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Motion withdrawn due to lack of support.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I think it is a shame that this was withdrawn, because Fred really should have recused in this one.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 Gordian 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:

Double case

4) I would like to hear from the ArbCom whether this case now involves both the Israeli apartheid as well as the Deir Yassin massacre. If so, I wll add evidence for the second case to the evidence page and request that it will be considered as well. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 14:51, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

It's part of the same problem. Aggressive page moving involving articles which relate to Israel based on allegedly point of view article titles. We need to solve the problem, not beat up on whoever got sucked in. Fred Bauder 15:04, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree that this problem needs to be solved. As such, I will present my evidence so that the ArbCom can discuss the full case. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 16:13, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Urgent request. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 14:51, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I hesitate to muddy the waters of this case any more than they already are, but there also is at least one set of moves by Kim in this article (that is, "Israeli apartheid" and its variants) that seems to involve the same kind of conduct for which penalties are being proposed for other administrators (not including Kim.) They are already part of the evidence posted on the Evidence page by Kim.

11-6-2006 20:43 KimvdLinde deleted "Israeli apartheid" (Deleted to make way for move.)

11-6-2006 20:43 KimvdLinde moved Israeli apartheid (epithet) to Israeli apartheid (Majority supports moving away from (epithet). No consensus about no qualifier or (phrase). Per WP:DAD, qualifiers are only used to distinguish between similar titles which does not apply here.) (revert)

These moves were controversial at the time, and were discussed on the talk page. [2] Part of the problem was that it involved what I thought was a selective reading of some poll results (somewhat similar to the Deir Yassin situation.) There was even some discussion by another editor about the propriety of Kim making that move as an administrator. It did require the deletion of an article to make way for a move, which as I understand it is exactly what four other administrators are accused of doing on July 4. The surrounding circumstances were different, but after reading what Fred has said on this page, I am not sure they were different enough to make a difference. 6SJ7 16:24, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

In that case, I think it is fair to present all evidence in all cases and not just convict someone though guild by association, without giving the accused the option to present the case. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 17:08, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Kim, if what you are saying is that it would be fair for the arbitrators to make clear exactly what issues and actions are (and aren't) involved in this case, so that everyone can make a fully informed choice as to what evidence to present, I agree with you. I am pretty confused at this point. One minute it seems to be just about page moves, the next minute about editing in general, which would open up a real can of worms and involve several other editors -- one in particular who is named as a party but who I don't think is actually facing a proposed penalty at this point. 6SJ7 17:57, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I am confused now also, so I would like to get an idea, preferably from someone else than Fred at this time, what is the case, and what is not. After that, if additional evidence needs to be added, it can be done. The current situation looks like yes, we use this against you, but no, you are not allowed to defend yourself. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 18:01, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

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

1a) 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:

1b) 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:

1c) WP:NPOV is absolute and non-negotiable [3][4]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comments by parties:

Proposed. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 11:38, 18 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)

Is guideline WP:CON above other policies? Should we allow it to be used to stall or trample the improvement of WP? Unfortunately, in politically-charged areas it is common to have a party seeking to uphold status quo and unwilling/unable to compromise. This would reward their intransigence. While process is important, we should not invite its abuse. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 22:23, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

John Nagle, Discussion is good. Why is banning editors from the talk pages of articles good? Sounds like an attempt to get rid of ones opponents. Also, the changes that are made while a case is in arbitration may or may not stand the test of time. Frequently good editor stay away from articles that are under arbitration. FloNight ^talk 02:13, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

• While the idea has merit John nagle forgets that wikipedia is an encyclopedia of content not of a nice place where no fights aoocur. The disagreements remain, the POV remain and any solution must find a way to solve the POV and mis use that was done in the content and name of this article. Zeq 07:15, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

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)

After many weeks of dispute resolution, the NPOV title garnered a majority of votes. I believed that keeping the POV title was improper and changed it to a more popular NPOV compromise. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 22:36, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

And others could think that it was improper that it was moved to what could be percieved as a POV-title. And so we can go on, and this is exactly why dispute resolution processes have been installed. To avoid that people because of their personal POV, make changes that are strongly disputed by others. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 00:53, 18 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:

"Dispute resolution process" overstates what we were in when the move war started. I started an informal poll asking whether to rename the article. I honestly thought it would be a quick way to help cool emotions while we continued discussions, as users from both sides had either suggested or accepted this name in Talk pages. Nagle made it into a formal poll, which I think was a good thing. However, probably few of us believed that this one poll would resolve the overall dispute, which is much more complex. The overall dispute still has no end in sight and we have not even agreed upon a process for resolving it. Su-Laine Yeo 08:38, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

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)

There was a process underway at Wikipedia:Central discussions/Apartheid.Homey 21:10, 17 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)

Hmmm. Nice principle. Doesn't apply to this case, except to support Humus' actions, and oppose ChrisO's. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 13:09, 17 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)

The guideline we are discussing here indicates, "Choose a descriptive name for an article that does not carry POV implications." I strongly believe that "Allegations of Israeli apartheid" is closer to NPOV than "Israeli apartheid". ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 22:45, 17 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)

I saw an intransigent minority stalling the negotiations to keep a POV title. Now I feel that my and others' honest attempts to improve WP quality and compromise are deliberately misinterpreted and vilified. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 22:54, 17 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)

I reject accusations of deliberate misuse/abuse of admin powers. As I said above, my honest attempts to improve WP quality and compromise are deliberately misinterpreted and vilified. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 22:58, 17 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)

I am baffled by ChrisO's attempts to vilify my honest attempts to improve WP quality and to compromise, while reserving WP:AGF for himself only. I reject accusations of my deliberate misuse/abuse of admin powers. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 23:49, 17 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)

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)

• 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 [5] 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)

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: [6] Zeq 06:24, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Hardly, the user was not a sockpuppet since there is no concurrence in IP addresses as is clear from when the alleged sockpuppet had posted without logging in - the block was improper and the individual who claimed the user was a sockpuppet did so after the sockpuppet opened an RFC against him. The alleged sockpuppeteer was not informed before or after the action which makes the banning even more suspect. Homey 14:59, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

"The identity of user:Sonofzion and other sockppupets (some from your geographical area) must be idenitified so that Good Faith sould be detrmined." You are implying that I have been using sockpuppets - this is false and I have lost track of the number of specious sockpuppet allegations you have wrongly made against me and others, none of which have been borne out. Toronto is Canada's largest metropolis and has one of the largest population of Jews, Israelis and Arabs outside of the Middle East. Canadians are also, per capita, heavier internet users than even Americans. That there are several users from the Greater Toronto Area who edit on Middle Eastern topics is to be expected. When there is no concurrence in IP addresses there can be no assumption that someone is a sockpuppet just because they are posting from the same large metropolis as someone else on a topic of interest to many many people in that city. Homey 15:39, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

• An Admin blocked[7] user:Sonofzion and now you have unblocked him: [8] - it seems you are barking up the wrong tree(I did not block him).
• As an admin you are expcted to talk to the admin who took the inital action instead of engaging in wheelwarring. Zeq 15:42, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Lifting a ban after three weeks is hardly "wheel warring". You are grasping at straws. But I will leave a post on the banning admin's talk page and if he reimposes the ban I will not reverse it so no, there is and will be no wheel war. Homey 15:44, 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:

Fred says: "wheelwarring seriously endangers the project" which shows that he might have forgotten what this project is all about. Read WP:Not Fred, this is not an expriment in democarcy or anything else.

• This is an encyclopedia, and what will bring it down is not few admins fighting but the fact that there are those who are able to manipulate the content of "this project".
• banning people is not a way to achive (one sided) consensus. It is time Fred stop "showing off" his power as arbitor and look at the core content problem of this issue - find ways to solve it if you really care "about this project". Zeq 21:23, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

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) [9]. 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 [10] and initiated discussion on the talk page [11]. Strothra (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) requested Peer review [12].

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 [13]. 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)

Two wrongs don't make it right. I would support retitling Zionist Occupation Government into Zionist Occupation Government (phrase) and Islamofascism into Islamofascism (epithet) or other NPOV titles.

In this particular case, propaganda warfare was aggravated by 1) the initial POV title Israeli apartheid, 2) its proliferation as a link into disambigs and other articles, 3) stalling its NPOVification for weeks by intransigence. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 00:30, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Either of those changes would be unencyclopedic. The fact remains our practice is to NPOV the content of the articles rather than adding qualifiers to the title.Homey 00:33, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I really don't see how that line of reasoning makes sense, I believe that it is obviously unencyclopedic to leave the articles as they are. At least if we add the qualifier we make it clear that it is not indisputable fact.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 00:51, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

So, American imperialism becomes Allegations of American imperialism, Evil Empire becomes Allegations of Evil Empire, New anti-Semitism becomes Allegations of New anti-Semitism, Great Purge becomes Allegations of Great Purge etc. I see our "A" section is going to get a whole lot bigger. Homey 01:04, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

It should be remembered that "Allegations of..." was a compromise. I think a better compromise would have been better to keep (phrase} after the title. As I explained on the article's talk page several weeks ago and will soon explain on this page, there is no Wikipedia policy that prohibits that, despite the efforts of some to make their own policies as it suits them. I would not have any problem if each of the above titles had (phrase) after them, or if the titles were in quotation marks. And as I also said on the talk page weeks ago, "Islamofascism" definitely should have a "qualifier" in the title, if it exists at all. What I don't believe is that one bad title deserves another. Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not a propaganda outlet and not a compendium of name-calling. 6SJ7 01:33, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Should we contact Webster's and the OED and try to convince them to add (epithet) and (phrase) to entry titles as well as to the definitions themselves since, by your argument, simply listing an offensive term without adding a qualifier to the title implies bias.Homey 01:37, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Homey, as far as I am concerned you can do whatever you want outside of Wikipedia. As for what my argument is, I get to say what my argument is, not you. 6SJ7 01:41, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps it is time for a comprehensive policy/guideline consistent with NPOV. In one case, Soviet Canuckistan is a mere redirect, while in other, Israeli apartheid is being promoted, proliferated and warded as if propaganda warfare is our new policy. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 01:25, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

If there was any additional information on "Soviet Canuckistan" other than it being an epithet used once by Pat Buchanan an article may be warranted. It's not comparable as it is. Homey 01:27, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Note by Nagle (talk · contribs): One reason we're having so much trouble with this article is that both sides have active lobbying organizations pushing their point of view. Players include AAPER, AIPAC, BICOM, CAMERA, Engage, Honest Reporting, IsraeliActivism.com, Palestine Monitor, and many others. All putting out materials and trying to control the debate. There's even a training course in POV-pushing. With all that activism, writing a neutral article is difficult. Especially since it's an explicit strategy of both sides to complain loudly about anything published that doesn't favor their side. Both sides maintain "media watch" operations.

It's a tough test for Wikipedia. But one that can be met. We may have articles that are footnoted to death, and we may have to ban some editors for excessive POV-pushing, but it's not impossible to get a readable article out of this. And that's our job here. --John Nagle 02:28, 18 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 [14] [15].

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)

User:Zaian has often politely expressed the desire of South African editors to have Apartheid redirect, as it does now. There are good, practical reasons why it's currently that way. Su-Laine Yeo 07:07, 18 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 [16]) and SlimVirgin (see [17]) and Zeq (see [18]) 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:

The fact that numerous polls and debates have ended in no consensus is to me a pretty clear indication that the guidelines need to be beefed up. To me the big difference between Islamofascism and Israeli apartheid is that one sounds like a nut-fringe opinion and the other one sounds like a description. It's a subtle and subjective aspect of language, but an important one. Another difference is the prominent Apartheid (disambiguation) page which in previous versions arguably had the effect of saying, "Oh, you want to learn about apartheid. Do you mean the South African apartheid or the Israeli one?". I'd object to putting Islamofascism or Islamic fascism on a Fascism (disambiguation) page too. Su-Laine Yeo 07:26, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

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 [19]. ChrisO (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) immediately moved it back [20]. SlimVirgin (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) moved it again [21]. ChisO again moved it back [22]. Jayjg (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) again moved it [23]. ChisO moved it back for a third time [24]. Humis sapiens then moved it a second time [25].

Comment by Arbitrators:

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

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

The title of this finding is inconsistent with the finding itself. Moving a page is not a privileged action - any registered user may do it. A wheel war is a conflict between privileged users. The finding itself is, however, reasonable. David | Talk 15:18, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I question whether these actions all amounted to wheelwarring. Making a single page move is not wheeling, anymore than making a single edit is edit warring. I note that admins override each others actions without prior consultation or later notification. While regrettable and essentially improper it is common and doesn't result in repurcussions. If we wish to establish a 1-WW standard then we should do so consciously and consistently. -Will Beback 11:40, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

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."[26].

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)

As I read it, Jay was "reminded," and "advised," not "warned." IronDuke 00:28, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

The header says "cautioned" and even so the advise/reminder does not seem to have been heeded so progressive discipline demands that this time there be a more serious response than a mere slap on the wrist. Homey 02:38, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Banning an arbitrator for even one day is hardly a slap on the wrist. Fred Bauder 02:45, 18 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:

This would be a finding of fact. However, it is not relevant as there is zero tolerance for wheelwarring. Fred Bauder 20:56, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

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

Comment by others:

Battle of Deir Yassin/Deir Yassin Massacre

16) A similar dispute has arisen at Battle of Deir Yassin/Deir Yassin Massacre involving many of the same users. Discussion is at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Deir_Yassin, part copied from other sources Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#What_to_do_if_a_move_poll_is_determined_by_partisan_reasons.3F andWP:ANI#Battle_of_Deir_Yassin.2FDeir_Yassin_massacre:_move_poll_closure_review_requested

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 13:55, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't think we need to drag a bunch more people in to play Gotcha with. We just need to take a good look at POV editing and administrating. Fred Bauder 17:23, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Than do not drag this second case into the current one. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 17:26, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

The Israeli apartheid page move case involves untill now: Humus sapiens, SlimVirgin, JayJG and ChrisO. The Deir Yassin massacre move involves KimvdLinde, Bibigon, Huldra and Nysin. as far as I can see, there is no overlap between the cases in editors involved in the page moves. I admit that I should not have moved the page in the first place, but left that to an complete uninvolved admin, probably by posting my analysis to the admin noticeboard. The conclusion on which I based my move was deemed correct by two uninvolved admins (see above link) and the page was moved to Deir Yassin massacre by Haukurth [27]. Yes, it involves some of the same users. If my moves in the Israeli apartheid case are under consideration here, I would like a notification above at my earlier request that this case has been expanded to all page moves so that I can properly present my evidence in both cases. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 15:50, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

"Many of the same users" would more accurately read "one of the same users". Homey 16:49, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

This is getting ugly. Admins should know better. Thatcher131 17:23, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

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 the article namespace for two months for wheelwarring. During this time he may continue administrative duties.

Comment by Arbitrators:

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

No point in cutting off our nose to spite our face. Humus sapien's administrative work is too valuable to lose. Fred Bauder 21:13, 17 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)

Opposed as grossly disproportional. Before anyone is going to be disciplined for this offense (at least under the circumstances of this case) I think it needs to be made clearer exactly what is and what isn't prohibited and I think a standardized range of penalties should be determined as well. Admittedly, I was not previously familiar with what "wheel-warring" is and, as a non-administrator I am not completely familiar with the tools that admins possess, but from what I have read here it is obvious that the term is not clearly understood even among those who have the capability of engaging in it. But regardless of the "larger picture", this penalty seems unwarranted. (I am posting the same comment in the sections for all four admins for whom bans are proposed, and modified versions for some of the other penalties.) 6SJ7 18:03, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Opposed, this is ridiculous. Besides the fact that no wheel-warring took place because the page moves were not administrative actions, all of these "proposed remedies" are also incredibly unfair in everyway. Kim, Fred, and Homey are being incredibly innappropriate to even propose this stuff. Fred is usually a fair arbitor, but in this case he has really crossed the line. However, Kimv and Homey are being ridiculous, Homey especially but also Kim were primary participants in this dispute, the fact that they would even try to propose such bias "solutions" only to the editors that opposed them even though Homey especially has acted far far worse is just preposterous to the point of being actually funny. I seriously encourage anyone to ignore anything that Homey and Kimv has proposed on this page.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 19:57, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

The penalty was proposed by Fred Bauder, not me. Homey 20:38, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

My comment wasn't just about this one particular proposal.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 21:04, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps you shouldn't have cut and pasted the identical comment to each page as your comments are misleading. Your words imply that Kim, myself and Fred have jointly proposed these various actions when that is not the case. Homey 21:16, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I don;t think it does imply that, in the least, I wrote three different passages and variously included them in different proposals depended on which one applied the most.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 21:18, 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)

Way disproportionate. Rather like bombing the hell out of a country because two or three soldiers got abducted. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 18:57, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

You seem to listen to BBC too much. The issue is not the two soldiers but the 6 years of bombings on israel North twons by Hizbulla. The problem is that BBC never bothered reporting it. Zeq 19:10, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

• Is this project going to give up a good editor just because he took bold action to move an issue toward resolution ? Zeq 21:28, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Agree with Rebecca. Completely out of proportion. AnnH ♫ 07:27, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

This dispute, aming otherwise responsible editors, is limited to a small set of articles. I suggest that remedies should likewise be limited to the narrow topic. -Will Beback 11:44, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

ChrisO banned

2) ChrisO is banned from the article namespace for three months for wheelwarring. During this time he may continue administrative duties.

Comment by Arbitrators:

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

No point in cutting off our nose to spite our face. ChrisO's administrative work is too valuable to lose. Fred Bauder 21:18, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

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)

Opposed as grossly disproportional. Before anyone is going to be disciplined for this offense (at least under the circumstances of this case) I think it needs to be made clearer exactly what is and what isn't prohibited and I think a standardized range of penalties should be determined as well. Admittedly, I was not previously familiar with what "wheel-warring" is and, as a non-administrator I am not completely familiar with the tools that admins possess, but from what I have read here it is obvious that the term is not clearly understood even among those who have the capability of engaging in it. But regardless of the "larger picture", this penalty seems unwarranted. (I am posting the same comment in the sections for all four admins for whom bans are proposed, and modified versions for some of the other penalties.) 6SJ7 18:04, 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)

Grossly disproportionate. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 18:58, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Agree with Rebecca. Are we trying to make an example of people or trying to help Wikipedia? AnnH ♫ 07:28, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

This dispute, aming otherwise responsible editors, is limited to a small set of articles. I suggest that remedies should likewise be limited to the narrow topic. -Will Beback 11:45, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

SlimVirgin banned

3) SlimVirgin is banned from the article namespace for one month for wheelwarring. During this time she may continue administrative duties.

Comment by Arbitrators:

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

No point in cutting off our nose to spite our face. SlimVirgin's administrative work is too valuable to lose. Fred Bauder 21:18, 17 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)

Opposed as grossly disproportional. Before anyone is going to be disciplined for this offense (at least under the circumstances of this case) I think it needs to be made clearer exactly what is and what isn't prohibited and I think a standardized range of penalties should be determined as well. Admittedly, I was not previously familiar with what "wheel-warring" is and, as a non-administrator I am not completely familiar with the tools that admins possess, but from what I have read here it is obvious that the term is not clearly understood even among those who have the capability of engaging in it. But regardless of the "larger picture", this penalty seems unwarranted. (I am posting the same comment in the sections for all four admins for whom bans are proposed, and modified versions for some of the other penalties.) 6SJ7 18:05, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Opposed, this is ridiculous. Besides the fact that no wheel-warring took place because the page moves were not administrative actions, all of these "proposed remedies" are also incredibly unfair in everyway. Kim, Fred, and Homey are being incredibly innappropriate to even propose this stuff. Fred is usually a fair arbitor, but in this case he has really crossed the line. However, Kimv and Homey are being ridiculous, Homey especially but also Kim were primary participants in this dispute, the fact that they would even try to propose such bias "solutions" only to the editors that opposed them even though Homey especially has acted far far worse is just preposterous to the point of being actually funny. I seriously encourage anyone to ignore anything that Homey and Kimv has proposed on this page.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 19:57, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Fred is the sole proposer. Homey 20:41, 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)

Stupidly disproportionate. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 18:59, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I oppose this. I watched much of this unfolding, and I don't see how Slim wheel-warred, it looks to me like she didn't even come close. And in any case, there are only a handful of editors out there (and Jay is one of them) who can claim to be a valuable to the project as Slim. Cutting off more than our nose. IronDuke 00:36, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Completely out of proportion to this case. I'm stunned that it's even being considered. The original suggestion was "banned from Wikipedia for a month". Now, we apparantly consider that we'll still allow her to serve us while we humiliate her. Honestly, I can't see any purpose to this proposal (in its original or in its modified form) other than to humiliate an excellent administrator as a "punishment", in complete violation of the normal principle that Wikipedia is not punitive and that things like blocks are meant, not as punishment, but to protect Wikipedia. How on earth can one move be "wheel-warring"? How can humiliating and punishing one of our best contributors possibly be helpful to Wikipedia? The original suggestion was pretty appalling (considering the aggressive, abusive, edit-warring, stalking, sockpuppeting users who get six-month bans from ArbCom and considering the outstanding record SlimVirgin has of helping editors who are victims of such behaviour), but this is, if anything, more insulting, suggesting that we'll humiliate her in public, but we'll be very magnanimous and allow her to continue to serve us in the meantime. I vehemently oppose this suggestion. AnnH ♫ 07:09, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

This dispute, aming otherwise responsible editors, is limited to a small set of articles. I suggest that remedies should likewise be limited to the narrow topic. -Will Beback 11:46, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Again this is another surreal and insane proposal that seems to have taken disproportionate and excessive to an all new level. How does 1 page move warrant such a harsh response? Also, despite very partisan claims to the contrary, there's absolutely no precedent for this in these circumstances. The scope of the misdeeds of other parties in this conflict stand out in stark relief to those SlimVigin's, making this not an appropiate case for "a plague upon both your houses"-type solutions. FeloniousMonk 16:32, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Jayjg banned

4) Jayjg is banned from the article namespace for one month for wheelwarring. During this time he may continue administrative and arbitration duties.

Comment by Arbitrators:

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

Modified. No reason to cut off our nose to spite our face. Jayjg's administrative and arbitration work is too valuable to lose. Fred Bauder 21:11, 17 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.[28]-- 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[29].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)

That's self-contradictory: you cannot undo an administrative action without using admin powers: for example, you cannot unprotect a page without using admin powers. If you're undoing an action without using admin powers, then it wasn't an admn action in the first place. Pecher ^Talk 17:24, 17 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)

Opposed as grossly disproportional. Before anyone is going to be disciplined for this offense (at least under the circumstances of this case) I think it needs to be made clearer exactly what is and what isn't prohibited and I think a standardized range of penalties should be determined as well. Admittedly, I was not previously familiar with what "wheel-warring" is and, as a non-administrator I am not completely familiar with the tools that admins possess, but from what I have read here it is obvious that the term is not clearly understood even among those who have the capability of engaging in it. But regardless of the "larger picture", this penalty seems unwarranted. (I am posting the same comment in the sections for all four admins for whom bans are proposed, and modified versions for some of the other penalties.) 6SJ7 18:04, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Opposed, this is ridiculous. Besides the fact that no wheel-warring took place because the page moves were not administrative actions, all of these "proposed remedies" are also incredibly unfair in everyway. Kim, Fred, and Homey are being incredibly innappropriate to even propose this stuff. Fred is usually a fair arbitor, but in this case he has really crossed the line. However, Kimv and Homey are being ridiculous, Homey especially but also Kim were primary participants in this dispute, the fact that they would even try to propose such bias "solutions" only to the editors that opposed them even though Homey especially has acted far far worse is just preposterous to the point of being actually funny. I seriously encourage anyone to ignore anything that Homey and Kimv has proposed on this page.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 19:57, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Fred is the sole proposer. Homey 20:41, 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.[30]. 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[31]? 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[32].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)

Again, my reading is that Jay was not cautioned, merely "reminded" and "advised." IronDuke 00:44, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Disgustingly disproportionate. There would be no benefit to any of these bans. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 19:00, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Oppose, completely OTT. Jayjg is a crucial editor and arbitrator. No significant history of wheel warring. JFW | T@lk 21:33, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Oppose I don't see how Jay wheel-warred. I think Jay kept a pretty cool head throughout. As I said about Slim, we'd be cutting off more than our nose. IronDuke 00:40, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Vehemently oppose and I say that as someone who has been on the "opposite side" of Jayjg any time I've encountered him when editing an article. I don't see how one move can be wheel warring, any more than one revert can be edit warring. (The pedophilia userbox case is different, as someone who, even once, knowingly and deliberately undoes a block placed by Jimbo is asking for trouble.) This serves no purpose other than to humiliate a conscientious and helpful Wikipedian. Everything I wrote about SlimVirgin above applies here, and I'd write more except that I'm going in to work in a few minutes. The original suggestion was bad, and the modified suggestion is bad, implying that we'll allow him to continue to serve us while we humiliate him in a way that is completely contrary to our normal practice of not using blocks or bans as punishment, but solely to protect Wikipedia. AnnH ♫ 07:23, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

This dispute, among otherwise responsible editors, is limited to a small set of articles. I suggest that remedies should likewise be limited to the narrow topic. -Will Beback 11:47, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

And again another proposal that adds all new meanings to 'disproportionate' and 'excessive'. There's no precedent for this. Jayjg's culpability in this conflict is exceedingly minor when viewed in the light of the scope of the misdeeds of those who've opposed him. Once again, this not an appropiate case for "a plague upon both your houses"-type solutions. FeloniousMonk 16:37, 18 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:

That seems reasonable, as there is a level playing field while the negotiation/mediation is going on. The problem is that, as mentioned elsewhere, "facts on the ground" tend to make certain people reluctant to negotatiate in good faith when the facts are in their favor. That was certainly the case with the initial creation and naming of the article, which created "facts on the ground" that the creator, who effectively asserted "ownership" over the article, played to his advantage at every opportunity. 6SJ7 18:16, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

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)

This is in some part due to wikipedia mirror sites. Zeq 18:33, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Fred, why are you bringing up Google hits on an arbitration workshop page? Do you want to have the whole AfD debate re-hashed here? Su-Laine Yeo 16:08, 18 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)

• This is why it is a binding mediation. Foot draging will be censored by the mediator. The idea is to reach a resolution instead of the current "facts on the ground" "I was there first" method that has been used. Zeq 18:34, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with this suggestion for the reasons I stated in the preceding sub-section. I made the same suggestion once or twice on the article's talk page and/or the centralized disussions and/or talk page. And look who opposes it, he who took ultimate advantage of the "facts on the ground." 6SJ7 18:20, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Would that be Humus sapiens or Jayjg?Homey 21:17, 17 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)

Opposed, I believe ChrisO should neither be banned nor commended. I think there were better ways to handle the situation, and hopefully policy will be established stating exactly how a similar situation should be handled. In the meantime, two ways that spring to mind as to how this could have been better handled are either posting on one of the administrators' notice boards or starting an arbitration right then. I understand that that would have left the title as is for the time being, but when I think back to all the days I had to look at the title of simply "Israeli apartheid", it is difficult to have much sympathy. 6SJ7 18:25, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Opposed, I'm really not sure that I have ever seen this level of silliness. It was one thing when Kimv annoyingly showed up at these articles and then inappropriately used his admin powers to change the article's name despite the objections of a clear majority of editors on the talk page and then protected the page when it reflected his version under the guise of a neutral party, it was worse when he stayed around and continued to pretend he was uninvolved despite always voting with and using his powers for the benefit of one side, but these "proposals" really take to the next level. How in the world could he think that it is appropriate to attempt to discipline people who did a similar thing that he did earlier (except they never used their administrative powers and they had the opinions of a clear majority of users on their side). Does he actually believe that anyone is buying into his claim that he is just an "uninvolved party trying to solve a problem"?- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 20:34, 17 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)

Strongly opposed per other comments above and below. I would second Rebecca's comment that this proposal is about vengeance. The proposer made a comment, I believe in the page on the proposed formal mediation, that supports that. 6SJ7 18:30, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Opposed, this is ridiculous. Besides the fact that no wheel-warring took place because the page moves were not administrative actions, all of these "proposed remedies" are also incredibly unfair in everyway. Kim, Fred, and Homey are being incredibly innappropriate to even propose this stuff. Fred is usually a fair arbitor, but in this case he has really crossed the line. However, Kimv and Homey are being ridiculous, Homey especially but also Kim were primary participants in this dispute, the fact that they would even try to propose such bias "solutions" only to the editors that opposed them even though Homey especially has acted far far worse is just preposterous to the point of being actually funny. I seriously encourage anyone to ignore anything that Homey and Kimv has proposed on this page.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 19:58, 17 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)

Jayjg has never been sanctioned last time I checked. Pecher ^Talk 17:37, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I said "warning or sanction", he was warned previously and sanctions are being proposed in this instance. Homey 20:45, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Just a stupid idea. The whole affair is irrelevant to his ArbCom work. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 19:02, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

On the contrary, being able to abide by policy is quite germane when it comes to one's legitimacy in adjudicating policy violations.Homey 20:45, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Oppose, as per Fred. IronDuke 00:46, 18 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)

If Humus is truly "trusted" he will have no problem when he resubmits his name for adminship. Homey 00:49, 18 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)

Opposed as grossly disproportional, for same reasons I stated in opposition to the banning of the four administrators involved. 6SJ7 18:32, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Opposed, this is ridiculous. Besides the fact that no wheel-warring took place because the page moves were not administrative actions, all of these "proposed remedies" are also incredibly unfair in everyway. Kim, Fred, and Homey are being incredibly innappropriate to even propose this stuff. Fred is usually a fair arbitor, but in this case he has really crossed the line. However, Kimv and Homey are being ridiculous, Homey especially but also Kim were primary participants in this dispute, the fact that they would even try to propose such bias "solutions" only to the editors that opposed them even though Homey especially has acted far far worse is just preposterous to the point of being actually funny. I seriously encourage anyone to ignore anything that Homey and Kimv has proposed on this page.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 19:58, 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)

I am also unclear on why a two-month ban is an appropriate sanction but de-syopping (with immediate entitlement) is not appropriate. Thatcher131 17:53, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

It's starting to feel like the Night of the Long Knives around here. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 19:02, 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:

Yes, but that goes without saying. Fred Bauder 20:51, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

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

If there are to be "cautions" distributed, I think a number of people deserve them, including the proposer of this remedy. 6SJ7 18:34, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Opposed, this is ridiculous. Besides the fact that no wheel-warring took place because the page moves were not administrative actions, all of these "proposed remedies" are also incredibly unfair in everyway. Kim, Fred, and Homey are being incredibly innappropriate to even propose this stuff. Fred is usually a fair arbitor, but in this case he has really crossed the line. However, Kimv and Homey are being ridiculous, Homey especially but also Kim were primary participants in this dispute, the fact that they would even try to propose such bias "solutions" only to the editors that opposed them even though Homey especially has acted far far worse is just preposterous to the point of being actually funny. I seriously encourage anyone to ignore anything that Homey and Kimv has proposed on this page.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 19:58, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

If you are even opposed to something as mild as being cautioned what sort of disciplinary action do you support? Anything at all?Homey 20:46, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't support anything as one sided bias as what is being proposed. So yes I do not support the proposal that "we caution every administrator that dared to oppose Homontherange or Kimvanderlinde.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 21:22, 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:

This makes no sense. Fred Bauder 20:52, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

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

I'm really not sure that I have ever seen this level of silliness. It was one thing when Kimv annoyingly showed up at these articles and then inappropriately used his admin powers to change the article's name despite the objections of a clear majority of editors on the talk page and then protected the page when it reflected his version under the guise of a neutral party, it was worse when he stayed around and continued to pretend he was uninvolved despite always voting with and using his powers for the benefit of one side, but these "proposals" really take to the next level. How in the world could he think that it is appropriate to attempt to discipline people who did a similar thing that he did earlier (except they never used their administrative powers and they had the opinions of a clear majority of users on their side). Does he actually believe that anyone is buying into his claim that he is just an "uninvolved party trying to solve a problem"?- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 20:36, 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)

Opposed as disproportional for similar reasons stated under the proposed "bannings." I think this prohibition and the one proposed against Humus sapiens are being proposed in order to tilt the "playing field" on articles regarding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. 6SJ7 18:38, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

It's ridiculous to ban a good editor on the basis of one page move. Pecher ^Talk 20:10, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

This is not a ban. Homey 20:54, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Opposed, Doesn't anyone find it strange that all of these "solutions" that Kimv and Homey proposed for some reason only apply to people that disagreed with them? Doesn't anyone think it is strange that Jayjg, Humus, and Slimvirgin are being accused of taking "innappropriate unilateral admin action" when their page move had a clear majority of support on the talk page and involved no administrative actions, while Kimvd actually originally moved the page despite having little support and then protecting the page so that nobody could reverse his actions in an event that could only be called "innappropriate unilateral admin action"?- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 20:13, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

"Doesn't anyone find it strange that all of these "solutions" that Kimv and Homey proposed for some reason only apply to people that disagreed with them?"

I find it strange that you keep accusing me of having proposed remedies that were actually proposed by either Fred or Kim. I did not propose this. I suspect you may be throwing my name into the mix in an attempt at guilt by association. I find it less strange, though not very credible, that you oppose any and all proposed action, even something as mild as being cautioned.Homey 20:49, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

It obviously applies to you as well considering the fact that you proposed stuff that was even more ridiculous and one-sided. As I have just stated above, I oppose someone being cautioned if the criteria for it is "any administrator who opposed User:Homeontherange".- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 21:25, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Proposing desysopping is in line with sanctions in previous wheelwars so while you may disagree with it it is hardly "ridiculous". Your comments are uncivil, Moshe. Homey 21:29, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Its completely ridiculous. First of all, no wheel war took place, the only administrators that used their powers innappropriately in this conflict were you and Kim, page moves have nothing to do with administrative powers unless the article is protect right afterwards (as in Kim's case), second of all, it was even more ridiculous that you and kim expect to be taken seriously when you are only proposing solutions that apply to your opponents.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 21:53, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

"Doesn't anyone find it strange that all of these "solutions" that Kimv and Homey proposed for some reason only apply to people that disagreed with them?" - the same could be said of you as you haven't said anything in regard to ChrisO's proposed ban - you've only opposed the disciplining of your friends. Homey 21:46, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

"The same can be said" so you're equating my silence on the matter of ChrisO with your proposals to desysop all of your opponents? Are you being serious?- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 21:53, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Certainly the least offensive suggestion of the batch, so far. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 19:03, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

While a better targetted remedy than some, this is still too severe for a minor action. I suggest that an admonition would be sufficient. -Will Beback 11:50, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

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:

This makes no sense. If there is consensus there is no reason page moves cannot be made. Fred Bauder 20:53, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

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)

Opposed as disproportional for similar reasons stated under the proposed "bannings." I think this prohibition and the one proposed against Jayjg are being proposed in order to tilt the "playing field" on articles regarding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. 6SJ7 18:38, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Opposed, Doesn't anyone find it strange that all of these "solutions" that Kimv and Homey proposed for some reason only apply to people that disagreed with them? Doesn't anyone think it is strange that Jayjg, Humus, and Slimvirgin are being accused of taking "innappropriate unilateral admin action" when their page move had a clear majority of support on the talk page and involved no administrative actions, while Kimvd actually originally moved the page despite having little support and then protecting the page so that nobody could reverse his actions in an event that could only be called "innappropriate unilateral admin action"?- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 20:16, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Again, I did not propose this - however it should be noted that you oppose any disciplinary action whatsoever, including being cautioned. Homey 20:51, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

"It should be noted", Ha! Should also be noted that all of your "solutions" only apply to users that disagreed with you?- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 21:27, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

While a better targetted remedy than some, this is still too severe for a minor action. I suggest that an admonition would be sufficient. -Will Beback 11:50, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Mediation

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Only if serious negotiation in good faith fails. Fred Bauder 20:54, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

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)

Essjay wrote: With that said, if the Committee would like to appoint someone from the Arbitration Committee to handle a binding mediation of the matter, and sanction anyone who refuses to participate or exercise good faith, then that might be a workable attempt at mediation. However, voluntary mediation is simply not going to work for this one. For the Mediation Committee, Essjay (Talk • Connect) 05:30, 8 July 2006 (UTC) -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 21:09, 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:

There is no such thing as binding mediation. There can be compulsory mediation. Good faith can be required. But only arbitration can result in a binding decision. Parties to mediation can, in good faith, refuse to agree. Fred Bauder 20:59, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

I am taking a wait-and-see attitude regarding dispute resolution mechanisms on Wikipedia. In my one and only exposure to mediation on Wikipedia, which I realize was "informal" in nature, I later came to realize that I had been hoodwinked into agreeing to a mediation conducted by a person who was not neutral. (It was in connection with this article.) 6SJ7 18:42, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok, you have stated this at various places now, would you mind to show some proof of your accusations? -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 18:50, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Let me ask you a question, when you decided that your mediation was not going to succeed, why didn't you just go on to other administrative activities? Why did you stick around and become involved on one "side" in this dispute, including casting a "vote" against the renaming proposal? Don't you see how that, alone, might cause someone to conclude that you were not "neutral"? And then, after you cast a "vote" against the renaming proposal, while the poll was still active, you (in your capacity as the Requests for Move "cleanup" administrator), moved the poll from "Current proposals" to "Old discussions" (with the misleading comment that the dispute over the name had been referred to the ArbComm) where presumably another administrator would not see that the poll needed to be closed, and the name would remain "Israeli apartheid"? Do you deny that this event occurred? If so, I will find and post the evidence. But if you acknowledge that this occurred, don't you see a problem here, and don't you see how others would draw the conclusion that I have drawn? 6SJ7 19:03, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

1) I voted against the move based on the following arguments:

First, renaming it to that name would free the way of a second article that deals with for example the scholary opinion about this topic, which is not an allegation or accusation but an analysis. And I think that is not warranted. Second, I think that this issue should be dealt with in a wider sense, dealing with all apartheid articles. Third, the article is not stable yet, and it is unclear what the exact content of this article should be, and setting the name already to a title like this is setting limitations to the article content. [33]

As you can see, my arguments are content stability, fear for POV-forking, and scope within other articles. I do ot see an opinion about whether the Israeli apartheid actually exists.

2) I have been cleaning parts of the large backlog of the WP:RM, and did not want to close the poll myself. Besides that, it is my (maybe wrong) understanding that cases under the arbCom should be left to the ArbCom, and as such, I moved it there for the time being. That the ArbCom case has been narrowed down sinse then is a secondary issue.

And if you want to know my opinion about this article: IT SHOULD NOT EXIST, it should be not more than a 1-2 paragraph long in a general article about apartheid. See my proposal here: Wikipedia:Central_discussions/Apartheid#Proposal__by_User:KimvdLinde where I explicite state: Israeli apartheid: If and only if the amount of relevant information is sufficient to warrant a split of from the main article. Short article. And until now, I am not convinced it warrants its own article. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 19:18, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Fred, thanks for clearing that up about "binding mediation." I thought it sounded like an oxymoron, but then I thought hey, Wikipedia is a unique place, maybe they have some sort of special way of making mediation binding. Actually, when I first saw the term used, I assumed that since there is no such thing, the person meant compulsory mediation, so that is how I have been "reading" it. 6SJ7 21:07, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

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

Administrators admonished

16) All involved administrators are admonished not use their administrative tools without prior discussion and consensus, and to avoid using them so as to continue an editing dispute. Humus sapiens, ChrisO, Kim van der Linde, SlimVirgin, and Jayjg are reminded to use formal mediation and other dispute resolution procedures sooner when conflicts occur.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Amen Fred Bauder 21:01, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

As I said above about "cautions," if "admonishments" are to be distributed to any administrators, they should be distributed widely. The second sentence of FloNight's first statement below is right on the money. 6SJ7 18:47, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Can I ask based on what evidence of wrong doing in this case that I am added. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 14:05, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Battle_of_Deir_Yassin/Deir_Yassin_massacre Fred Bauder 14:11, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok, so the case has now been widered to two cases. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 14:13, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

This is enough. Appears to me that the above parties recent attempts at mediation were foiled by the parties that are asking for their head on a platter. FloNight ^talk 12:52, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Support if Kim is also added to the list. She did several controversal moves during the discussion, posing as a "mediator". However, she was never formally appointed as such, and her partisanship was clear throughout the process. Pecher ^Talk 17:32, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

AGF. Kim was accepted by both sides and tried to accomodate a compromise. That she later developed her own views on the topic, after she had ceased to be a mediator, does not mean she had been "posing" as anything. Homey 18:07, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Let me do more reading, okay? FloNight ^talk 18:42, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Her latest closing of the vote on Talk:Battle of Deir Yassin gives more weight to my proposal. This is another instance where Kim attempted to play an uninvolved editor. Pecher ^Talk 19:09, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Too little, especially after Arbcom took a strong stand against wheel warring in the pedophilia userbox case. I assume all the appropriate redirects were maintained, so there would have been very little harm (if any at all) at allowing the article to remain at a bad title while taking time for more discussion. Thatcher131 19:18, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Thatcher131, my wording come from the last case of admin wheel warring. Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Blu Aardvark#Administrators admonished FloNight ^talk 20:23, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

"Administrators admonished

5) All involved administrators are admonished not use their administrative tools without prior discussion and consensus, and to avoid using them so as to continue a block war. Raul654 in particular is warned not to repeatedly unblock when he is reversed.

Passed 6 to 0 at 00:25, 30 June 2006 (UTC)"

Hm, well in that case 2 admins unblocked a highly controversial user without discussing it first (except on IRC) or obtaining consensus. There was no real wheel war. Here, a group of admins wheel-warred over an article title; I have no idea whether it was more damaging to the project but deciding on the title of the article was certainly less urgent than reblocking BA and MSK. As long as proper redirects are in place bad titles can sit for weeks without doing any more harm than offending some people's sensibilities. This was a case of admins on both sides convinced they were right and making moves without proper discussion or consensus, some of which apparently required administrator tools. Your proposal is certainly closer to what I have in mind than any of the {adjective deleted} blocks and bans propsed above. Thatcher131 20:35, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

There was wheel warring in this case. Two days after the original unblocks and reblocks (which would be considered wheel warring as it is defined in this case), Raul unblocked 2 times with two different admins reblocking. Other admins threatened to reblock any admin that unblocked again. At that point Raul had the good sense to bring the case to arbitration comm. ; - ) FloNight ^talk 21:01, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I would support the above under two conditions: 1) It is made explicit that the idea of being "reminded" in no way constitutes a "warning." 2) As per Pecher, I'd strongly recommend adding Kim to that list. If Kim had no POV before coming to the article, she quickly developed one, as she makes clear in her own statement on the article. As someone who endorsed her (what I thought was good faith) effort to mediate, I'm saddened by her inability to remain neutral which lead directly, I think, to the present mess. The article really needed someone who wouldn't lean one way or the other. IronDuke 01:12, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

If developing an opinion when you are looking in such a detail into the information that is brought in front of you and if that is an offense, please add me. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 02:34, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

For admins with minor roles in this debacle, this proposal strikes me as having crossed far beyond disproportionate and excessive and into the surreal and insane. For example, evidence shows Jayjg's participation consisted of all of 1 revert and a page move and not using his admin role or tools. So, exactly how is it Jayjg's actions warrant such a harsh warning? Also, despite very partisan claims to the contrary, there's absolutely no precedent for this in these circumstances. Considering that the extensive misdeeds of several parties in the conflict contrasts sharply to those with minor roles, this is not an appropiate case for "a plague upon both your houses"-type solutions. FeloniousMonk 16:05, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Given that Jayjg has already been cautioned once in an RFA the ArbComm would be remiss to do anything less than that this time, indeed the principle of progressive discipline requires a more serious penalty for a second violation. Homey 16:54, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Administrative probation

17) For poor judgment shown in wheel warring and misuse of administrative tools (unprotecting articles and/or deleting pages to enable moves), Humus sapiens, ChrisO, SlimVirgin, and Jayjg are placed on Wikipedia:Administrative probation for one year. If during that year these admins engage in further gross violations of administrative responsibility, they may, following a hearing by the Arbitration Committee, be desysopped or be subject to restrictions on their administrative activities.

Comment by Arbitrators:

I would not support this. These administrators engaged in a serious violation, wheelwarring, but have no general failing to adequately perform as administrators which would support administrative probation. Fred Bauder 21:03, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed, from Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Irishpunktom/Proposed decision. Thatcher131 19:15, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Unnecessarily harsh. Finding in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Blu Aardvark#Administrators admonished are adequate for this case. FloNight ^talk 20:34, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Being slightly naughty here but I really don't understand how Fred Bauder can say that admins here were wheelwarring but shouldn't be on probation, whereas I was not wheelwarring but Fred apparently thinks I should be on probation. There appears to be an egregious lack of consistency. David | Talk 22:27, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

But on the other hand he wants them banned from main article space for one, two or three months. Thatcher131 22:39, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

This discussion is happening on the wrong page, but still ... Answering the question you posed in your edit summary, I'm actually more than happy to engage in free-ranging private discussion with Arbs about the proposed remedy. Disappointingly all the private discussion that has taken place has been initiated by me. David | Talk 22:59, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Adminstrative status restricted

17a) For poor judgment shown in wheel warring and misuse of administrative tools (unprotecting articles and/or deleting pages to enable moves), Humus sapiens, ChrisO, SlimVirgin, and Jayjg are explicitly prohibited from using administrative tools on any page to which they have made non-minor edits, from using rollback in any non-vandalism situations other than to revert themselves, or from taking any administrative action regarding a conflict in which they are personally involved. He/She may be blocked for up to 24 hours for each violation.

Comment by Arbitrators:

I would not want to cripple capable and responsible administrators. Fred Bauder 21:04, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. 17 merely says that if these admins get into a conflict again, the Arbcom may review it. 17a has teeth. Per Dmcdevit's modification of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Irishpunktom/Proposed decision. Thatcher131 19:15, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Unnecessarily harsh. Finding in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Blu Aardvark#Administrators admonished are adequate for this case. FloNight ^talk 20:36, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Adminstrative status restricted

17b) For poor judgment shown in wheel warring and misuse of administrative tools (unprotecting articles and/or deleting pages to enable moves), Humus sapiens, ChrisO, SlimVirgin, and Jayjg are explicitly prohibited from using administrative tools on any page related to this conflict, or from taking any administrative action regarding a conflict in which they are personally involved. S/he may be blocked for up to 24 hours for each violation.

Comment by Arbitrators:

I would not want to cripple capable administrators. When there is consensus they ought to be able to perform administrative duties. This proceeding involves actions taken in the absence of consensus. Fred Bauder 21:06, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. Same as 17a but limited to this conflict. Thatcher131 19:15, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Unnecessarily harsh. Finding in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Blu Aardvark#Administrators admonished are adequate for this case. FloNight ^talk 20:37, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I must say I am flummoxed by the idea that formally restricting them from using administrative tools when they are in a conflict (which I hope is basic policy anyway) is "crippling" but banning them from the article namespace is not. What admin duties don't involved article space? Blocking vandals, reverting article vandalism, reverting talk page vandalism, voting on XfD, closing AfDs, page moves, history merges, RCP, NPP. Thatcher131 21:31, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Article ban

18) All editors who engaged in contentious editing and move warring with respect to Israeli apartheid are banned from editing it or related articles for 6 months (insert names). Those editors who are also administrators (insert names) who engaged in contentious editing and move warring are banned from using their administrative tools with respect to Israeli apartheid and related articles for 6 months.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

That's essentially what I suggested at WP:CON, above. See my notes there. Thanks. --John Nagle 04:51, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Ban should extend to all articles dealing with Israel or apartheid. Homey 16:55, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Homey make a good point, but also edits in similar articles (such as the disambiguation page) must be taken into account.Zeq 18:25, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Assuming the Arbcom adopts some version of this, I assume they will define "related" as broadly as needed to prevent additional disruption. Thatcher131 18:34, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Homey, if this is going to include "contentious editing", if I were you I would think twice before tossing ban proposals around -- see my comment below. 6SJ7 18:38, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

This proposal presents a major problem, and it is has to do with the presentation of evidence so far. Most people, including me, seem to have been assuming (at least on the evidence page) that this case is about page-moving, and polls and other administrative actions and events having to do with page-moving. So, in terms of "move warring", there is a lot of evidence about the moves that were made, and we can all make our statements and arguments about whether anyone was "warring", and if so, who. However, "contentious editing" is a whole different story. There is almost no evidence about that on the Evidence page, except for some brief and vague references to the use of reliable sources. The issue of who was editing "contentiously" would involve piles and piles of additional evidence, and different parties from those against whom penalties have been proposed so far. First and foremost, it would involve Homey. I am sure some people think it would involve me as well. It also could involve dozens of others, some of whom may not even be aware of the arbitration. So, as I have said elsewhere, I think it is time for a definitive ruling as to what issues and actions are and aren't involved in this case. I am not proposing that the scope be widened to include "contentious editing", but I sure would like to know if it does, before the arbitrators decide it is time to "close the evidence." 6SJ7 18:38, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Without getting into the specifics of this proposal, I think if it was to be adopted there would need to be a clear definition of what a "related article" is. The subject matter of the article seems to touch on a lot of topic areas. Is a "related article" any article about Israel, about the Middle East in general, about alleged discrimination, about current world events or about any number of other potentially related issues? Without a clear definition there would be a good deal of uncertainty about what articles could or could not be edited. -- ChrisO 18:50, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed. Thatcher131 04:18, 18 July 2006 (UTC) This is in line with article and topical bans carried out in dozens of past cases, and would be automatic and non-controversial if these editors were not also admins. It will give the parties a chance to cool down, will prevent further disruption, and will allow new eyes to review the article without having to fight through old prejudices. Stating that admins are banned from using their admin tools on these articles is essentially pro forma because if they are banned from editing the articles period then its pretty clear that the ban would extend to administrative functions. The remedy is expanded to include any non-admins who engaged in contentious editing--I haven't read all the evidence lately but the discussion so far has focused on 4 admins and it seems unlikely that they were the only ones involved.

"Contentious editing" is a bizarre new term with no basis in Wikipedia policies. What the proponent of this remedy seems to suggest is that any editor whose contributions seem "contentious" to someone else must be banned. That's nonsense. Pecher ^Talk 17:45, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

You can look it up in the other cases where an article ban has been applied. Perhaps I used less than ideal language. Basically, editors who have demonstrated an inability to work toward consensus or cause disruption on one topic but are otherwise good editors are banned from that topic. It happens all the time. Thatcher131 17:54, 18 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:

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: