse needs to be made. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 18:21, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree entirely with Kim. Fred's proposal is a bad idea, as it's very inequitable for two reasons. First, it effectively creates two tiers of misuse of privileges, to be treated in two different ways: it would mean that reverting non-admin actions is permitted within the limits set by the 3RR, but reverting admin actions for any reason at all even once is not permitted, even if there is a reasonable belief that the action being reverted is a misuse of privileges. Second, it effectively sets admins apart as a privileged class of users whose actions cannot be reverted by other administrators. This would be a decisive break from the policy set out in Wikipedia:Administrators: "From early on, it has been pointed out that administrators should never develop into a special subgroup of the community, but should be a part of the community like anyone else only equipped with a few more tools to do some chores that would potentially be harmful if everyone were entrusted with them." -- ChrisO 22:13, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

WP:AGF

15) Assume that others intended to follow the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia participation, unless there is clear and present evidence to the contrary.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Yes, Wikipedia:Assume good faith is policy. Fred Bauder 00:17, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

proposed. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 20:57, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Seconded. I believe that all the participants in this case (and I have to include myself in these comments) acted in good faith to uphold Wikipedia policies. I acted to uphold WP:CON but may have overridden WP:WHEEL in the process; Humus, SlimVirgin and Jayjg have stated that they acted to uphold WP:NPOV, but in doing so overrode both WP:WHEEL and WP:CON. We perhaps went about upholding these policies in the wrong way (that'll be for the Committee to judge) but I believe the evidence shows that all four of us acted to defend what we felt were the best interests of Wikipedia. -- ChrisO 22:19, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

This is indeed the key to resolving this crisis. We must assume Good faith and examine all the actions that lead to this edit-war at the end of the 2-months crisis. We need to see which editors have acted in Good Faith throuout this Crisis (Humus Sapeines is a clear example for that) and who may have violated it by weasled out at the last moment to escape examination of his/her deeds that caused the crisis. Zeq 04:16, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

You're contradicting yourself. You can't say, on the other hand, that we must assume good faith while at the same time accusing some editors of having "weasled out at the last moment to escape examination of his/her deeds that caused the crisis" (particularly if by "weasled out" you mean "had enough sense not to participate in a wheel war"). You either AGF or you do not, you cannot cherry pick and AGF for the editors you like or agree with and not AGF for the editors you disagree with or dislike. If you're going to practice AGF you have to do it for everyone.Homey 04:23, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Good question. In General we must assume Good faith. We should identify those editors who continusly acted without it througout this crisis.

Clearly Humus sapiens acted in Good faith when he belived that all the various polls can not result in consensus and a bold action is needed to bring the crisis closer to resolution. Zeq 04:40, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

"Good question" I didn't ask a question. "We should identify those editors who continusly acted without it througout this crisis." This statement does not Assume Good Faith, quite the opposite. Please read WP:AGF.Homey 04:59, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

• clearly, "some editors" have acted w/o good faith - otherwise we wound not be where we are.
• For example, any editor who uses sockpuppets, is not acting in good faith.
• Since sockpuppets have been used in this conflict user:Sonofzion [2] which was active especially during the 48 hours when one of the editors deeply involved in this crisis was blocked for violations of 3RR (as part of the edit war in this crisis).
• The identity of user:Sonofzion and other sockppupets (some from your geographical area) must be idenitified so that Good Faith sould be detrmined. Zeq 05:28, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

"clearly, "some editors" have acted w/o good faith - otherwise we wound not be where we are." This statement is not consistent with AGF. Homey 05:35, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

• "clearly, "some editors" have acted w/o good faith - otherwise we wound not be where we are." Zeq 05:57, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Quotes from WP:AGF:

"This policy does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of evidence to the contrary. Actions inconsistent with good faith include vandalism, personal attacks, sockpuppetry and edit warring.

• Intersting (maybe even bizzare) diff: [3] Zeq 06:24, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Administrators may make mistakes

16) Administrators are expected to pursue their duties to the best of their abilities. Occasional mistakes are entirely compatible with this: administrators are not expected to be perfect. Consistently or egregiously poor judgement may result in removal (temporary or otherwise) of admin status.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Wheelwarring is unacceptable. Fred Bauder 00:19, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

You seem to be saying that wheelwarring is an offence of such heinousness that the explanation of "good faith mistake" (as opposed to, say, "malicious action") isn't available. Could you make it clear whether or not you consider motivation to be irrelevant? -- ChrisO 00:37, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Interpreting policy isn't a precise science; people can and do make mistakes in good faith, as the Pedophilia userbox wheel war decision recognised. -- ChrisO 22:24, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Seconded. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 04:12, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

I'll declare an open interest to support this one. David | Talk 22:26, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Banning practices

17) It is not an accepted practice to ban users from editing Wikipedia unless they are actively disrupting, endangering, or otherwise harming the project. Where enacted, bans should be consistent with the severity of the offence.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Exactly, wheelwarring seriously endangers the project. Fred Bauder 03:30, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Proposed. -- ChrisO 00:23, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Administrators vs. disruption

18) One aspect of the responsibilities of an Administrator is to attempt to prevent disruption to the Wikipedia site and its users.

Comment by Arbitrators:

It is not the job of one administrator to police another by engaging in wheelwarring. Fred Bauder 03:35, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? -- ChrisO 07:43, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Proposed, as per precedent (Wikipedia:Arbitration policy/Past decisions#Administrators). This necessarily applies to all user actions, not merely those of non-administrators. Admins are not immune from basic user conduct policies. -- ChrisO 01:07, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

Creation of article

1) Israeli apartheid was created May 29, 2006 by Homeontherange (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) [4]. After expansion and elaboration its neutrality was challenged late that day by Humus_sapiens (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) who inserted Template:POV [5] and initiated discussion on the talk page [6]. Strothra (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) requested Peer review [7].

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 23:00, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Support. Pecher ^Talk 19:14, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Article names policy

2) Article names are addressed at Wikipedia:NPOV_tutorial#Article_names, Wikipedia:Naming conventions, and Wikipedia:Naming conflict.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 14:02, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Seems to be more under "policy" than "fact". — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 16:45, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Agree with Arthur Rubin. Pecher ^Talk 19:14, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

POV implications of "Israeli apartheid"

3) The article title "Israeli apartheid" carries point of view implications which associate Israel with the apartheid practices of South Africa. It is also an allegation of the newly defined Crime of apartheid, which has been characterized as a "crime against humanity" by the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 14:30, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

As far as I am concerned, this is a content interpretation. See scholary articles/books using the comparison:

• Delvoie, L. A. 2002. Palestine/Israel - Peace or apartheid. International Journal 57:318-320
• Glaser, D. J. 2003. Zionism and Apartheid: a moral comparison. Ethnic and Racial Studies 26:403-421.
• Roy, S. M. 1993. Joyless in Gaza - Apartheid, Israeli-Style. Nation 257:136-139.
• Yiftachel, O. 2001. From “peace” to creeping apartheid: The emerging political geography of Israel/Palestine. Arena 16(3):13–24.
• Oren Yiftachel, Department of Geography and Environmental Development, Ben Gurion University of the Desert, Neither two states nor one: The Disengagement and "creeping apartheid" in Israel/Palestine in The Arab World Geographer/Le Géographe du monde arabe 8, no 3 (2005)
• GREENBERG, STANLEY 1980 Race and State in Capitalist Development: South Africa in Comparative Perspective. Ravan Press, Johannesburg
• AKENSON, DONALD HARMAN 1992 God’s Peoples: Covenant and Land in South Africa, Israel, and Ulster. Cornell University Press, Ithaca and London

-- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 15:13, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Note: None of Kim's sources actually use the phrase "Israeli apartheid", but rather allege that Israeli policies are apartheid-like. This rather weakens her claim that there is a "standard name" for this, which the article should use. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:06, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Sure, but they explicitly link Israel with apartheid, which goes beyond allegations. I would not have a problem with Israel and Apartheid which would take the issue of whether that name exists away, but also prevents the normative Allegations of Israeli apartheid. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 23:07, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Crime of apartheid is not new -- it dates to 1976 UN GA ruling, although its adoption by the ICC, via the Rome Statute, is recent, primarily because the ICC and the Rome Statute are recent developments. --Ben Houston 17:28, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

The acts constituting apartheid were always a crime against humanity due to their nature. Its formal definition in a court empowered (by those who agree to jurisdiction) to prosecute violations is new. Fred Bauder 17:36, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

The original UN GA convention did allow for the prosecution -- here is the original [8]. Article V states "Persons charged with the acts enumerated in article II of the present Convention may be tried by a competent tribunal of any State Party to the Convention which may acquire jurisdiction over the person of the accused or by an international penal tribunal having jurisdiction with respect to those States Parties which shall have accepted its jurisdiction."

Also, it is important to note that initial claims that Israel was apartheid (such as by Hendrik Verwoerd, the architect of SA apartheid, in 1961) were made prior to the creation of the crime of apartheid (which was 1976.) Also this article was created prior to most involved parties knowledge that there was a crime of apartheid (I can find comments to this effect -- it was why I created the crime of apartheid article) -- thus implying Israel was committing the crime of apartheid was not their original intent in creating or titling the article. --Ben Houston 17:45, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

It certainly does have POV implications, but so do many other terms used as article titles (e.g. Republic of Macedonia, Sea of Japan ,Islamofascism, pro-life and more). This does not automatically disqualify it from use or require a qualifying adjective. See my comments above under #WP:TITLE 5a and 5b. -- ChrisO 20:46, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

"Republic of Macedonia" is a name for a place. "Islamofascism" and "pro-life" are well-established terms. "Apartheid" is an allegation about discriminatory practices. They are not comparable. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:06, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

"Islamofascism" is an allegation about a link between Islam and fascism; "pro-life" is a politically loaded way of framing a particular political issue. (I note that the Framing (communication theory) even cites "pro-life" and "pro-choice" as examples.) "Israeli apartheid" is both an allegation and a way of framing an issue. I agree with Fred's proposed finding, but I think that it's important to note that this article isn't a unique example of the phenomenon. Ideally, I would like to see the Committee provide a ruling that can be applied consistently to other such examples. -- ChrisO 22:38, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Term over description

4) If a single term is available for the title, this is preferred over an descriptive title. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 15:09, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

This is a principle, not a finding of fact, my mistake.-- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 15:54, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Wikipedia is not a platform for propaganda. Fred Bauder 17:24, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I am glad we agree. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 17:34, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Lets see if we can get this clear. If terms can be replaced by descriptions, this will make it possible to replace many many titles to longer desciptive titles, and would generate a lot of additional discussion. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and does not make value statements about titles. As such, the most common name should be used and descriptions should only be used when there is not a single term available. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 15:09, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

There is no single term for this allegation, which is why so many of the sources used in the article do not use the term "Israeli apartheid". Jayjg ^(talk) 22:07, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Propaganda warfare

5) Nations (or other entities) and their supporters which are engaged in conflict attempt to use information as a weapon. This includes attempts to frame a conflict in terms favorable to one side or another. For example, one side may always refer to resistance by the other side as "terror", while the other side may view the conflict as "invasion" or "occupation".

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 17:45, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Agree - this is self-evident. For the record, we have many articles with titles which use terms in this way - e.g. Islamofascism, pro-life, pro-choice and so on. Framing (communication theory) is a good primer on this. -- ChrisO 22:41, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

We also have an article named Zionist Occupation Government - the phrase is reprehensible, propagandistic, anti-Semitic and completely unacceptable and I find it quite offensive on every level, yet it is the name of the article because it is a phrase used by a (narrow) segment of society. Our task at Wikipedia is to ensure that the contents of the article are NPOV but this does not mean changing the name of the article in an attempt to neutralize an offensive phrase.Homey 22:46, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Israeli apartheid as reframing

6) Reframing the Arab-Israeli conflict as apartheid casts Israel in a bad light, associating it on one hand with the racist apartheid regime of South Africa and on the other with the crime of apartheid. In addition, by implication, it advances the contention that only an integrated multi-ethnic state offers a fair resolution of the conflict [9].

