Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Arbitration

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by WGFinley (talk | contribs) at 04:02, 1 January 2006 (→‎Instantnood page moves). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Shortcut

Request for arbitration is the last step of dispute resolution. Before requesting arbitration, please review other avenues you should take. If you do not follow any of these routes, it is highly likely that your request will be rejected. If all other steps have failed, and you see no reasonable chance that the matter can be resolved in another manner, you may request that it be decided by the Arbitration Committee.

Dispute resolution
(Requests)
Tips
Content disputes
Conduct disputes
Arbitration Committee proceedings
Request name Motions Initiated Votes
Persistent WP:IDONTLIKEIT behavior in WP:NCROY discussions   10 May 2024 0/4/0
[edit]
Open cases
Case name Links Evidence due Prop. Dec. due
Venezuelan politics (t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t) 20 Apr 2024 04 May 2024
[edit]
Recently closed cases (Past cases)
Case name Closed
Conflict of interest management 13 Apr 2024
Mzajac 7 May 2024
Request name Motions  Case Posted
Amendment request: Conduct in deletion-related editing none (orig. case) 30 April 2024
Clarification request: Palestine-Israel articles 4 none (orig. case) 13 May 2024
Amendment request: Article titles and capitalisation none (orig. case) 13 May 2024

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

The Arbitration Committee considers requests to open new cases and (exceptionally) to summarily review new evidence and update the findings and decisions of a previous case. Review is likely to be appropriate if later events indicate the original ruling on scope or enforcement was too limited and does not adequately address the situation, or if new evidence suggests the findings of fact were significantly in error.

The procedure for accepting requests is described in the Arbitration policy. If you are going to make a request here, you must be brief and cite supporting diffs. New requests to the top, please. You are required to place a notice on the user talk page of each person you lodge a complaint against.

0/0/0/0 corresponds to Arbitrators' votes to accept/reject/recuse/other.

This is not a page for discussion, and Arbitrators may summarily remove or refactor discussion without comment.

How to list cases

Under the below Current requests section:

  • Click "[edit]";
  • Copy the full formatting template (text will be visible in edit mode), ommitting the lines which say "BEGIN" and "END TEMPLATE";
  • Paste template text where it says "ADD CASE BELOW";
  • Follow instructions on comments (indented), and fill out the form;
  • Remove the template comments (indented).

Note: Please do not remove or alter the hidden template

Current requests

User:Jtdirl

Involved parties

User Carlossuarez46 has been blocked for editing by User Jtdirl, so I am notifying Jtdirl.

Mediation was requested; no reply has been forthcoming. Because User Carlossuarez46 cannot edit; he cannot make requests or respond to them in any normal fashion. Only immediate unblocking. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.193.16.105 (talk • contribs) on 21:22, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by party 1

User Jtdirl has misused admin privileges by the following: blocking User Carlossuarez46 to revert Jtdirl's edits to List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people User Jtdirl's reverts consisted of removing from the section entitled "Persons of debated lesbian, gay or bisexual orientation": Michael Jackson, Carl Lewis, Ricky Martin, Jim Nabors, Ralph Nader, and Wilhelm II of Germany. Jtdirl has posted to Carlossuarez46's user page with a "legal warning" accompanied by a statement that his account has been blocked because of "posting potentially defamatory claims on Wikipedia." (Template:Defban) On Carlossuarez46's talk page,, Jtdirl posted the following: "Do not add in claims about people's sexuality without cast-iron certainty. Otherwise you could leave yourself liable to being sued by them. WP is protected from such a defamation case but you may not be." First: I strenuously object to misuse of admin privileges to silence a debate in which the administrator is a participant; the admin's failure to announce the blocking as Wiki says should be done; and the clearly (by Jtdirl's view of defamation) defamatory posting Jtdirl has posted on Carlossuarez46's user site. Second: how can "cast-iron certainty" as Jtdirl claims be required to list someone whose sexual orientation were "debated"? Third: Jtdirl's view of defamation is contrary to the law (for example Jtdirl reverted Wilhelm II of Germany who has been dead for 60+ years -- you cannot libel the dead; similarly all other persons I added have been subject of debate. If lack of pointers to source material were the only problem, blocking me from adding them does nothing to further Wikipedia. I sincerely suspect from review of Jtdirl's own user page that the motivation is more disciminatory than sincere. I will trust that Wikipedia will arbitrate this fairly and I be exonerated. Moreover, I would like Wikipedia exempt from blocking the dispute resolution pages; otherwise, the tyranny of a single admin shuts out a user and from his and her avenues to recourses short of litigation in real courts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.193.16.105 (talk • contribs) on 21:22, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by party 2

 (Please limit your statement to 500 words)

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/2/0/0)

  • Reject Jtdirl is to be commended for taking prompt effective action, for taking responsibility and for displaying initiative Fred Bauder 22:45, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reject, premature, make some effort to resolve dispute through normal channels before filing a request for arbitration. Kelly Martin (talk) 23:11, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Citing credible sources: Zeq and Heptor

Involved parties

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Yes:

Statement by Ian Pitchford (talk · contribs)

I would be grateful if Wikipedia's policy that articles must cite credible sources could be enforced in the articles on the 1948 Arab-Israeli War and the Palestinian exodus. I have tried to get these two editors to abide by the policy without success. In this case the material being added to the articles is blatantly inappropriate and no credible sources have been cited at all, whilst that being deleted, (as for example, here), is quite clearly relevant, appropriate and well-sourced. I enjoy editing Wikipedia, but like most editors have limited time to spend on the project and don't want to waste the bulk of that time trying to make sure that editors comply with minimum standards. Is arbitration really the only way viable of making sure that policies are implemented? If so, I think it is going to be difficult to justify the time I spend on the project. --Ian Pitchford 20:09, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: The comments added below by Zeq, Heptor and Kriegman illustrate how the debate has been conducted for many weeks. A request for scholarly references is never answered with such references, but with additional unsourced claims and personal insults, even though it would have taken far less effort to open a few histories of the period and to report on what they say. Furthermore, I believe that mediation is inappropriate as I am asking not for judgment of a dispute between editors, but for Wikipedia policy on sources to be implemented. We don't mediate policy: we either implement it or we don't. Wikipedia has an entire task force dedicated to removing vandalism and challenging vandals, but there is no comparably efficient and expeditious mechanism for removing unsourced claims and for challenging those who add them, even though unsourced material damages the encyclopedia in much more insidious and destructive ways than simple vandalism. We need a "sources taskforce" to spare editors this unpleasantness and to leave them free to donate their time and expertise to the task of constructing an encyclopedia. --Ian Pitchford 18:41, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Zeq

Ian refuse to accept what was decided in the mediation: That the info that can not be sourced will be taken out and that the info that has sources will remain in. My agreement to the mediator is clearly indicated on the talk page. Ian "implemented" the mediator suggestion by removing sourced info. I suggested to him that if he has sources that say differently (from the sourced info in the article) he should add those sources to the text so we have both versions in the article. Instead he rushed to the ArbCom. (after both he and Zero wrote very starnge interpretations of the NPOV policy on the talk page such as Zero on Pal exodus talk claiming: "NPOV does not consist of multiple POVs" )

The problem in the Palestinian exodus article is not so simple. This article (please see talk page) 3 years ago was pro Israeli , now it is completly Pro- Palestinian (see version prior to the current protected one which is a bit more NPOV). For month and month editors have complianed about the lack of neutrality of that page (long before I have registed with wikipedia - just see the complete talk page one of many examples is [1]) but one after another editor are "chased away" from that page by those who seem to think they "own" it and do not allow any other editor there. This article is at the core palestinian narraitive of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The Palestinian version is well desrve to be on that page but so does the other POV.

All I have to say about the problem is stated here: User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&oldid=29193600#complete_failure_of_wikipedia_NPOV_policy and part of the solution is here:

User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&oldid=31513536#A_serious_suggestion_to_Mr._Wales


One Critical aspect of the Pal Exodus dispute is decribed here:

Benni Morris in his book "The Birth of the palestinian Refugees problem" page 286 of the 1991 Hebrew version (and also as far as I know in the British version from 1987) wrote:

"This tragedy (refering to the exodus) is a result of a war, not of pre meditated intention, nor Israeli Nither Arab "

These words, are why some Palestinians (after seeing him as a hero) now see in him yet another zionist propagadist. You can not have both ways: Either you rely on Morris as a reliable historic source or you don't. One can not cherrypick some Ben Gurion quotes from Morris's book and give tham an interprestation that Morris clearly sais is not there.


We can not by including this text about transfer here in this article create the impression that the "talk about transfer" caused the exodus. That claim is controvesial even among scholars with Majority view that the exodus was caused by rethe war not be the Ben Gurion speeches 10 years before the war.
There should be an encylopedia discussion of the transfer ideas as well as alternatives that have been discussed by all the parties invlovd in the conflict over the years. (example is the 1937 Peel comission) that discussion must be in a seprate artcle (something like : "The transfer concept in Israeli-palestinina conflict" infact there is a place for such discussion here Population_transfer#Middle_East) Unless we can find a mainstream schoalrs who claim that the talk is what caused the exodus, in fact we must rely on what slim has said in User_talk:Zeq#Palestinian_exodus : " If you want to add a paragraph about X, you would have to find a mainstream academic source who made a strong and direct connection, and not only that, but who argued that the Palestinian exodus could not, and should not, be regarded as separable from X. Even then, you'd have to argue your case to have it included, unless you can show that it's the consensus among Israeli historians, for example, that the first could not be examined without examining the second." (X in that case was the jewish exodus, although since we are dealing with policy any other subject could apply instead of X)

Good luck to you sorting this out, it is not am easy one. Zeq 21:17, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

PS The mediation (which really never ended cause Ian dispute it's results) is just one step of many poiisble dispute resolution mechanism and I will gladly participate in a wider RFC on these subjects. PS 2 Everyone is welcome to review my complete edit record. Below, Zero have cherypicked few examples and turned this RfA (on sources accuracy) to a personall attck on me, these edits (one include a cut and paste from an external web site than used a word I would not have used) The other is well explained at the relevant talk - are not giving a complete history of my edit record, yet again cherypicking seems to be the problem. Zeq 21:26, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Sean Black

I am distressed that this has escalated to this point. I believe that this case does have merit, but I feel that my attempts to assist the parties in working out a compromise were at least partially successful. This may be a premature request, but I am confident that that the ArbCom will come to a sensible conclusion, whatever it is.--Sean|Black 22:37, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Heptor (talk · contribs)

The core of this dispute seems to be a quotation by the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, Amin al-Husayni. This mufti has collaborated with the Nazis during the WW2. Among other things he assisted in formation of Bosnian [Waffen_SS |Waffen SS]] troops who fought Yugoslav Partisans, and also made broadcasts aimed for the Arab World, in which he agitated Arabs to support the Nazis. In one of those broadcasts he, according to Pearlman and Schechtman, expressed himself in following way: "Arabs, arise as one man and fight for your sacred rights. Kill Jews wherever you find them. This pleases God, history, and religion. This saves your honor. God is with you". Ian Pitchford is disputing credibility of Pearlman and Schechtman.

Ian Pitchford has also erased/commented out some other material regarding the mufti: [2]. For example, I have not seen any explanation why he commented out that "the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem was involved in much of the high level negotiations between the Arab leaders in the 1948 War."

The matter has been under mediation by Sean Black. Interestingly enough, both he, me and Zeq concluded that a compromise has been reached. I implemented it here. However, Ian Pitchford and Zero claimed there was has never been any compromise, and started removing material soon after. The page had to be protected again.

During the dispute, Ian threatened to submit the matter to ArbCom repeatedly (an example from my talk page), violated the 3RR ( more on my talk page) and immediately afterwards asked to protect the article as it was after his fourth revert, threatened to quit editing Wikipedia, complained to Jimbo Wales on his talk page and, evidently, also per e-mail.

To make it clear, Ian Pitchford also made some solid work on Wikipedia, I did note that (look for the bold text). Unfortunately, most if not all of his edits concerning the Middle East are pro-Palestinian/leftist biased, and this not how an encyclopedia should be. Even if his edits are extensive, they are aimed to move Wikipedia in a certain political direction. I am not sure if it is a good thing.

I agree with Sean Black that this request is somewhat premature – mediation bore fruits before, and should have been tried further. But it also would be nice if the Arbitration Committee settles the matter once and for all.

Heptor talk 00:20, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

PS: I really recommend to check some of the articles I linked to. Not only to understand this current dispute better, but also because the articles are interesting. I am reading the Waffen SS now. -- Heptor talk 00:35, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum

In light of statements by Ian Pitchford, and especially Zero, I will add a little to my statement.

  1. I am tired of Zero making personal attacks on Zeq and Kriegman. He does it all the time. Last time he wrote that "In a nutshell you [Zeq] have explained why you are a bad editor" when Zeq wrote that "There is room to more than one POV"[3].

He actually reverted to calling Kriegman vandal [4], when Kriegman digged up more and more documents to support the quotation.

  1. Zero also used his administrator priviliges to protect the article, in the version he himself endorsed.
  2. As Kriegman stated below, both Zero and Ian Pitchford freely use biased authors, such as Mattar, while labeling those they disagree with as "liars", or useless for other reasons.
  3. What Mufti said on Zero's scan is actaully quite similar to what he said according to Kriegman's scan, e.g. go kill jews.
  4. It is an aknowledged problem that Wikipedia has systematic leftist bias. Both the Soviet Communists and modern days socialists seem to have something against USA and Israel (indeed, socialists of all kinds somehow seem to dislike Israel), and this shows in many articles. Zero and Ian Pitchford systematically sift available sources for information unfavorable to Israel. I hope Arbitration Committee will make a step to counter this problem.

Heptor talk 20:46, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Zero

  1. Zeq is one of the most obsessive POV-pushers I have ever encountered in Wikipedia. He has hardly any knowledge either of history, nor of the process of cooperative NPOV writing. His style is to delete large slabs of text he doesn't like [5] and scream when he is reverted. His notion of NPOV is to add text like "mass of frenzied Arab rioters" [6] then claim willingness to accept "the other" POV, as if a good article can ever be written by joining together different bits of gutter rhetoric. Almost every article he approaches becomes a battleground, and countless efforts to reason with him have not had the least effect. Please, oh please, do something about him.
"mass of frenzied Arab rioters" is lousy writing for Wikipedia.
  1. The 1948 Arab-Israeli War problem: Zeq and Heptor want to present it as a war of Israel versus genocidal fiends. To this end they found some alleged "quotations" of the Palestinian leader Amin al-Husayni during WWII (when he was a Nazi collaborator, which nobody denies). These quotes come from a book by a Haganah spokesman Pearlman and were repeated by a book by Revisionist Zionist and Arab-expulsion advocate Schectman. Both books are regarded as propagandistic by academic historians, and I gave an example of a provable lie in Pearlman's book. No other sources are known even though Ian Pitchford and I have scoured the academic literature. Moreover, when I went to a contemporary report of the radio broadcast in question, I found a version that is quite different. None of this has any effect on Zeq or Heptor who want this "quotation" to appear and that's that. Nor have they established any relevance of this to the topic of the article, other than their own opinions.
  1. Zeq's comments about Benny Morris and "transfer" above...Here is Morris' current view: "[In 1948] The transfer idea is in the air. The entire leadership understands that this is the idea. The officer corps understands what is required of them. Under Ben-Gurion, a consensus of transfer is created. ... Ben-Gurion was a transferist. He understood that there could be no Jewish state with a large and hostile Arab minority in its midst." (Haaretz, Jan 8, 2004). Of course this isn't a good summary of what should be in the article either, but how can one proceed when Zeq keeps deleting the entire section? --Zero 15:04, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. General comment about these "quotations". There are quite a few going around, copied from one polemic author to another. Checking them is extremely difficult since they come from obscure sources such as radio broadcasts, and also because academic historians completely ignore them. The main reason historians ignore them is that they are unverifiable. You can go to a university library and look through a whole shelf of learned books about the 1948 war and you will be lucky if you find one or two that mention these quotations and neither of those will give a primary source. Not even the strongly anti-Mufti book of Israeli historian Zvi Elpeleg (who was formerly the military governor of the Gaza Strip) presents them. Why should we aspire to lower standards? If something contentious cannot be verified by us and has not been certified by the experts who publish in peer-reviewed places, we should omit it. --Zero 04:14, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Kriegman

[I have never participated in a RfArb before and am trying to respond and understand the process while my family is packing and waiting for me: I will be away from any internet connections for the next few days, and I believe the following points need to be known by the arbitrators. So this statement may be more thorough and longer than is considered appropriate.]

I've been involved in this dispute from the beginning, to the point of being threatened by Ian that this would be brought to arbitration. I have only focused on the 1948 Arab-Israeli War article, in which I placed the original disputed quotation by the Mufti. I cited as a source a book by Davis & Decter. Zero claimed that this was not a valid source. He did not say why he made this claim, just that it was not valid. Finally, after much debate (that included a good deal of name calling by Zero), and after many revisions and reversions, he suggested that there was a connection between the Israeli government and the organizations that took over the publication of the Myths & Facts series that indicated that they were biased. I accepted this, as Zero seemed to know more about it than I. But then I discovered that Zero's and Ian's sources, e.g., Mattar, were just as associated with the PLO as Davis and Decter were with Israel. Something was fishy.

Examining their edits, it became clear that Zero and Pitchford scour the sources---in a quite scholarly, i.e., diligent, fashion---and cull out of them anything that can be taken to cast aspersions on Israel and create a picture of innocent Palestinian victimhood. The bias is quite profound. Starting with their rejection of Davis and Decter because of their associations, while embracing Mattar despite his associations, we can go on from there and see quite a pattern of bias.

For example, after I accepted Zero's critique, I found another source for an equally important call for annihilation of the Jews during one of the Mufti's Nazi broadcasts from Germany. This time the date and place and words were specified. But these authors were no good (Pearlman's 1948 book and Schechtman's later book) because they, too, had associations to Zionist figures. Meanwhile, Ian starts introducing more biased statements into the article from Arab scholars, while reverting any references from Pearlman, Schechtman, and/or Davis & Decter, and while footnoting (with a statement that it is not verified) Sachar's claim of another Arab leader's call for a genocidal war.

Then we were told that we don't even know if Pearlman actually wrote what I reported, even though I had provided links to jpg pictures of the pages from Pearlman's book. How did we really know they were from Pearlman's book? I had contacted the scholar who maintained the French website where the jpgs were posted. Based on our interaction and my examination of his site, I was quite sure of his integrity. But I suggested that Ian ask him for some verification, if he still doubted. I offered to ask him for the verification if Ian did not feel comfortable doing it. There was no response from Ian.

The claim also was made that Pearlman hadn't actually heard the Mufti's broadcasts himself! While this may or may not have been true, the standard for anything that was pro-Israel was becoming bizarrely stringent. Not only did we have to prove that our sources were impeccable scholars, but they had to be direct witnesses to the events they described in their historical works. On that basis, almost all historical works would have to be thrown out.

Finally, I found a reference by an Israeli reporter in a respected newspaper (The Jerusalem Post). She provided a slightly different translation of the same speech and also claimed that the Mufti had written in his memoirs:

"Our fundamental condition for cooperating with Germany was a free hand to eradicate every last Jew from Palestine and the Arab world. I asked Hitler for an explicit undertaking to allow us to solve the Jewish problem in a manner befitting our national and racial aspirations and according to the scientific methods innovated by Germany in the handling of its Jews. The answer I got was: 'The Jews are yours.'"

This was rejected by Zero who claimed:

Sarah Honig is/was one of the JP's most right-wing commentators. Where do these quotations actually come from? The chance that Sarah Honig actually read the Mufti's diaries is nil. --Zero 01:24, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

So I contacted Honig and asked her about Zero's allegations. This is from her responses:

If your interlocutor thinks it lacks credibility because of my assumed right-wing orientation that would be a real irony. Because I wrote about the Mufti I gained a right-wing reputation and because I gained a right-wing reputation whatever I wrote about the Mufti can be dismissed as propaganda.
Bottom line - the mufti wins and I lose. This isn't just a vicious cycle it's a manifestation of ongoing relentless anti-Jewish bias plain and simple on part of whoever it was you communicated with. Whatever the Jew says is suspect and the Genocide-promoter is given the benefit of high-minded doubt.
Please tell that guardian of universalist conscience that the Mufti was a wanted war criminal sought by Allies post-war (like Mengele, Borman et al - or were they too presumed innocents only accused by propagandist Jewish right-wingers?). Also tell him that both my quotes come from Yad Vashem (or is that outfit by virtue of being Jewish and Israeli suspect of tendentiousness?). …
This isn't esoteric information but material which is readily known and available in Israel. I didn't discover a new planet. Neveretheless, because you perhaps come from where this all might seem new and esoteric … I'll elaborate.
The Mufti's Memoirs are available both in Hebrew and in the original Arabic (which I read proficiently) in Israel. They can be found in all major research and scholastic libraries.
Your Wikipedia interlocutor doubted I actually read them, but I must disappoint him. I DID read them!!! I read Hebrew transcripts possessed by Haviv Kanaan, a highly important authority whom I mention in previous correspondence with you.
I at a later date went up to Yad Vashem. There are archives there open to the public. Folks can sit down in reading rooms and peruse material. There I read the memoirs in ARABIC!

I am only reporting a small part of what she wrote; I strained Ms. Honig's generosity with my constant questions of every little detail of her scholarship; I knew that Zero and Ian would try to find some way to discredit everything she said.

I hope this gives some sense of how one-sided this debate and the article have become. The pro-Israeli sources are subjected to over-the-top scrutiny while pro-Arab sources are routinely accepted as authoritative. There is even one instance on the talk pages of the article (about 2/3's of the way down Archive 2, in a section entitled "Zero's bias") of Zero accurately noting an error I made, but doing so in such a way as to discredit the valid information I was reporting. Since Zero seems to have been fully versed in the nature of the error---i.e., he is highly likely to have known why I made the error (it is repeated ad infinitum in numerous pro-Israeli sources) and that there was still some valid information when the error was removed---this seems like a dishonest manipulation.

Zero postures as if he is an objective seeker of truth, when he is incredibly biased with a legacy of thousands of anti-Israeli and anti-Jewish edits (some quite subtle, and, as far as content contributions to articles, very, very little else in the Wikipedia) that have succeeded in biasing many, if not most, articles on Jews and Israel. While he has added valid content (as in any conflict in which there are opposing points of view that each contain considerable validity, not all anti-Israeli or anti-Jewish material is false, even if it is presented in a one-sided and thus biased fashion), the relentless one-sided nature of his editing has contributed to making the Wikipedia look quite anti-Jewish/Israel.

He has been careful enough about the way in which he made these edits so that the Wikipedia made him an administrator! True, he had his administrative privileges temporarily revoked---and he abused his administrative privileges in this debate by locking the article in an interaction that was quite similar to what led to his having his privileges revoked---but he has managed to continue to bamboozle many Wikipedians into believing he is an objective editor.

Ian is quite different. Also a diligent scholar and also as relentlessly biased as Zero, he seems less manipulative in his presentation of the material. His bias seems more profoundly invisible to him, and thus more obvious in his edits. Indeed, in several instances, which are on the talk pages (current and Archive 2), he diligently presented researched material that supported the view he was presenting the material to oppose, and he seemed to have no idea.

Zero's characterization of Zeq is somewhat ironic, given that "obsessive POV-pusher" applies to Zero. Zero and Ian have some valid points when it comes to Zeq's edits, but (1) Zeq is not a native English speaker and so some of his phrasing may be off due to that and (2) he has shown a willingness to negotiate and to be bound by the decisions of others who are not so embroiled in this edit war. In any case, a careful review of his edits and his talk contributions shows that he is certainly a serious editor who is trying to negotiate and follow the rules. In contrast, even in a RfArb, Zero characterizes the other side's edits as "gutter rhetoric."

Zero's version of the Mufti quotation is clearly not the one quoted by Pearlman, Fisk, Yad Vashem, or Honig. (Zero does refer to a brief report in Arabic that is not present in the scan he posted.) In any case, it was I who wanted to present the notion that the Jews, and much of the rest of the world, in the immediate aftermath of the Holocaust and up against truly murderous/genocidal Arab leaders such as the Mufti, believed they were fighting a war to prevent their annihilation. I did not, and no one did, claim that it was "a war of Israel versus genocidal fiends." This mischaracterization of the debate is typical of Zero: The debate was about whether the Israelis believed it was a genocidal war and whether there was any basis for such a belief in the rhetoric of the Arab leaders.

Indeed, my view of the war was strongly influenced by both Zero's and Ian's scholarship that suggested that the perception of Israel as an underdog facing an overwhelming genocidal enemy was erroneous. I even wondered if this perception was fostered by Israeli military leaders to make the Jews feel more desperately cornered. In any case, it was clearly fostered by the Arab leaders who wanted their fighters to be confident of an easy victory (and this may have been a clear tactical mistake on their part). But the point is that Zero's mischaracterization of the debate is typical. Kriegman 17:06, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Christophe Greffe

Hello, I am new on wikipedia and this article about this is the first article on which I interact. I think whole problem comes from political issues and uses that this article can have. This is linked to the fact that the events it treats (war of 1948 - first arab-israeli war) still have consequences today (Israel - PA). This is article is therefore used as a battlefield of propaganda. I think that what is reported about Al Husseini broadcasts is true but I think this has nothing to do in this article where it is only used for propaganda matters. And there are other comments of the same type in the article concerning *both sides*.

I think arbitration should more focus on the global problem (ie how to deal at best the fact this topic cannot be neutraly treated) and not only on the problem of sources. I think this has come up to here only for "procedure" reasons and I don't think this is the real problem.

I don't have a solution but a suggestion : maybe some paragraphs on the article should be shared in two parts : "Following palestinian point of view...". "Following israeli point of view..." and some references should be allowed to be commented by "This allegation is considered to be myth developed by ... side to give bad images of ...". Therefore all point of views could be developed without *fights of words*.

Christophe Greffe 17:55, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

NB: sorry for the poor English - I am Belgian and my mother tongue is French.

Ramblings by El_C

While I consider the Hebrew Wikipedia quite decent on Arab-Israeli topics, and in general (and this despite its strong pro-Israeli bias — see Heptor's addendum five for the fun, if in my opinion highly simplistic, redetails), I do find it noteworthy that whereas En goes on to expend more than 500 words on the Mufti in the 1948 Arab-Israeli War, He's מלחמת העצמאות, expends 0 words. El_C 00:32, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A note by Zeq

While Hebrew wiki is not "The authorative source" it is by far more NPOVon many articles. I would suggest taking the Hebrew wikip articles for "Nakba", "1948 war" "MUfti Amin Husseini", and "1929 massacre (in Hebrew called "the hebron massacre"), translting them and using them on english Wiki. I would have done this my self if I would know that they would survive 5 minutes - which I am sure they would not. although they do represent both POVs and the different versions of hiostory and actually do it generally in a much more NPOV way that in English wikipedia. If the arbCom would decide on acepting this as a compromise I will do the trnaslations (which BTW, include more on the Mufti role in the 1929 events than I could find english sources, the Hebrew Wikipedia explain how he caused the 1929 riots after loosing a municipal elections in Jerusalem to his arch-rivals the Nashibi clan and used his "religious" clout to gain popularity again by turnning on the jews)

On the other hand the English wikipedia start the w/index.php?title=Riots_in_Palestine_of_1929&oldid=33146080#Sequence_of_events (on the Arab riots) by saying that "the Jews marched..." (as if the jews caused the riots). I would encourge the ArbCom not to limit it's rulling to the sources only but to find a mechanism by which Wikipedia will be widd-out from ALL propeganda (be it pro-Israel or Pro-Palestinian).

As I said this is not a simple task. Clearly in English Wikipedia the NPOV mechanism have failed in most Israeli-Palestinian conflict articles and work to correct the current bias is not an easy one. Zeq 06:54, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Follow up by El_C

Zeq left a rather confusing note on my talk page. In it, he tells me that the Mufti's role in the Hevron Massacare is well known (when did I state otherwise?). He also appears to dismiss the entire Hebrew Wikipedia on the basis that some of their articles are not up to par and juxtaposes that to the featured article cited above (?). I think... It's difficult to tell. Finally, he cautions me not to copy something into Riots in Palestine of 1929 (writing: if you copy thisd into 1929 you will be reverted), but I don't know what it is I'm not allowed to "copy," though it was in any case unlikely that I would edit the aforementioned article based on his note, because again, I do not fully understand what is meant by it. I invite Zeq to write to me in Hebrew if he is having difficulties with English (which I can translate, if he so wishes). El_C 07:46, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A note by Christophe Greffe

I totaly agree with the fact that Mufti should not deserve 500 words in 1948 Arab-Israeli War but I think too that 1948_Arab-Israeli_War#Yishuv/British Security and Intelligence Collaboration should not deserve more. I have the feeling that the will of adding negative information about Mufti is more a reaction due to the negative (and biased) information added before. Information about Mufti is purposed to give weight to the myth that Arabs had genocide intention. Information about intelligence is purposed to give weight to the myth that Israelis were supported by United Kingdom. Both are myths.

So I echo the idea that the problem to arbitrate is not the problem of source but the NPOV mechanism in Arab-Israeli topics that are both pro-israeli and pro-palestinian biased. Christophe Greffe 09:15, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Heptor agrees

I agree with Christophe and El_C on this, the quotation should be moved to Haj Amin al-Husayni, for details see [7]. I hope that Arb Com will confirm that sources for the quotation are more than adequate. -- Heptor talk 13:55, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Zeq Agree as well

The direct connection of the Mufti to the 1948 war is in Araffat words (The mufti being the comader of all arabs in palestine accoprding to Arrafat) but i agree that this quote is better moved to a seprate article. I also agree with ramallite below that Wikipedia should strive for higher standrads. However, if we apply higher starndards those must be applied equaly: One can not argue that the words of the Mufti in 1943 do not apply in an article about 1948 but that the words of Ben Gurion in the 1930s and 1940s do belong there. As I said all along: The Wikipedia policies are very good but somehow thy totaly failed in the case of the Israeli-Palestinian articles. When I started to edit the article on Israeli-Arabs almost 100% of that article was on the "discrimination aspect" - does anyone honestly think that this is the only thing that could be said about Israeli-Arabs (a group only few people know actually exist) ? So by all means, set higher standrads but apply those acroos the board . If you can not do that, than the currect policy should apply everywhere. Zeq 15:49, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Ramallite (talk · contribs)

  1. It has been difficult to follow this long dispute, but I think it somewhat bears a close analogy to "Elementary, my dear Watson" or "Play it again, Sam". It is widely considered that Sherlock Holmes said the first phrase to his trusty friend Dr. Watson, and Humphrey Bogart's (or was it Ingrid Bergman's) famous line from Casablanca is equally well known. People have quoted, written about, repeated, and propagated these phrases for a long time - except they never happened. The phrase "Elementary, my dear Watson" was never uttered by Sherlock Holmes, and it's probably known by now that Sam was never asked to "play it again". Here, we have a similar situation where an often repeated phrase attributed to Haj Amin Husseini may also have never actually been uttered. The difference is that, while my examples come from the entertainment industry, this dispute deals with some editors of Wikipedia feeling that the inclusion of such a phrase that is commonly believed to have been said, but may actually not have been, in a Wikipedia article will only contribute to the continued propagation of a 'lie' which others can use to support their (often unfriendly) opinions or ideologies. These editors (myself included) prefer that Wikipedia not be yet another source that propagates unreliable but commonly believed information, and that it hold itself to a higher standard. On the other hand, editors who support the inclusion of this phrase rely on the notion that, despite the possibility of the quotation being false, the fact that it is generally believed is enough reason to include it since it is the reason why Israelis 'believed that they were facing a genocidal enemy'. Thus, to reconcile these two positions, it is absolutely essential that such a phrase, had it been truly uttered, be verified beyond reasonable doubt if possible.
  2. The use of Pearlman and Schectman as sources do not, in my opinion, compare to Khalidi and Mattar. While the latter are certainly biased, the former, if the above statements hold true, have an agenda that goes beyond bias. Being biased is okay as long as the text is cited appropriately as being the POV is a particular party, while quoting information from authors who have particular agendas must be more scrutinized to make sure that they did not invent data that end up being in this encyclopedia as fact. Quotations by historical figures should be traceable via media archives and such, which would be more credible than books by authors who are suspect. I do not believe that Khalidi and Mattar make any claims that are based on unverifiable sources (I may be wrong), while the fact that there is a dispute regarding material provided by Pearlman and repeated by Schectman makes it worth investigating further.
  3. Echoing El_C above, I also am not sure why the Mufti gets as much attention in this article as he does, since his influence had waned significantly by the advent of the War. The fact that he is regularly used as a poster child for Palestinian Islamic intolerance, despite the fact that he died long ago, makes me wonder, and I do hope that it's not a question of the Mufti 'needing' to be mentioned automatically in any article that describes possible Palestinian intolerance (in sort of the same way Judi Dench needs to be automatically nominated for an Oscar almost every time).
  4. I have no reason to doubt the good faith of Zero, Ian, Heptor, or Kriegman, and hope that the ArbCom will be able to help settle the verifiability of the sources in question.

Statement by Hackwrench

Ian Pitchford: I would be grateful if Wikipedia's policy that articles must cite credible sources could be enforced.

Should, must... Funny how little nuances in meaning are lost on some people. Kind of like how credibility is in the eye of the beholder.

Ian: I enjoy editing Wikipedia, but like most editors have limited time to spend on the project and don't want to waste the bulk of that time trying to make sure that editors comply with minimum standards.

If you don't want to waste your time, then don't waste your time. It really is that simple. Someone is bound to come along to set things right for whom it isn't a waste of time. Hackwrench 04:42, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ian:We don't mediate policy: we either implement it or we don't.

Policy isn't a black and white thing. You sound like you're not having fun. One of the signs a person is in the wrong is that he isn't having fun, wspecially when it comes to writing. Hackwrench 04:42, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ian:Wikipedia has an entire task force dedicated to removing vandalism and challenging vandals

"Task Force"? Sounds like a mischaracterization of the committees to me. Hackwrench 18:41, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Zeq:One can not cherrypick some Ben Gurion quotes from Morris's book and give tham an interprestation that Morris clearly sais is not there.

Sure you can!Hackwrench 04:50, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
There are two categories of reliability here. One is the reliability to report events. The second is the ability to interpret them. A person can be very reliable on one and poor at the other. Hackwrench 04:50, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Heptor: I am tired of Zero making personal attacks on Zeq and Kriegman. He does it all the time. Last time he wrote that "In a nutshell you [Zeq] have explained why you are a bad editor" when Zeq wrote that "There is room to more than one POV

It's "There is room for more than one POV". I don't see it as a personal attack, and there is plenty of bad editing going around on both sides.[8] Hackwrench 04:24, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Heptor: He actually reverted to calling Kriegman vandal when Kriegman digged up more and more documents to support the quotation.

Yeah, there's a lot of calling people vandals when they clearly aren't going around. Hackwrench 04:24, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Heptor: It is an aknowledged problem that Wikipedia has systematic leftist bias

Now that's inaccurate. Wikipedia attacts people with biases of just about every pursuasion. Hackwrench 05:05, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"mass of frenzied Arab rioters" is lousy writing for Wikipedia.

Almost every article he approaches becomes a battleground Sounds fun to me, if this sort of thing troubles you go elsewhere. Hackwrench 05:28, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Both books are regarded as propagandistic by academic historians Yeah, well, here is where you apply the rule of making a distinction between accuracy in reporting and accuracy in interpretating.

I gave an example of a provable lie False statements can be chalked up to mistakes as well as intentional lies. Hackwrench 05:28, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (1/0/0/1)

  • I'm not sure. I'm minded to say "this is indeed policy; just implement it already, and ask on WP:AN/I or whatever for backup if you need it", but on the other hand, perhaps we should accept it to look as the policy violations apparently taking place. Would appreciate further commentry (esp. by other Arbitrators, or uninvolved parties). James F. (talk) 00:47, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Accept to examine adequacy of sourcing Fred Bauder 16:41, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Sidaway

Me

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Yes.

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

I tried talking to myself, but the result was quite fruitless. I simply cannot get myself to agree to disagree. Every conversation ends in vehement agreement.

Statement by party 1

I've deleted an obviously moribund project page rather a lot of times. See Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Catholic Alliance of wikipedia. Other administrators undelete it. I think it must be deleted. It must not be allowed to exist because it refers to articles on Wikipedia in partisan terms and expresses an interest in those articles' retention. Specifically, it says:

The Catholic Alliance of wikipedia is an wiki-organisation intended to nurture and keep wikipedia's pro-life/pro-catholic articles and categories. It is not intended to eliminate all pro-choice articles, nor intended to skew any results.

It must die. It must not be allowed to live for one minute. There is a massive consensus to delete it, but even if 1,000 wikipedians said that it must exist, it would still have to be killed immediately. It must die because it promotes Wikipedia as a place to campaign again neutrality. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 00:59, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by party 2

I'm seeing people blocked indefinitely for making a few silly edits, but we're having a huge argument over whether such poisonous material should be held on our project pages. A project devoted to nurturing and keeping articles that are supposedly "pro-life/pro-catholic". Wikipedia articles we know should always be neutral, reporting only external comments in a manner that seeks to represent the facts about what is being said. They should never adopt a partisan viewpoint and no group within Wikipedia should be permitted to suggest that this is remotely acceptable. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 01:28, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by some random outsider

This is overdoing it. The page was deleted and undeleted eight times within three days, and if revert wars are harmful then so are wheel wars. I haven't been following this debate, but it is apparent that while few people object to the deletion of this page, several people object to Tony ignoring or overriding an ongoing discussion to do what he feels is right. He seems to have a reputation for doing that.

The issue then isn't whether he is right (as seems to be the case here), but that when something is under consideration, those people considering it don't appreciate being ignored; it's a matter of civility, really. Since such debates tend not to last more than a couple of days, one might wonder what the point is in rushing the issue, since this can cause undue wikistress with no difference to the end result. The end might justify the means, but if the same end can be reached by different means, then it's preferable to use the means that causes the least wikistress. And if an action is contested, discussion is always preferable over edit wars, regardless of which side is correct. WP:HEC, anyone?

Radiant_>|< 02:19, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Statement By Less Random Party

Which i'm going to place on the talk page to save some space. karmafist 07:50, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by brenneman

What exactly does it take to get administrator review happening? Tony's the walking definition of the death by a thousand cuts, and in light of the recent lowering of the bar if there's not some "admonishment" at least, how is anyone supposed to take the ArbCom seriously? - brenneman(t)(c) 15:17, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Erm, I know you have issues with Tony, but there's times when some common sense really wouldn't go astray. Ambi 02:15, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Really official request for injunction

I move that Tony be put under the mentorship of a cup of tea. Whenever he feels the need to perform an admin action twice (because the first action was undone by some other admin) he should instead take the issue up with a cup of tea, and under the mediating influence of a cup of tea discuss the matter with that other admin. Radiant_>|< 17:06, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'll chime in to support the request for the injunction, and to support the notion that Mr. Sidaway's frequent unabashed unilateralism in open contempt of ongoing discussions, justified under the cover of IAR, needs to be considered by a competent body capable of disciplining admins. If Mr. Sidaway's innovative "case-against-himself" can be reshaped such that this issue is addressed here and now, marvelous. Otherwise, unless the injunction succeeds, Arbcom will need to hear a similar case eventually. Xoloz 07:38, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Recommend reject

I was one of the five admins who restored the article after Tony's out of process deletions. I recommend that this RFArb be rejected as WP:POINT, without prejudice to the issue being brought up again in a more responsible way. For now, it seems to me that other admins have effectively worked together to make Tony's actions in this matter ineffectual. That's a happy outcome for everyone, including Tony. Therefore, I don't see Arbcom involvement as appropriate or necessary. Should similar shenanigans continue to be a distraction and a burden on so many administrators, review of this and similar activities might become needed. Nandesuka 13:05, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What on earth? Firstly, it was a perfectly within-process deletion - it had already been MfDd with a large consensus to delete. Secondly, it's a completely obvious deletion - ignoring the bureaucracy, it makes no sense to keep this around. Tony's done some controversial things in the past, but harassing him on this one (let alone undeleting the article at all) is downright bizarre. Ambi 00:43, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/4/0/0)

  • Reject, while some issues are raised, the contestant should give in to his better nature. Fred Bauder 14:50, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reject: both in light of Nandesuka's comments, and because if there's a more substantial case against Tony, someone else should bring it. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 22:59, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reject, as per Fred. I would disagree with Nandesuka that Tony's deletion was in any way "out of process". Please check your common sense unit to see if it needs replacing. ;-) James F. (talk) 00:45, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reject - Wikipedia:Snowball clause Raul654 13:05, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Requests for Clarification

Requests for clarification from the Arbcom on matters related to the arbitration process.

Rainbowwarrior1977 revived

The Arbitration Committee upheld/confirmed/retroactively authorized an indefinate block of Rainbowwarrior1977 in a previous RfAr, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Rainbowwarrior1977 closed on October 27th. The same individual has been indef blocked under at least five other abusive accounts Musachachado, CelineDionFan82, Pamstar, TheDeletator, and Shelburne_Kismaayo, for a variety of reasons, all of which are set out in the original RfA (except Shelburne, which was a sock used to take revenge on Redwolf24 via RfC). There is at least one other known sock (User:SamuraiBoywithaDrugProblem) which has been used for similar harassment.

The individual has now returned under the username Brandonfarb, and admitted to being the same individual. This has been known for quite some time, but as the original decision (i.e., whether the individual is banned under any username, or under only the blocked usernames) is unclear, he has not been blocked. He has now returned to his same established behavior by harassing me in a variety of ways. I would like quick clarification of the ban status; if it is a full ban, the reincarnations may be blocked on sight, if it is not, then a new RfAr needs to be filed. I apologize for having to bother the ArbCom with this, but it seems to be the only way to get a clear ruling on whether or not reincarnations may be blocked. -- Essjay · Talk 15:57, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Shelburne Kismayo account was used to certify the RfC that was brought by Wiki brah (talk · contribs) sepreately from RW1977, and if I recall correctly, he confirmed that he was not Wiki brah shortly thereafter. Just clarifying.--Sean|Black 23:49, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Also, he apologized to Red under this account, apparently wanting to redeem himself. Looks like that has not come to fruition, unfortunately.--Sean|Black 23:52, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Any new account or sock may be banned indefinitely, see Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Rainbowwarrior1977#Indefinite_ban Fred Bauder 00:40, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet check User:Zephram Stark

Note: I'm posting this here because it concerns Zephram Stark's ArbCom case. I also wanted the entire ArbCom to be aware of this request so that there are no implications that I singled out certain arbitrators to perform this sockpuppet check.

I'm requesting that the ArbCom confirm whether Peter McConaughey (talk · contribs) is a sockpuppet of banned Zephram Stark (talk · contribs). I believe there's more than enough evidence to warrant use of CheckUser:

  • Zephram Stark was banned on 12 November 2005 (for six months). Peter's first edit was on 23 November 2005.
  • Both editors are extremely vocal about alleged administrative abuse and are prone to Wikilawyering and long diatribes.
  • Both editors have entered in conflicts with many of the same users. Besides myself, Peter has also been in conflict with User:Commodore Sloat, even denying that he was Zephram with the same use of sexual innuendo [9] that Zephram commonly used. Carbonite | Talk 13:29, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Any doubt that Peter is not a sockpuppet of Zephram should be put to rest with this evidence. On 10 November 2005, Zephram created Coving. This obscure article has only been edited twice more, most recently by Peter McConaughey on 20 December 2005 [10].
  • Peter has commented [11] about CheckUser:

"The Cabal is hoping that vague innuendo will be enough to create an official case. After they gain the legal right to snoop my personal information, they will be free to reveal what they already know. Don't be surprised to hear something along the lines of, "We had no idea about this before the case opened, but look what we have discovered now that we have a legal right to investigate the personal information about this editor!"

Of course, none of the information they reveal will be direct or a threat to Wikipedia in any way, but it will be enough to hang me in the court of public opinion. We all have skeletons in our closet."

Though this comment seemed like paranoia when I first read it, it makes much more sense due to his status as a sockpuppet of a banned user. There's more circumstantial evidence, but I believe this should be sufficient for a CheckUser. Carbonite | Talk 13:29, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Additional IP info on Zephram can be found in his RfC. Carbonite | Talk 13:48, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I could not get anything from Checkuser today on either of them. Fred Bauder 14:17, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm assuming this a server/database issue and that when CheckUser is back online this information may be available. Is this correct? If so, what would you recommend doing until CheckUser is back online? I'm very concerned that Peter/Zephram is (and has been) causing a good deal of disruption by circumventing his ban. Carbonite | Talk 14:28, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
CheckUser relies upon recent changes, which is the only store of IP addresses within the database. If the information is not in the recent changes cache, then it is not available to those using CheckUser. Rob Church Talk 01:00, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I support looking into this user for the reasons Carbonite suggested. My suspicions began after a few repeated instances of nonsense from this user on the World Islamic Front discussion page. The nonsense is accompanied with a supposedly authoritative chart that he only later in the discussion admitted was of his own creation. I haven't looked at his other edits but my sense on this page is that he is, as another editor noted above, needling people to try to pick fights over non-issues. It reminded me of another user, who coincidentally stopped editing a couple weeks before Peter M started editing. It looks like at least two of Peter M's obsessions are the same as Zephram's were -- terrorism and the Declaration of Independence. When I voiced my suspicions, his response was telling -- very much in the style of Zephram's writing. Other recent irrelevant comments about my sex life (see also here) and further comments in his edit summary seeming to call out Jews and Muslims in an inflammatory manner provide more evidence to me confirming my suspicion that he may be User:Zephram Stark. Then there is the sheer nonsense -- at one point he asked about a perceived inconsistency in the article. I responded with a quite simple (and obvious) answer. His response was some bizarre reference to "death-eaters".

After this discussion proceeded and it became clear that he could not defend his position adequately, another user mysteriously appears. I believe this other user to be a sockpuppet too. User:MACMILLAN entered the discussion out of the blue, changing the article and obnoxiously claiming "I AM A TERRORIST EXPERT" in his edit summary, and on the discussion page claiming to have seen additional translations of a document that we were discussing there. When pressed, he did not produce any additional translations, nor defend his alleged expertise at all. His user page claims that his name is "Gabriel MacMillan," certainly not a known name of any terrorism expert. He would not answer when pressed for details about the translation he claims to have seen or about his own expertise (publications, even conferences attended). The community of scholars in counterterrorism is not large, and while I do not consider myself an "expert," my own work touches on these issues, and I have researched the documents in question, and I find no support whatsoever for his claim that there are alternate translations of this document available. What really gave it away for me is a catchphrase commonly used by Zephram, also used both by Peter McC and by MACMILLAN, as a way of disingenuously avoiding actually discussing issues on the page: something to the effect of "my main interest is in improving the quality of the article, not fighting with you". Compare MACMILLAN, Peter, Peter, Peter, and of course Zephram. (There are many more examples of Zephram using similiar phrases in this way if you look through his edit history around August-September 2005).

Finally there is one more editor whose work is suspicious here, and that is User:The Random Element. His user page reminds me very much of Zephram's old user page, with its meandering parables. He entered the debate on this page and Peter stepped in supposedly to mediate between myself and him (which is where the "Jews" comment came in). Taking a look at his edit history, I see some strange edits as well as obnoxious examples of WP:POINT. This user may not be Zephram - there is not enough information to tell - but I would take a look at his IP as well if possible.

Overall I have found Peter McC's edits to be destructive to Wikipedia, and his comments in Talk are what led me to the conclusion that he is the same sock puppeteer as the person behind Zephram Stark. One final piece of evidence - when challenged on this point he at one point claimed to have "researched him" (Zephram) and pointed misleadingly to Zephram's edits on Wikispecies, a different site. Apparently Zephram is on that site causing trouble as well, making graphical charts that look similar to the one produced by Peter here. He is apparently writing a Wikibook also. I think Peter's link to this page (rather than to Mr. Stark's ubiquitous activities here at Wikipedia) is an obvious attempt to feign ignorance of Stark's disruption of wikipedia in previous months.--csloat 22:36, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom term expiration

Technically, the term of several ArbCom members expires December 31st. Because it was considered unwise to hold the elections during the holiday season, they have been delayed until the middle of January. This means that the new ArbCom could not feasibly be instated before February 1st. Am I correct to assume that this means the present ArbCom stays in function for another month to cover the gap? It doesn't seem problematic to me, but I thought I'd ask. Radiant_>|< 22:44, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

We'll just soldier on til something happens. Fred Bauder 22:52, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Umm. I'm sorry? "it was considered unwise to hold the elections during the holiday season"? By whom? When? And why on Earth is there a departure by the community from the rules that they seemed so obsessed with following regarding elections in the first place? Those are the more interesting questions to be asking. We serve at Jimbo's pleasure, and will continue to do so until we give him our resignation, he asks us to stop, or he explicitly replaces us. Don't worry about that. :-)
IMO, it seemed that nobody could be fagged to go through the bother of carrying out the voting, rather than any particular active deicison against holding the election at the normal time... but that's merely my opinion, of course.
James F. (talk) 00:36, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since you asked - it was considered by the (admittedly few) people who joined the discussion on the ArbElect talk page and ANI, after Jimbo requested that a RFA-like process be used for this year's election, and before that by some people on Jimbo's talk page during the time that Jimbo had stated the elections would be done different this year, but had not informed the community of how. Radiant_>|< 00:57, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I imagine the current arbcom will remain seated until an alternative is in place, because that is by far the most sensible thing to do, and we are above all ruled by sense. Phil Sandifer 01:04, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think Fred's comment just about sums it up best - we'll continue to do what we have been doing until the community and Jimbo come to some kind of decision. Raul654 22:28, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Do the decisions make by members of the arbitration committee during the gap period possess any legal validity? — Instantnood 21:01, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Legal validity isn't at issue, as far as I can see. Wikipedia is run by a private organization free to set its own rules or lack thereof, and if that organization says the ArbCom's rulings are binding in this interim period, then they are. Of course, that doesn't mean anything outside of Wikipedia and maybe other sites Wikimedia has a hand in, but no-one has ever claimed otherwise as far as I can tell. PurplePlatypus 21:28, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
By talking about legal validity I'm not talking about laws in the real world, but the character that the arbitration committee is making binding decisions like rulings of a legal body. — Instantnood 22:35, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
If we wanted to waste the time of some rather busy people, we could ask for a determination from the Board of the Wikimedia Foundation that the present ArbCom should continue working until elections are held. On the other hand, it strikes me that applying common sense is a much more efficient way to achieve the same result. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:54, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
We cannot assume something as such, since rulings of the arbitration committee are only valid when and only they're made by its members whose terms of office have not yet expired. Of course the Board of the Wikimedia Foundation can make a determination, but procedurally we cannot assume the members are still having the authority unless the Board has already made such a determination. — Instantnood 22:35, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
See, this is where even I - much more of a believer in having the rules spelled out clearly and applied consistently than, apparently, many members of the current ArbCom - think you're being rather silly. Procedural technicalities are explicitly not the way Wikipedia is run, and even I think that's all to the good. While I have had some harsh words for the current ArbCom, those go more to the kind of culture they seem to be encouraging and enforcing. I see no issues with their mandate in and of itself, even if it gets extended for a couple of extra months. PurplePlatypus 23:15, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Instantnood page moves

In the 'nood ArbCom decisions "1) Instantnood (talk · contribs) is restricted to proposing only one page move, poll of editors, or policy change relating to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Chinese) per week."

What should be done when he doesn't actually propose a move, but just uses subterfuge to get what he wants?

In the ArbCom case there was plenty of evidence in the start of the case that he was abusing the rename process by repeatedly asking for "Foo of Taiwan" to be renamed "Foo of the Republic of China". Now that ArbCom closed the case with that restriction above, he just avoids the rename process altogether. Yesterday there was an existing category Taiwanese newspapers that corresponded with the naming convention in Category:Newspapers by country (ie, "Foobarnese newspapers" as opposed to "Newspapers of Foobar"). To get what he wants without actually proposing a rename he created a parallel category (Newspapers of the Republic of China), put it in Newspapers by country and other parent categories, then deprecated Taiwanese newspapers by removing it from the parent categories.

Meanwhile, while the new category sits on CfD, with an overwhelming early consensus to delete, he's insisting that either his, or BOTH of the categories should exist in the parent categories [12] [13].

So, he hasn't actually proposed to rename the the category, he just wants to create two parallel categories and move them around in the category structure. (Creating parallel forks isn't new behavior from him, but it fell through the cracks in the case.)

Also meanwhile, he's not "proposing a move" merely "seeking clarification" on another ROC/Taiwan move, Media in Taiwan.

And I'd also like the ArbCom to consider removing the words "relating to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Chinese)" from this restriction on his behavior. I'm mostly not involved, but he's currently edit warring with other editors on half a dozen articles related to the naming of food of all things and whether they should be named with Cantonese, Mandarin, or English. [14] [15], etc. These aren't related to the Chinese naming conventions, but mere mortal editors shouldn't have to try and keep up with his proposals and unilateral moves.

- SchmuckyTheCat 22:31, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What should be done when he doesn't actually propose a move, but just uses subterfuge to get what he wants? Then it counts as a move. As to the edit warring over food names, guess there are some general problems we didn't handle. Fred Bauder 03:05, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Is there an enforcement mechanism for this, or just an admonishment? (The same question could be said about the edit summary statement - "is reminded to make useful edit summaries.") SchmuckyTheCat 21:19, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Instantnood_2#Instantnood_placed_on_probation will have to serve. However, this requires an administrator with the energy and interest to look into it and actually do something. Fred Bauder 14:16, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That was not a rename. Republic of China and Taiwan means something different. I am not proposing to move newspapers published in Taiwan to the parent category for the Republic of China, which Taiwan is, contemporarily, a major part of. The relevant Wikipedia policies, including the NPOV policy, have been listed here [16]. As a matter of fact, user:SchmuckyTheCat tried several times to delink the category he has nominated to CfD from all other categories ([17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23]), although the CfD is in process.

The disputes around the articles on food is not only around their names, and they're not related to the previous arbitration case. — Instantnood 21:01, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's your contention, not the communities, that RoC and Taiwan mean something different. The category existed, you delinked it when you created a new replacement category. A duck by any other name still quacks. SchmuckyTheCat 03:50, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think this entire exchange here with the numerous openly hostile comments Schmucky has made toward Instant or anyone who in anyway supports a viewpoint like Instant's or even advocates a modicum of decorum shows the action taken by the ArbCom just didn't go far enough here. The edit warring continues across several articles, Schmucky has flat out said he intends on being hostile and continue what sounds like a crusade when he describes it against Instant [24]. The ink is hardly dry from the decision and the warring continues. --Wgfinley 04:02, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Criticisms of communism

I posted some of my concerns about what I am worried is narrow and inflexible wording used in the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ultramarine decision on the talk page there, but I got no answer unfortunately. Now it seems that User:Ultramarine and User:172 are starting the revert war back up again. This is problematic since the decision does not list 172 as a user who may be blocked for reverting. I'm warning the users not to engage in sterile revert warring but I think some clarification or revision of that decision is badly needed. --Ryan Delaney talk 08:02, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, I think that the decision has solved little. Some of the involved editors seem to have left Wikipedia. However, other who edited constructively as long as the arbitration case was open have now again started to blankly delete well-referenced material. They have now deleted many extremely well-referenced statements and whole sections of the prior article. I try to discuss the differences but they refuse to give sources for their statements and claims which makes reaching any consensus difficult. I would greatly appreciate if Wikipedia policies such as Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No original research, and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view would be uphold. I see no way out of the current controversy until the arbitration committee makes this clear also for this maybe very politicaly sensitive article. Unfortunately, the other side seems to respect Wikipedia policy only when there is an ongoing case.
I would also request that Ryan Delaney should be prohibited from applying any remedies, since he and I have longstanding issues regarding other articles and he unfortunately seems to be stalking me. Ultramarine 10:25, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I have also suggested moving the contents to other articles that maybe have better and less POV names, as this may resolve some issues, but they insist that all the criticisms of communism should be in this article, which they now claim ownership of and as noted refuse to engage in factual discussions and refuse to give sources for claims. Ultramarine 10:33, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I support Ryan's efforts. The dispute indeed is quite sterile and it is time to just write a new article. I posted a note on the talk page stating a pledge to follow the "one-revert rule on the page" and asking Ryan to enforce my pledge as a mutual agreement between the two of us. [25] On that note, IMO the Arbcom decision could have been far more helpful. I think a much more sweeping decsion would have been order, such as a ban on editing that editor binding on just anyone who has ever edited it, including myself. 172 10:08, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, Ryan Delaney selectively decided to not block 172 when he reverted the article from the earlier stable version. However, Ryan Delaney has now stated on the discussion page that he will without warning block any editor that attempts to change 172's version, regardless if they were mentioned in the arbcom case or not. He and 172 has now effectively locked the article into their preferred version indefinitely. So its is not surprising that 172 supports "Ryan's efforts" regarding selective blocking and thus sees no need to engage in any meaningful discussions on the talk pages or such things as source citations in order to reach a consensus.Ultramarine 12:03, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Uh, if 172 reverts, I'm blocking him too, since he basically gave me permission to do so. However, this Arbcom decision dosen't really give me the authority to do that, which is the problem I am trying to address here. --Ryan Delaney talk 17:31, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

While I am recused from this matter I suggest that Ultramarine and others adopt the framework of 172's version and then negotiate how much detail, as opposed to links to specific articles, ought to be included from the other version which I find quite crowded with excessively detailed, sometimes controversial information. I too am disappointed with the ArbCom decision. After I recused because 172 was involved, they went ahead and crafted a solution which did not include 172. Fred Bauder 15:35, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest that Ultramarine and others adopt the framework of 172's version and then negotiate how much detail, as opposed to links to specific articles, ought to be included from the other version... This is a good proposal. Criticisms of communism is one of the most important subjects on discourse in 20th century world history found in any encyclopedia. An excellent final product will have the structure of the 'Pmanderson, and Robert A., and Mihnea Tudoreanu version' and much of the content of the Ultramarine version.' Just a minor correction... There is no '172 version' of the article. The version that I restored was the work mostly of Pmanderson, and Robert A., and Mihnea Tudoreanu. My involvement in the article was very minimal between around September, except for the first few days following the creation of the article, and yesterday. 172 21:13, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I would be glad to discuss any changes, hopefully you could include some views since you are recused. However, I do not see how the current stalemate can be broken as long as there is blank denial of such basic concepts such as Verifiablity. Please see this section which is the most recent attempt to factually discuss 172's version (Note that this is weeks before the current attempts to simply blankly revert) [26].Ultramarine 16:37, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I just don't have time. The arbitration committee has the usual backlog and even cases out of the backlog could still use work. I would not strongly insist on verifiability for all elements of the article. Sometimes insights regarding the structure of an article are not easily verified such as treatment of the controversy on the left regarding appropriate treatment of the shortcomings of Communist practices. However, it is not impossible. For example, see page xiv in the Author's Notes of The Rosenberg File, ISBN 0030490367 Fred Bauder 16:53, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I can agree that verifiability can and should not always be included, for example for obvious logical arguments. However, I think you have previously supported such issues as including the more prominent critics of communism. As noted, they only name left-wing critics of communism and they refuse to name or include the views of other critics. Another example, they refuse to mention any arguments that the Communist states were related to Marxist ideology and only mentions arguments against this. Unfortunately, I do not see how consensus can be achieved as long they blankly refuse to include such basic issues. Ultramarine 17:07, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, they should give some too. Khruschev honestly believed he was building communism following the principles of Lenin and Marx, as did Breshnev. God knows what Stalin believed, but probably he felt himself to be a practical man with common sense. So it is rather obvious that Marxism is intimately related to Communist practice. How, is the question. Fred Bauder 17:16, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to see some of this go to the talk page of Criticisms of communism. In the mean time, I need to stress that suggestions -- like the one that you well-meaningly posted above, or that Arbcom posted in their ruling -- are not going to resolve this dispute, as is evident by the revert war having started again, and my being unable to really do anything about it. --Ryan Delaney talk 17:31, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Zen-master again

Zen-master is on probation regarding all articles. Does that include pages in the Wikipedia namespace? The reason I'm asking is that he's recently been active in some (rather spurious) policy proposals. Radiant_>|< 22:20, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I am interested in hearing any evidence or argument Radiant can come up with that explains and justifies his labeling Peter's WP:0RR guideline or any other "policy" proposal I've "recently been active in" as being "spurious". I will also note the coincidence that Peter is unable to defend his guideline against charges of being "spurious" as he was just blocked for 24 hours for accusing Carbonite of being a "troll" because Carbonite initially moved the WP:0RR guideline to Peter's user namespace because of a header dispute (among other actions that are seemingly unbecomming of an admin and don't appear to have been done with an assumption of good faith in mind). Feel free to disagree with any guideline but please don't thwart its acceptance by others. zen master T 23:11, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Zen-master#Zen-master_placed_on_probation includes any page other than his own user and talk pages. Whether he is being disruptive is up to the determination of the banning administrator. Any ban should be logged and documented. Fred Bauder 23:39, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

But some actual reasonable argument has to be attempted that explains specifically how I have, if ever, been "disruptive". Instead of repeating labels over and over again why don't you or someone get down to specifics? Please note WP:Probation policy: "A [probation] ban may be imposed only for good cause which shall be documented in a section set aside for that purpose in the arbitration case. Banning without good cause or in bad faith shall be grounds for censure, restriction, or removal of administrative access". At this point I interpret everytime I've been labeled as "disruptive" was and is some sort of misdirection ploy so people don't focus on numerous highly biased and biasing articles, with the most notable and nefarious example being race and intelligence. zen master T 01:44, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Netoholic

I would like to discuss my status with respect to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Netoholic 2.

The mentorship agreement specified that users Raul654, Kim Bruning and Grunt would act as my mentors. It said also "If the mentors think it is working, they can lessen or end their supervision of Netoholic's editing. If they consider it has failed — at the six month review or at any earlier time — the namespace and revert restriction in remedy 2 will take effect."

Over time, all three of my mentors ended their supervision for various reasons. On June 28th, Kim Bruning stepped aside as my mentor. Grunt became inactive as of July 5. On July 19th, Raul654 resigned recommending an alternate "probation" approach.

What I'd like confirmation is whether these resignations fulfilled the "end their supervision" clause. In the above linked resignations, neither Kim or Raul654 indicated that the mentorship failed, but mentioned leaving for personal reasons or because of the way the mentorship arrangement was designed. That arrangement was flawed because the community was asked to bring up concerns with the mentors directly. This meant that even minor disagreements were propogated to three different talk pages, which lead to a lot of stress.

In short, I'd like to ask to be relieved of any Arbitration edit restrictions presently in place. -- Netoholic @ 18:03, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

While I agree strongly that Netoholic should not be, at this point, under as draconian a set of restrictions as he currently is - particularly the template restrictions, where I think he's a needed force for pointing out that consensus does not get to override the developers saying "Please don't do this," I would caution on the other hand that edits such as [27] do make me worry that some of the incivility problems have not corrected themselves. On the other hand, that Netoholic's behavior has in general improved while under parole seems clear, and it may be that the remaining issues can only be fixed through experience. So I, at least, offer my tepid support of this. Which, considering my history with this conflict, probably actually still counts for a lot. :) Phil Sandifer 18:12, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Netoholic and Snowspinner are actually working together. Holy goodness me! Net still needs to grasp the finer points of dealing with f*ckw diplomacy, but has come to both of us for help in these matters, with good productive effect. A strong caution about dealing gently with policy should remain - but he seems to be getting this point, which is excellent. We each have our strengths and weaknesses, after all ... - David Gerard 20:13, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Can we please get some comments here? Netoholic has been tremendously helpful of late in dealing with the requirements of WP:AUM, but has had to do so flouting his parole and editing templates... which is unfortunate, and a situation that ought to be brought to an end. Phil Sandifer 06:52, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've been on Wiki-break for a while but one of the first things I checked when I got back was what Neto has been up to and I am pleased to see things have really turned around. I agree with David's proposal on this 100% and if I can assist in any way I would be happy to. --Wgfinley 20:52, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

While we're appealing this case, btw, can we also overturn the findings that say that AUM is not policy, since they imply a really godawful precedent that the community can meaningfully have a lack of consensus to obey the developers? Phil Sandifer 06:16, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's not policy, because there are occasions where it is fruitful to use them. That doesn't mean it's not damn good advice and should still be followed. There must be a good reason to use a meta-template, and anyone who says otherwise is a fool. The MoS still should be obeyed, personal attacks must not be made, nor may original research be put into the main namespace. The ArbCom may not create policy. AUM completely fits in the template category without losing its effect. That said, I fully support any motion to remove Netoholic's restrictions on editing categories. I would, on the other hand, also support a motion to put him on probation with regard to the template namespace only. [[Sam Korn]] 19:40, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

With regard to Template:stars this user appears to have driven though a set of changes via bot that is out of keeping with the removal of the template which has not yet happened as far as I can see, still a confused situation. Anywaty his BOT remoaved references to the template:stars and replace with just e.g. (3/5) rather that the e.g. File:3 out of 5.png that was there before tamplate:stars was in use. Is this the right way to make mass changes. Kevinalewis 11:02, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bots are the right way to make mass changes, but they should be used only once consensus has been reached. In this case, the TFD for Template:Stars was closed prematurely by Snowspinner. —Locke Cole 11:08, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It was? If it was, that's wholly my error - I must have read the date wrong. Phil Sandifer 02:23, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Clarification of User:SEWilco probation

The terms of the probation at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Climate change dispute_2 say: 

3) SEWilco should not use a bot to convert citations on articles, nor should he manually 
convert citation styles on any articles.

I'd like to understand if this diff is a permissible use of a bot, or a violation of the arbcom decision. On the face of it it seems like a contravention of the decision. Is there something I'm missing? I have blocked the bot temporarily (24 hours) while trying to understand this issue. If I'm mistaken and this is a permissible use, any admin should feel free to undo the block (but please explain to me how to distinguish permissible from impermissible bot edits). Thanks, Nandesuka 15:03, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

SEWilco indicates on my talk page that he thinks its a permissible use because the article style already uses WP:FN. But the way the remedy is written is "should not use a bot to convert citations on articles" (emphasis added), not "convert articles". So if this use is permissible, a clarification is very much needed. Nandesuka 15:08, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The article already uses WP:FN style, and I created a citation where there had been none.. A URL link alone is not a citation. "complete citations — also called "references," because the citations identify the referred-to sources — are collected at the end of the article under a ==References== heading". (SEWilco 16:02, 24 December 2005 (UTC))[reply]

He is correct, the article is already using Wikipedia:Footnotes style. He is technically violating the arbitration remedy but the violation is harmless. I don't think we will modify the remedy, but the evil addressed is changing a bunch of articles that are in some other format to the footnotes format without concensus not the particular use here. As we impressed on SEWilco, at great length, merely technical violations may or may not be enforced. Fred Bauder 16:35, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

SEWilco is gaming. I just blocked RefBot indefinitely (second account created to evade ArbCom ruling) and SEWilco 48 hours (creating second account to evade ArbCom ruling) - David Gerard 18:27, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
That is incorrect. RefBot is my third account, not second. It was not created to evade the ArbCom ruling; not only was it created before the ArbCom ruling, and the ruling does not distinguish between my accounts, but actually User:RefBot was created because its abilities are becoming too specialized for the utility account User:SEWilcoBot. So far 0.5% of the Admins have been involved, and it would save everyone effort if you'd ask questions before acting in ignorance. (SEWilco 01:33, 27 December 2005 (UTC))[reply]

Clarification necessary

The phrasing "convert citations on articles, nor should he manually convert citation styles on any articles." is overly ambiguous. I've been blocked due to following WP:CITE and defining a missing citation in an article which uses WP:FN. Apparently any change from [[http://example.com/]] to {{ref|example.com}} is not allowed. Is changing * John Smith: "My Autobiography" to * Smith, John: "My Autobiography" allowed? There are many things which can be called "citations" and "citation styles", such as changing (pp. 33-41) to (Smith pp. 33-41) when content changes make the first format incorrect. The discussion had only mentioned a few situations. (SEWilco 01:45, 27 December 2005 (UTC))[reply]

Yes, your block was over a technicality. I suggest that before you run a bot doing any of the things you suggest you, and others, hammer out on the policy pages a definite policy which establishes whatever format is under discussion as agreed policy. This matter is really over that, proceeding prior to establishment of a definite policy. It may be no policy can be agreed on. In that case, just wait. Fred Bauder 14:05, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't it already agreed that an article should use one format, and editors should follow that format? That's what I was doing when adding a WP:FN citation to an article in WP:FN format. (SEWilco 15:35, 27 December 2005 (UTC))[reply]
On second thought, looking at the above comment I made. That is a kind of Breshnev comment, "stagnation should continue..." I really don't think that is going to get us anywhere. However you have a knack of coming up with formats that I and, probably others, don't like. Fred Bauder 14:20, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I and the others using WP:FN come up with those formats (used in 3 of most recent 10 WP:FAC). And WP:CITE repeatedly emphasizes that complete citations should exist, yet when I add full citations they sometimes (rarely) get deleted without that deletion being acknowledged as being an improper action. I can easily add citations which are not linked from the appropriate text, but then updating references and citations manually becomes quite difficult (try finding the citation for the 8th note in Global cooling, then imagine the same format for the 44th note in (old:Killian documents)). Manual edits are likely to orphan old citations and reduce Verifiability. (SEWilco 15:35, 27 December 2005 (UTC))[reply]

The ruling is quite clear, that you should not change citation styles. While this was obviously referring to your insistence on removing inline citations, if you are in any doubt at all, then you should avoid making any changes. This is not the page to try to argue that your preferred style is the better one. Jayjg (talk) 07:03, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The phrasing of the ruling is simple, but the ruling not clear. The meanings of "convert", "citation", and "style" are ambiguous. "Citation" can mean the phrasing or WikSyntax description of source material in text, the "complete citation" (WP:CITE phrasing about what often goes in a "References" section) which provides details about a source, or the conceptual connection between text and "complete citation". "Convert" can mean rearranging, adding, moving, or deleting all or part of entries. So far only 3 Arbs have agreed that in an article using WP:FN for all other citations that the move of a single URL to a full citation with a WP:FN link is to "convert" the information (I saw it as addition or maintenance, not conversion). Is adding a full citation without linking to it a "conversion" or addition? "Style" can mean the WikiSyntax used, the exact or similar visual appearance on the page, the general patterns (numbered or bulleted lists, sorted order, journal vs news phrasing, consistent or chaotic lists), specific patterns used (author name format, standard publication names, phrasing (chapter/ch.,pages/p./pp.)). The ambiguities are also apparent in the ongoing consolidation of WP:CITET: is changing template parameters from uppercase ("Author=") to lowercase ("author=") a violation? Such a change can be a violation on several levels: Discussion of a conversion can cause change, changing a template can cause changes in citations in several ways, and replacing "Author=" with "author=" in article citations is a citation change. Is a (rhetorical) merge of {{news reference}} and {{journal reference}} which requires translation to [[Template:published reference]] a violation? (Actually, all WP:CITET is being consolidated toward a single template) (SEWilco 16:16, 28 December 2005 (UTC))[reply]
Please assume the broadest possible interpretation. We will back up any administrator that blocks you under a broad interpretation. Meanwhile help work out policy. Fred Bauder 18:59, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Motions in prior cases

(Only Arbitrators may make such motions)

Motions to extend ban on Ciz editing

Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Ciz#Prevention_from_editing_Zoophilia is modified to:

Ciz (using whatever account or IP address) is prevented indefinitely from editing Zoophilia and its closely-related articles, or any editing related to the subjects of zoophilia, bestiality, animal sexuality, or human-animal relationships in any article, including their talk pages. Whether an article or page concerns these subjects shall be determined by the enforcing administrator.
Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 16:21, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. James F. (talk) 09:03, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. ➥the Epopt 23:55, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Kelly Martin (talk) 00:43, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Ciz#Attempts_to_edit_Zoophilia is modified to:

If Ciz (using whatever account or IP address) edits Zoophilia or its closely related articles, or makes any edit which relates to zoophilia, bestiality, animal sexuality, or human-animal relationships in any article, or their talk pages, such changes made may be reverted by any editor and any administrator may, at his/her discretion, briefly block Ciz (up to a week in the case of repeat violations). After 5 blocks the maximum block shall increase to one year.
Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 16:21, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. James F. (talk) 09:03, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. ➥the Epopt 23:55, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Kelly Martin (talk) 00:43, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

See discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Ciz#User:_DrBat_--_continuing_breaches_of_previous_ArbCom_ruling

Motion to ban User:Pigsonthewing

Upon review of Pigsonthewing's article edits for the month of December, I find nothing that does not appear to be edit warring. (Updated: It has been pointed out to me that he has some useful edits in the early part of December, but only one of any quality since the case against him closed on the 10th, and nothing but edit warring since the 12th. Kelly Martin (talk) 18:54, 30 December 2005 (UTC)) His probation does not appear to be going well. In general his contributions elsewhere are divisive, bordering on wikistalking of Karmafist and possibly other editors, and his continued presence on Wikipedia is clearly creating more heat than light. Accordingly, I move that Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pigsonthewing be modified include the following remedy:[reply]

Pigsonthewing (talk · contribs) (using whatever account or IP address) is banned from Wikipedia for a period of one year.
Support:
  1. Kelly Martin (talk) 18:02, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. one well-sourced edit does not save him — a broken clock may be right twice a day but it should still be thrown out ➥the Epopt 00:35, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. Fred Bauder 18:39, 30 December 2005 (UTC) see [28] Check this out on Google and you'll see this edit is well sourced.[reply]


Abstain:

Archives

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests&oldid=33446586"