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 17:51, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Content, and opinion. Not based on WP:RS. Based on some reliable sources, however, other hold different opinions. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 18:01, 14 July 2006 (UTC) Updated. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 19:20, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Hendrik Verwoerd, the architect of SA apartheid, in 1961 referred to Israel as an apartheid state. He was an individual supportive of apartheid and thus his usage, which one was of the first, was not reframing but rather genuine belief. I would counter that claims of Israeli apartheid are reframing is itself a reframing of the situation. Second, just because there are similarities between the current situation does not mean that one support a similar outcome -- thus saying that it implicitly advances support for a multi-ethnic binational solution is a leap of logic in my opinion. --Ben Houston 18:06, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

A finding of fact is not a Wikipedia article. Fred Bauder 18:20, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I merely pointed out that the term "reframing" here is not appropriate. Also I notice that you use above the term "Arab-Israeli" conflict -- which is too general, the allegations of apartheid are primarily in reference to the Palestinians and usually specific to the occupied territories -- thus "Israeli-Palestinian" conflict would be most appropriate. --Ben Houston 18:29, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

The other side of that is that reframing "Israeli Apartheid" as "Allegations of Israeli Apartheid" reframes the topic as being about commentary, rather than implementation. An article titled "Israeli Apartheid" might focus on identity cards, residency requirements, land ownership, travel restrictions, security issues, and the wall/fence/barrier. Titled "Allegations of Israeli Apartheid", the article gravitates towards press coverage and political statements. The title does, to some extent, drive the article. --John Nagle 18:33, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Point taken. Fred Bauder 18:42, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Not necessarily, and in any event, one must decide whether the article is about the "standard name" "Israeli apartheid", or about the claim that Israeli has apartheid-like practices. One cannot argue that this is about a standard name on the one hand, and about a series of practices under all sorts of names on the other. The world is filled with accusations of apartheid, and practically every country is accused of it; see Apartheid outside of South Africa for many examples. An article about various discriminatory practices of Israel is one thing, but when one asserts that they constitute "apartheid", that is another. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:10, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

That is what NPOV is all about: The views iof those who allege and those who disagree can both be expressed (as they actually are) in an article called by the correct name. An even better NPOV name is "Use of the term Israeli Apartheid " - it is NPOV and the article text can provide various uses of the term by both sides of the POV debate. Zeq 18:58, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I feel compelled to point out that all of these difficulties associated with the "Allegations of..." title -- which I supported and still support as a compromise -- would have been avoided if the name had simply been permitted to remain at Israeli apartheid (phrase), which does not violate any Wikipedia policies as I explained on the article's talk page weeks ago. Evidently I will have to explain it again, as my move of the article to Israeli apartheid (phrase) on May 31 appears to be one of the "charges" against me in this arbitration. 6SJ7 19:37, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

While an interesting, if inaccurte, assertion of POV I don't see how it is at all relevent to this ArbComm case except as a restatement of one individual's own bias. It is inaccurate since Fred says the Arab-Israeli conflict when I believe he means the Israel-Palestinian conflict.Homey 19:48, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

The first sentence I would agree with, the second seems to be an assertion of POV; multiple POVs from reputable sources exist on this issue. I don't believe the Committee should really get into deciding which POV it prefers. It's not the Committee's job and it simply isn't relevant to this case anyway. (I note that the case was accepted on the basis of reviewing conduct, not content.) -- ChrisO 22:45, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

The "contention that only an integrated multi-ethnic state offers a fair resolution of the conflict" is viewed as denial of Israel's Right to exist as the only homeland of the Jewish people - such denial is widely (but not unanimosly) as a form of New anti-semitism.

Wikipedia articles should be used to promote (or justify) hate or any other political view . Zeq 18:36, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

My position is that when Saudi Arabia goes multi-ethnic, Israel/Palestine ought to consider it too. Fred Bauder 18:42, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Although this is saying that "when pigs have wings" I don't really see the connection between ensuring survival of the Jewish people to giving Christians the right to enter Mecca. In any case the key issue is that:

• Wikipedia articles should be written in a way that they (or part there of) will be used to promote (or justify) hate or any other political view . Zeq 18:58, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

You go too far. Those who would use "Israeli apartheid" as a title are not engaged in hate or even anti-Semitic. Fred Bauder 19:08, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

No. The European Union has an official position that (Ia m repharsing ): "denying Israel's as a homeland for the Jerwish people is antisemitism". In this sense use of the term to promote the "one state solution" is antsemitism. Zeq 03:52, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Zeq, that's a valid POV, but it's one that many reputable sources don't agree with (see Binational solution for a case in point). The proposal also strays much too far outside the boundaries of this arbitration, as it's an invitation for the Committee to endorse a particular faction's POV.

I agree with Fred's comments, and I believe that WP:NPOV and WP:NOT already provide sufficient basis to prohibit the writing of articles as propaganda tools (WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not a soapbox, in particular). -- ChrisO 23:46, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

• That is really the point: WP:NPOV and WP:NOT has been violated when the article wesnt through it's initial revisions. Instead of descrbing the controversy editors seem to enage in an effort to take part in it (mostly on one side) Zeq 08:46, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Bad faith renaming of article

7) The article was moved arbitrarily in the middle of a poll to determine whether there was consensus over renaming it. Moving the article before the poll had been completed, and when there was, by the mover's own admission, no consensus for a move, was an act of bad faith that harmed the informal mediation process that was underway at Wikipedia:Central_discussions/Apartheid. All editors, administrators in particular, should act in good faith and should not use their administrative permissions to entrench or re-inforce a bad faith move.

Comment by Arbitrators:

What ought to be done when there is a deadlock as was seen here. Keep negotiating or see who can revert the fastest? I think there needs to be an examination of the reasons expressed in the voting and further analysis of what our policies mean in specific instances. In other words, serious discussion, not just voting. Fred Bauder 00:03, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Proposed.Homey 20:02, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Tweaked for clarity.Homey 18:54, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

The poll had lasted far longer that the required 5 days, a majority supported the move, and there was a strong consensus for it when the poll was finally closed. Claiming that this strongly supported move was done in "bad faith" is, in fact, both "bad faith", and a vote for process over product. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:15, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Humus stated explicitly that there was no consensus when he implemented the name change:

There is no consensus and we are not going to get one and to pretend otherwise is dishonest. For weeks, we've been kept hostage to activists (I am trying to be polite here) who are interested only in namecalling and inflammatory soapboxing. This cannot go on forever. I am moving the article Israeli Apartheid to Allegations of Israeli apartheid because that is what it is: allegations. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 20:09, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Thus, his action was in bad faith. Several other admins acted to defend this bad faith action. Homey 22:59, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

You have no idea what Humus meant by that comment, if anything. I certainly don't presume to speak for him. As for me, I didn't see that comment, and supported the move because there was good enough consensus for it. I'm not Humus, by the way. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:16, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

"You have no idea what Humus meant by that comment, if anything" - I have a very clear idea, as would anyone reading his statement, that he recognized there was, in his own words, "no consensus" for the name change. It's clear from his action and from his saying "I am moving the article Israeli Apartheid to Allegations of Israeli apartheid because that is what it is: allegations" that he did not see the lack of consensus as a barrier to his implementing the move based on his own personal view of the article. Jayjg, you have offered no alternate interpretation of Humus' words nor has Humus, a party to this RFA, replied here to claim that when he said there was "no consensus" he actually meant the opposite. Homey 18:57, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I think that bad faith was keeping the POV title. While a majority emerged for a NPOV title after several weeks of negotiations (including the unusually long poll), certain editors showed only interest in keeping the unpopular and POV status quo, instead of seeking a compromise. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 22:31, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

You should have put forward an argument then rather than acted unilaterally when you knew (and said) there was no consensus.Homey 22:56, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm hesitant about attributing bad faith in this matter. I believe that all the parties involved acted in good faith, which isn't the same as saying that they made the right decisions. Wikipedia:Assume good faith should surely apply. -- ChrisO 22:48, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

It's clear from his own words that Humus initiated the name change while recognizing there was "no consensus" in the poll. One cannot give him the benefit of the doubt that he didn't realise he was acting against consensus when his statements make his thinking clear. Homey 22:53, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

It's certainly clear from his own words that Humus was aware that he was acting without consensus (note: not against consensus, as there was no consensus to act against). However, I note that in his edit summary Humus stated "NPOV title" - in other words, he believed that he was upholding the NPOV policy by moving the article to a title that he considered consistent with NPOV. I believe the evidence shows that he broke one policy (Wikipedia:Consensus) in order to uphold another policy (WP:NPOV). In this respect, I think it's fair to say that he acted in good faith but went about it in a bad way. (I recognise that the same could be said about the other participants, including myself.) See also my comments under #WP:AGF above. -- ChrisO 23:40, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Voting dynamics

8) The unilateral move of the page and the resulting posting of that on the WP:AN/I page resulted in a new influx of editors who otherwise would not have expressed their opinion. This influx changed the balance in opinion from no consensus (56.7%) to support. See Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Israeli_apartheid/Evidence#Voting_dynamics and see also Wikipedia_talk:Central_discussions/Apartheid#Poll:_Rename_.22Israeli_apartheid.22_article_to_.22Allegations_of_Israeli_apartheid.22 for the underlying data (except the last three votes).

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 20:37, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

There was certainly a majority in favor; it is your view that that majority was not a good enough consensus. That majority has only gotten stronger. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:23, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Kim's view is supported by Wikipedia:Consensus: "If there is strong disagreement with the outcome from the Wikipedia community, it is clear that consensus has not been reached." If 43.3% of the voters disagreed with the proposition, that's a pretty good sign that a consensus did not exist. A narrow plurality does not equal consensus. (Consider this parallel: if a narrow majority elects the President, does that mean that the President was elected with a consensus of the people?) -- ChrisO 00:33, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Involvement of more people in votes is a good thing; one should not imply that it is in some way bad or improper. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:23, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree entirely, though it's fair to ask whether the majority would have come about if Humus sapiens hadn't done what he did. The fact that his action seems to have catalysed a majority vote should not excuse the fact that his action was improper in the first place. -- ChrisO 00:33, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Apartheid

9) The Apartheid article should discuss the term, and not be a redirect to History of South Africa in the apartheid era, which is only one of the usages and not a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject. See Wikipedia:Arbitration_policy/Past_decisions#Content_of_articles.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Yes, good idea. Fred Bauder 21:34, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Proposed. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 21:07, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand; on the one hand in proposed finding 6 John Nagle argues that the article regarding Israel's practices should be about the practices, not the term, but here Kim argues a similar article should be about the term, not the practices. Can we have some consistency here? Also, just how far are we going to expand the scope of the case? I thought it was about some page moves of one article. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:19, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I think this is actually a major part of the problem - there's no agreement about the subject of the article. Is it about the term or the practices? Or both? I'm inclined to think that this is getting into the content side of things, which I thought the ArbCom wanted to avoid. -- ChrisO 23:54, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

The proposal is beyond the scope of this case, which is solely about the moves of Israeli apartheid. In addition, this proposal asks the ArbCom to endorse a certain content issue, and I agree with ChrisO that it's better to steer clear of it. Pecher ^Talk 19:11, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

This is a pure content finding. The arbitration committee still doesn't dictate content. Rebecca 02:52, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Poll on renaming

10) Wikipedia_talk:Central_discussions/Apartheid#Poll:_Rename_.22Israeli_apartheid.22_article_to_.22Allegations_of_Israeli_apartheid.22

Comment by Arbitrators:

Note Fred Bauder 21:25, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Scope of the conflict

11) The conflict covers various articles (Allegations of Israeli apartheid, Apartheid (disambiguation), Apartheid outside of South Africa, Global apartheid, Gender apartheid, Sexual apartheid, Apartheid wall, Crime of apartheid, Islamic apartheid, Apartheid) , whether they should exist, their titles and the content.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Too much already on our plate. Fred Bauder 00:11, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Proposed. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 21:49, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Does that mean you are proposing that the arbitrators decide all those issues? I am not saying at this point whether I would agree or disagree. I am just asking whether that is what you are asking them to do. If it is, then there are a few other things I will need to ask, and perhaps suggest, before this train travels much further. 6SJ7 22:06, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

This is proposed finding of facts section, and this is the scope of the dispute. That is what I say here. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 22:09, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

That's certainly not the basis on which the case was accepted. Cases should be constrained to defined issues, not huge complaint-fests about multiple articles edited by different people at different times and in different ways. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:25, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Jayjg. Let's keep this focused on the immediate dispute over the out-of-process move of the Israeli apartheid article. -- ChrisO 23:56, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Agree with ChrisO.Homey 22:35, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Arbitration policy states that the Arbitrators only consider disputes that are referred to them. Evidently the committee in practice can find that it has to go slightly wider than the immediate subject but there's no point in extending cases as far as they can possibly go. For one thing it just complicates the case for no good reason. For another, every finding in a separate area is, in fairness, going to bring in more evidence about that area. (username not immediately apparent) 21:48, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Pejorative political terms

12) There are a number of articles which can be fairly characterized as Category:Pejorative_political_terms. Notable in this context is Islamofascism.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 12:24, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

I see no reason at this point to delete to rename Islamofascism if there are adaquest reliable references to support its existence. It is also interesting to note that Jayjg (see [10]) and SlimVirgin (see [11]) and Zeq (see [12]) voted keep on Islamofascism during its two AfD -- I can't find mention of others involved in this mediation voting on the article, but I may has just missed it. --Ben Houston 02:17, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

We will be making no remedies regarding Islamofascism in this decision. Fred Bauder 17:04, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Why would one support renaming Israeli apartheid to Allegations of Israeli apartheid but oppose renaming Islamofascism to Allegations of Islamofascism?Homey 22:37, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

This is a fair point. As I've noted above under "Propaganda warfare", the use of loaded, pejorative or otherwise biased terms is a standard tactic in political framing. We need to have a consistent rationale for treating loaded terms in article titles. My original vote against the move was motivated by the fact that we don't appear to have such a rationale. -- ChrisO 22:53, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Wheelwarring

13) In the absence of consensus in the ongoing discussions regarding the appropriate title for Israeli aparthied Humus_sapiens (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) moved Israeli apartheid to Allegations of Israeli appartheid [13]. ChrisO (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) immediately moved it back [14]. SlimVirgin (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) moved it again [15]. ChisO again moved it back [16]. Jayjg (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) again moved it [17]. ChisO moved it back for a third time [18]. Humis sapiens then moved it a second time [19].

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 16:43, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Jayjg previously cautioned against edit warring

13) One of the remedies in the RFA against User:Yuber was to formally caution User:Jayjg against edit warring and to advise him to "use Wikipedia's dispute resolution procedure in preference to attempting to control content through the use of reverts."[20].

Comment by Arbitrators:

Yes, he was warned. He asked us not to do that precisely because he could foresee this sort of thing. We chose not to follow his advice. However, a mere warning in the past does not form the basis for an increased sanction in this case. Every administrator should have taken notice from that warning, not just Jayjg. Wheelwarring is unacceptable. Fred Bauder 00:14, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

"a mere warning in the past does not form the basis for an increased sanction in this case" -increasing disciplinary response over successive offenses from an initial warning to suspension and ultimately to termination is the basis of progressive discipline. Homey 04:02, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Homey 18:01, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Not relevant, as there was no edit warring on part of Jayjg in this case. Pecher ^Talk 19:06, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Wheelwarring is a form of edit warring.Homey 19:13, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Then, one move does not constitute a wheel war, just like one revert does not constitute an edit war. Pecher ^Talk 20:13, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

One move as part of a wheel war constitutes participation in a wheel war just as throwing just one rock during a riot constitutes participation in a riot. Homey 22:38, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Homey's statement does seem to be supported by past ArbComm decisions; see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pedophilia userbox wheel war#Wheel warring. -- ChrisO 22:55, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I was recused. Fred Bauder 03:28, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Good faith, bad methods

14) The parties acted in good faith to defend Wikipedia policies but did so in an inappropriate way.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Yes Fred Bauder 03:29, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Proposed. -- ChrisO 00:26, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I believe that all the participants in this case (including myself) acted in good faith to uphold Wikipedia policies. I acted to uphold WP:CON but may have overridden WP:WHEEL in the process; Humus, SlimVirgin and Jayjg have stated that they acted to uphold WP:NPOV, but in doing so overrode both WP:WHEEL and WP:CON. We perhaps went about upholding these policies in the wrong way (that'll be for the Committee to judge) but I believe the evidence shows that all four of us acted to defend what we felt were the best interests of Wikipedia. -- ChrisO -- ChrisO 00:26, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

3 revert rule

15) The number of reverts carried out by the parties did not exceed the threshold set by WP:3RR.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. -- ChrisO 00:30, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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.

Humus sapiens banned

1) Humus sapiens is banned from Wikipedia for two months for wheelwarring.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 17:02, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Humus' punishment should be more severe than ChrisO's given the fact that he instigated the edit/wheel war and did so be knowingly disregarding the lack of consensus in a poll on the article's title. Homey 20:09, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Humus just moved the article; ChrisO started the war by reverting him, and then continued to war by reverting two other editors. Humus only reverted one time, one revert is not a "war". Jayjg ^(talk) 21:23, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Several admins working in concert co-operating to each make one revert does constitute a war - albeit one in which one side has several individuals co-ordinating their efforts against one individualco-operating against another individual. Your response, if it were accepted, creates an unacceptable loophole ie it allows wheel warring when it's done by several individuals pooling their efforts.Homey 21:27, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

"Working in concert?" "co-ordinating their efforts against one individual"? A bizarrely conspiratorial view of the world that again violates WP:AGF. When editors happen to agree with each other regarding edits on their watchlist, that is not a conspiracy; if it were, we'd have to ban practically every admin who has ever reverted anything. It is merely an assertion of yours that there was no consensus, and WP:3RR is quite clear that actions of individual editors are treated as individual actions; attempts to group them have never been accepted as policy, and for good reason. I find these attempts to completely re-write policy for partisan reasons based on unfounded assertions to be quite disturbing. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:35, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

It's not "bizarrely conspiratorial", it's just an observation that several admins co-operated (is that a better word?) to enforce a move despite the fact that there was no consensus for the move and with disregard for dispute resolution mechanisms, including an attempt that was underway. A tag-team wheelwar is still a wheelwar. Homey 21:39, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Past decisions by the ArbComm would seem to support the contention that this constituted a wheel war. See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pedophilia userbox wheel war#Wheel warring. I also disagree strongly with the claim that I "started" the wheel war. The first move, as the evidence shows, was carried out by Humus, not myself. -- ChrisO 23:13, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Fred has not provided any basis on which this penalty and others have been proposed. However, the terms of the penalty appear to be calculated on the basis of one month per each move/revert carried out by each party (3 for me, 2 for Humus, 1 each for SlimVirgin and Jayjg). This seems a very unsatisfactory and mechanistic basis on which to proceed, as it takes no account of the motives involved - as I've argued below (#Good faith, bad methods), there's clear evidence that all of the parties acted to uphold policies but broke other policies in the process. The penalty also far exceeds similar penalties in similar cases. I point in particular to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pedophilia userbox wheel war, where the harshest penalty given to any of the administrator participants was desysopping with permission to reapply for administrative privileges after two weeks. There is simply no precedent for bans of this length for any of the participants, nor are such long bans appropriate in my judgement. -- ChrisO 23:13, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Oppose, disproportional. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 03:23, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

• Banning all those admins for one month or more is completely silly, maybe a temp desyropping is in order and a ban of the article is in order, but not that. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 23:33, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
• As a wheelwar is defined in WP:WHEEL as "A wheel war is a struggle between two or more admins in which they undo another's admin actions " it would seem that a move, which is not an "admin action", rather an action of any user, is not considered wheel warring. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 23:36, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
  • See this link for a list of administrative actions that were taken as part of the wheel war. Deletions and undeletions were necessary in order to implement the various moves thus it was a wheelwar. Homey 23:43, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Banning or desysopping anyone for one revert or one block is insane. This is taking the concept of edit warring to altogether new (and rather stupid) lengths. Rebecca 02:55, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

ChrisO banned

2) ChrisO is banned from Wikipedia for 3 months for wheelwarring.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 17:02, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

If ChrisO is to be punished (and I don't think he should be given the circumstances) his punishment should be less severe than Humus' given the fact that Humus sapiens instigated the edit/wheel war and did so be knowingly disregarding the lack of consensus in a poll on the article's title. Homey 20:10, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

This seems an extraordinarily disproportionate penalty, far beyond those levied in previous cases involving wheel warring (see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pedophilia userbox wheel war for a case in point). For the record, I acted to uphold WP:CON (though I acknowledge that I may have broken WP:WHEEL in the process; see my comments at #Good faith, bad methods). I involved myself with the dispute over the article name only because policy had not been followed in unilaterally moving it. My position is fundamentally the same as that of User:BorgHunter in the pedophilia userbox case; as he said there, "it was up for [a vote], and consensus had not been reached, therefore it must stay until voting can finish and we can all come to a consensus. That's not wheel warring; that's upholding policy."

In addition, Fred has not provided any basis on which this penalty and others have been proposed. However, the terms of the penalty appear to be calculated on the basis of one month per each move/revert carried out by each party (3 for me, 2 for Humus, 1 each for SlimVirgin and Jayjg). This seems a very unsatisfactory and mechanistic basis on which to proceed, as it takes no account of the motives involved - as I've argued below (#Good faith, bad methods), there's clear evidence that all of the parties acted to uphold policies but broke other policies in the process. -- ChrisO 21:50, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Strong oppose, see rational below under #ChrisO commended. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 03:25, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

This is insane. ChrisO is an excellent veteran editor, with a history of excellent work, who happened to get in an edit war. How would handing down any more than a warning help Wikipedia in any way? Rebecca 02:57, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

SlimVirgin banned

3) SlimVirgin is banned from Wikipedia for one month for wheelwarring.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 17:02, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

One move has suddenly become "wheel-warring"? SV didn't even use admin powers for that move, anyone could have made it. Seems pretty absurd. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:24, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Saying that it constituted part of a wheel war does seem to be supported by past decisions (Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pedophilia userbox wheel war#Wheel warring). -- ChrisO 23:15, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Fred has not provided any basis on which this penalty and others have been proposed. However, the terms of the penalty appear to be calculated on the basis of one month per each move/revert carried out by each party (3 for me, 2 for Humus, 1 each for SlimVirgin and Jayjg). This seems a very unsatisfactory and mechanistic basis on which to proceed, as it takes no account of the motives involved - - as I've argued below (#Good faith, bad methods), there's clear evidence that all of the parties acted to uphold policies but broke other policies in the process. The penalty also far exceeds similar penalties in similar cases. I point in particular to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pedophilia userbox wheel war, where the harshest penalty given to any of the administrator participants was desysopping with permission to reapply for administrative privileges after two weeks. There is simply no precedent for bans of this length for any of the participants, nor are such long bans appropriate in my judgement. -- ChrisO 23:15, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Oppose, disproportional. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 03:23, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

• As a wheelwar is defined in WP:WHEEL as "A wheel war is a struggle between two or more admins in which they undo another's admin actions " it would seem that a move, which is not an "admin action", rather an action of any user, is not considered wheel warring. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 23:37, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

• • See this link for a list of administrative actions that were taken as part of the wheel war. Deletions and undeletions were necessary in order to implement the various moves thus it was a wheelwar. Homey 23:43, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

SlimVirgin has a long and continuing history of excellent contributions, and is one of our best at dealing difficult users. How on earth would a month ban help Wikipedia in the slightest? Rebecca 02:58, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Jayjg banned

4) Jayjg is banned from Wikipedia for one month for wheelwarring.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 17:02, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

This should be longer as this is a repeated offence: Jayjg (talk • contribs) is reminded that edit-warring is harmful to Wikipedia's mission and is advised to use Wikipedia's dispute resolution procedure in preference to attempting to control content through the use of reverts.[21]-- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 18:30, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

From Wikipedia:Wheel warring:

Most editors (and admins) tend to agree that wheel wars are not good. Sometimes, admins are temporarily blocked for wheel warring, but this can result in a wheel war itself if the blocked admin or a friend undoes the block. Temporary desysoping may be used as a measure to deter and halt wheel wars. Wheel warring has been used as grounds for sanctions by the ArbCom in a few cases ([1][2][3][4]), some of which have resulted in users having to re-apply for adminship and others being stripped without that option.

I would like to add violation of WP:AGF here. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 20:58, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

One move has suddenly become "wheel-warring"? I didn't even use my admin powers for that move, anyone could have made it. Seems pretty absurd. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:21, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

In fact you did use your admin powers[22].Homey 21:47, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Saying that it constituted part of a wheel war does seem to be supported by past decisions (Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pedophilia userbox wheel war#Wheel warring). The definition of wheel warring used there - "undoing an administrative action by another administrator" - isn't dependent on the use of admin powers. Any action which "undoes an administrative action by another administrator", even if it doesn't use admin powers, counts as wheel warring under this definition, which you voted for. -- ChrisO 23:17, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Fred has not provided any basis on which this penalty and others have been proposed. However, the terms of the penalty appear to be calculated on the basis of one month per each move/revert carried out by each party (3 for me, 2 for Humus, 1 each for SlimVirgin and Jayjg). This seems a very unsatisfactory and mechanistic basis on which to proceed, as it takes no account of the motives involved - as I've argued below (#Good faith, bad methods), there's clear evidence that all of the parties acted to uphold policies but broke other policies in the process. The penalty also far exceeds similar penalties in similar cases. I point in particular to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pedophilia userbox wheel war, where the harshest penalty given to any of the administrator participants was desysopping with permission to reapply for administrative privileges after two weeks. There is simply no precedent for bans of this length for any of the participants, nor are such long bans appropriate in my judgement. -- ChrisO 23:17, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Oppose, disproportional. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 03:23, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Banning people from Wikipedia looks like an unusually harsh remedy for wheelwarring. In Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Tony Sidaway, Tony Sidaway was limited to 1RR for wheelwarring on a much larger scale than in this case. Pecher ^Talk 19:03, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

And other admins have been desysopped for wheelwarring, some have been allowed to reapply for admin status, others have not. Homey 19:48, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Wheelwarring involved a misuse of administrative permissions - admins, and particularly ArbComm members, should be held to a higher standard. Also, Jayjg has been cautioned (ie "recommended") in the past year for edit warring so this is not a first offence. Homey 19:15, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Tony Sidaway was wheel warring -- or at least formally convited of so in the above RfA.

I am not as experienced in WP policy as you two, but complete bans seems harsh. I would recommend alternatively temporary bans from articles related to the IP conflict or temporary suspensions of admin rights -- thus they could all still contribute value to Wikipedia during the punishments, just not in the area (I-P conflict) or in the way (admin rights abuse) that resulted in the problems. --Ben Houston 19:20, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

User:Freestylefrappe was desysopped for wheelwarring and allowed to reapply for admin status.[23]. Homey 19:45, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

No, Homey, admins are just users with tools; they are held to the same standard as everybody else. Pecher ^Talk 19:26, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

They are users who are granted extra powers and thus have extra responsibilities. Further, an ArbComm member should be expected to set an example, not be a repeat offender.Homey 19:38, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

• News Flash: Even "ArbCom" members are human. Zeq 19:53, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

One move is not a repeat offense; only people who persistently engage in certain reprehensible behavior must be sanctioned. Pecher ^Talk 20:14, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Engaging in wheel warring after being cautioned in an earlier RFA against edit warring makes Jayjg a repeat offender. Homey 21:23, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

One move not using admin powers is "wheel warring"? And "a repeat offender"? Hmm. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:25, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Were you not cautioned for edit warring in a previous RFA[24]? Your lack of contrition mitigates against any leniancy.Homey 21:28, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Jayjg is right to point out a ludicrous over-reaction here. There does seem to be a general tendency to regard any reversion of an administrative action (and here a reversion of a non-administrative action by an administrator) as a uniquely disruptive thing. One administrator disagreeing and reverting another's administrative action does not make a wheelwar. There is a danger of creating such a fear of a wheelwar that it prevents good sense administrative action in the first place. (user name not immediately disclosed) 21:29, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

The problem is using administrative powers to enforce and entrench a move that was made in bad faith and against consensus and in complete disregard of dispute resolution processes that was underway. For one admin to act in such a manner is problematic. For several to work in concertco-operate to disregard consensus and dispute resolution is absolutely unacceptable. Homey 21:32, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Um, I just made a move. I didn't use my admin powers for that move. And this conspiracy mongering is quite disturbing. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:37, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

In fact, you did use your admin powers[25].Homey 21:43, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I'll repeat myself: "I didn't use my admin powers for that move". Jayjg ^(talk) 21:50, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

• As a wheelwar is defined in WP:WHEEL as "A wheel war is a struggle between two or more admins in which they undo another's admin actions " it would seem that a move, which is not an "admin action", rather an action of any user, is not considered wheel warring. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 23:37, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
  • See this link for a list of administrative actions that were taken as part of the wheel war. Deletions and undeletions were necessary in order to implement the various moves thus it was a wheelwar. Homey 23:43, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
    • In any case, as ChrisO points out above according to past RFAs wheel warring is any action which "undoes an administrative action by another administrator", even if it doesn't use admin powersHomey 23:58, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

One unblock is not a wheel war. Furthermore, I see absolutely no reason why a caution would not deal with the situation adequately, and fail to see one single benefit in having an excellent user banned for a month. Rebecca 02:59, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

"I see absolutely no reason why a caution would not deal with the situation adequately" Because he's been cautioned before in regards to revert warring. Homey 03:45, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Negotiation

5) Editors of articles concerning apartheid are directed to negotiate in good faith appropriate article names using relevant policies and guidelines. If negotiation is unsuccessful. interested parties are required to enter into good faith mediation regarding the matter. As a last resort, the matter shall be decided by the Arbitration Committee or such users as it may appoint to decide the matter; in addition, sanctions may be applied to users based on their behavior during negotiation and mediation.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 17:02, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

This would be appropriate as a single, all encompassing remedy, although the last sentence implies that the AC would be willing to do content arbitration, which it never has and never will. Rebecca 03:04, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Negotiation (alternative)

5b) Since WP:CON states that Wikipedia works by consensus and nothing in this article was agreed by both sides (not even the name) the article will be removed from Wikipedia until the succesfull conculsion of the required mediation or until a version of the article will be put up for a vote and will win a consensus on it being an NPOV version.

• No benefit should be given to the party who first created the article or name it if there is no consensus to the article content or name. WP:CON takes precedent over who was first Zeq 20:19, 16 July 2006 (UTC)5b) Since WP:CON states that Wikipedia works by consensus and nothing in this article was agreed by both sides (not even the name) the article will be removed from Wikipedia until the succesfull conculsion of the required mediation or until a version of the article will be put up for a vote and will win a consensus on it being an NPOV version.
• No benefit should be given to the party who first created the article or name it if there is no consensus to the article content or name. WP:CON takes precedent over who was first Zeq 20:19, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Googling for "Israeli apartheid" gives 277,000 hits. However it is not a popular search term yet. Fred Bauder 23:21, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

5b) (which should really be under a separate heading as it is a different propsal made by a different person) would effectively allow individuals or teams of editors to veto articles they don't like. There is no incentive for those who oppose an article to actually submit to mediation since by blocking mediation they get what they want. At best it would encourage opponents to prolong the mediation process indefinitely in order to keep an article they don't like out of wikipedia for as long as possible.Homey 21:20, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

5b) proposed by Zeq 20:19, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

ChrisO commended

6) ChrisO is commended for undoing unilateral actions on a highly controversial article by fellow admins that were not based on consensus but were the subject to intense discussion and a onging poll about the actions.

Comment by Arbitrators:

He was wheelwarring Fred Bauder 19:38, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

He was undoing unilateral controversial moves not based on consensus while a poll to resolve this was under way. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 19:42, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Proposed. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 18:26, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Don't you mean "commended"? —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 19:37, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, you are right. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 19:39, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

It takes at least two sides to wheelwar; ChrisO was the worst offender, and it's quite weird to commend him for that. Pecher ^Talk 19:44, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Sure, and I would agree if this was a content dispute. However, we are talkng user conduct, and violating policies versus upholding those same policies should not be treated as equal, but as opposite. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 19:59, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

• It seems to me that we all must come to term with the fact that there are subjects in which Wikipedia Consensus based idea and non-binding mediation efforts just do not work.
• In light of this some people will see unilaterla actions as good or bad according to what their own POV is on the issue.
• While usuall edit wars are bad, the person that need to get high praise is the person who took the bold action that got this issue closer to resolution. The rest seems to support his bold move. Let's face it if he would not have taken this step we will not be any closer to solution.
• Some issues there is no consensus for doing anything: Nither to delete nor to keep.
• maybe some mecahnism must be deleoped to handle these situations, and the only people who should get repremended are those who do not participate in this process with Good faith (i.e. not driving toward a solution) Zeq 19:51, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to state for the record that I have never staked a position on the content side of this dispute. I'm not a partisan on this issue and my handful of edits to the article have almost entirely been related to minor tidying up (typo fixes, formatting etc). My original vote against the move was (as I stated at the time) because I felt that it was inconsistent with how we treat other articles on loaded/pejorative terms. My actions in reverting the move were (as I also stated at the time) undertaken to permit the move poll to be completed according to policy. These are "technical" issues, not a content dispute. Nor am I involved in any other articles on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. -- ChrisO 23:33, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Jayjg removed from ArbComm

7) User:Jayjg is required to resign from the Arbitration Committee for wheel warring after previously being cautioned against edit warring.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Nonsense Fred Bauder 23:22, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Homey 19:59, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I would like to add violation of WP:AGF here. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 20:59, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I would also like to state that I do not support this proposal. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 02:03, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't feel that I can support this - effectively sacking an arbitrator for his actions in this case seems an extremely harsh penalty. As I've proposed above, "Administrators may make mistakes." If his actions can be deemed a mistake, I don't believe that it's one of such seriousness that he should be banned and expelled from the Arbitration Committee (nowhere near, in fact). I should also point out that Jayjg's comments in this arbitration proceeding, as cited by Kim, aren't germane to the subject of the case itself. Having said that, some of Jayjg's comments on this page do seem inappropriate and I would feel very uncomfortable asking him to arbitrate any future cases in which I was involved. -- ChrisO 23:25, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Quite wrong. Without commenting on whether the assertion that Jayjg has been wheelwarring is correct, I disagree that this would be reasonable if it was true. Arbitration is not criminal justice, in which law-breakers must be judged by those who have undoubted commitment to maintain the law. An ArbCom full of people with "perfect disciplinary records" would be useless in dispute resolution, and it is ultimately dispute resolution which is what ArbCom is about. ArbCom needs editors who have "been there" and understand what it's like to be in a dispute, as well as the steps which both led to and avoided disputes happening in the first place. (username not immediately apparent) 21:38, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

It's one thing for someone to have had a spotty record prior to joining ArbComm, it's quite another to accumulate a spotty record while on the ArbComm. An ArbComm member who disregards the rules he or she is supposed to adjudicate on loses his or her credibility and authority when adjudicating over others. Homey 21:45, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

This is nonsense. Jayjg has been an excellent arbitrator, and has not abused that role in any way. This is an act of pure venegance on the part of an opposing party. Rebecca 03:05, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Please WP:AGF. It's not unreasonable to argue that it is not in the interests of the project to have someone continue on ArbComm after they've been found to have merited some sort of warning or sanction on two separate occasions. Homey 03:48, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Humus sapiens desysopped with immediate reentitlement

8) Humus sapiens is desyopped for wheel warring and for acting in bad faith by renaming the article in the middle of a poll without consensus to do so. He is free to reapply for adminship at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship at any time.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Inappropriate. He deserves a severe sanction for starting a wheelwar and participating in it, but desysopping a trusted administrator is just foolishness. Fred Bauder 23:24, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Homey 20:06, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Oppose. I don't believe that this case merits desysopping anyone. I agree with Fred that a sanction is appropriate, but it should be consistent with previous wheel-warring cases and proportionate to the degree of the policy violation. Desyopping is neither consistent nor proportionate. -- ChrisO 23:28, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree, this is to harsh. I would suggest something along the line of a ban on making moves within the IP conflict range of articles, which would actually deal with the cause of the war. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 02:04, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Desysopping actually is consistent as it has occured in the past in wheel warring cases. In two cases users was desysopped but allowed to resubmit their names in the request for adminship process (in one case immediately, in the other after two weeks) in other cases users were desysopped for a period of time and then automatically reinstated.Homey 03:55, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

For once, I agree with Fred. Banning him would be equally unhelpful, however. Rebecca 03:06, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Fred's statement raises the question of why he considers a ban to be appropriate while desyopping isn't - a ban is a much more drastic penalty than desysopping. It seems very inconsistent to propose the harsher penalty while dismissing the lighter penalty as "just foolishness" - it's like arguing that cutting off someone's hand is excessive while simultaneously proposing to cut off their head for the same offence. I'd be interested to know Fred's rationale for this. -- ChrisO 07:40, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

SlimVirgin is cautioned

10) Slimvirgin is cautioned to respect ongoing discussion related to controversial moves, and is advised to use Wikipedia's dispute resolution procedures.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 03:41, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Jayjg is prohibited to make page moves

11) Jayjg is prohibited to make page moves within the Israel-Palastinian conflict for one year.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 03:41, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Rational for the somewhat harsher measure is that he has been warned before Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Yuber#Jayjg. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 03:41, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Humus sapiens is prohibited to make page moves

12) Humus sapiens is prohibited to make page moves within the Israel-Palastinian conflict for one year.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 03:41, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Has twice unilaterally moved pages to disputed titles, one time overruled, one time pre-maturily. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 03:41, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Mediation

14) The complete apartheid related content dispute is referred for mediation.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed, in line with Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Israeli_apartheid#Statement_for_the_Mediation_Committee by Essjay. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 04:21, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I have been wondering about the fate of the Mediation Committee's rather wide-ranging referral myself. However, Kim, in your proposed findng above, do you mean "mediation" or "arbitration"? The Mediation Committee stated that it was "hereby making formal referral to arbitration", although it also raised the possibility of "binding mediation" under the auspices of the ArbComm. In turn, the ArbComm appears to have neither accepted nor declined either the referral or the alternative suggestion. Most people seem to be assuming that the scope of the arbitration is much narrower than the Mediation Committee's referral would suggest. 6SJ7 05:41, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Foot-dragging over proposed compromises

15) foot-dragging over proposed compromises is not allowed. Editors who engage in it violate the Good faith required to edit Wikipedia. The mechanism of Binding mediation must be interduced and added to Dispute Resolution procedure.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

proposed by Zeq 06:39, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed enforcement

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Analysis of evidence

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

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

General discussion

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others: