Former user 2 (talk | contribs) |
SlimVirgin (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 71: | Line 71: | ||
::I'll let PR know that you "accept the evidence" "in the interests of concluding this dispute". You use interesting wording though. "... Zero's explanation of where PR's information '''could have come from'''". Is there a competing hypothesis? [[User:Chovain|Mark]] [[User talk:Chovain|Chovain]] 02:46, 22 May 2007 (UTC) |
::I'll let PR know that you "accept the evidence" "in the interests of concluding this dispute". You use interesting wording though. "... Zero's explanation of where PR's information '''could have come from'''". Is there a competing hypothesis? [[User:Chovain|Mark]] [[User talk:Chovain|Chovain]] 02:46, 22 May 2007 (UTC) |
||
:::of course there is. A competing hypothesis is that PR got the quote exactly where jay claims he did, but once he became aware of the fuax pas, he quickly searched for alternate sources (or has some alternate sources conveniently provided to him by his supporters) and once he found a more respectable source, claimed that is the original source. I don't know if this is the case any more than i know if the former hypothesis is true - but let's not pretend that jaygj's original hypothesis has somehow been proven false by the emergence of an equally credible or even more credible hypothesis. [[User:Isarig|Isarig]] 03:13, 22 May 2007 (UTC) |
:::of course there is. A competing hypothesis is that PR got the quote exactly where jay claims he did, but once he became aware of the fuax pas, he quickly searched for alternate sources (or has some alternate sources conveniently provided to him by his supporters) and once he found a more respectable source, claimed that is the original source. I don't know if this is the case any more than i know if the former hypothesis is true - but let's not pretend that jaygj's original hypothesis has somehow been proven false by the emergence of an equally credible or even more credible hypothesis. [[User:Isarig|Isarig]] 03:13, 22 May 2007 (UTC) |
||
::::I think Zero showed that the wording of the edit made it more likely that it had come from the book than from the Holocaust denial site. The point is that PalestineRemembered has edited in such a way that his taking material from a Holocaust denial site is not beyond the bounds of real possibility, given his obsession with "Zionists." If anything good can come of this, it'll be that PR changes his editing style so that the benefit of the doubt is extended more readily in future. [[User:SlimVirgin|SlimVirgin]] <sup><font color="Purple">[[User_talk:SlimVirgin|(talk)]]</font></sup> 03:19, 22 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
===Template=== |
===Template=== |
Revision as of 03:19, 22 May 2007
This is a page for working on arbitration decisions. The arbitrators, parties to the case, and other editors may draft proposals and post them to this page for review and comments. Proposals may include proposed general principles, findings of fact, remedies, and enforcement provisions—the same format as is used in Arbitration Committee decisions. The bottom of the page may be used for overall analysis of the /Evidence and for general discussion of the case.
Any user may edit this workshop page. Please sign all suggestions and comments. Arbitrators will place proposed items they believe should be part of the final decision on the /Proposed decision page, which only arbitrators may edit, for voting.
Motions and requests by the parties
PalestineRemembered block fully lifted
1) PalestineRemembered (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)'s block is lifted for the duration of the case and he is free to edit as desired. Ryan Postlethwaite 11:40, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
- Proposed. firstly, there's serious doubts as to whether he should have been blocked in the first place, secondally, he's currently only able to edit ArbCom pages, thirdly, due to the current backlog, this is likely to take a while which isn't fair to PalestineRemembered as it's more than likely this is going to end up with parole or an admonishment. Ryan Postlethwaite 11:40, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
- Agreed. Tying his hands when the initial proposal for this latest block has been proven to have been based on false information and further, even if true, would have constituted only the violation of guideline is no reason to continue to prevent him from making edits. Further, the stigma of the block is being compounded by overzealous admins who recently just fully blocked him again (even from participating in arbcomm) for an alleged violation of the conditions of this latest block which restrict him to discussing his case on a limited number of pages. This has got to stop. Tiamut 11:47, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
- The block that he just received was a good block considering the restrictions that are currently in place on his editing - this is what I am trying to remove though. Ryan Postlethwaite 14:55, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
- I believe Tiamut is referring to the current defacto block (as originally implemented during the CSN). I don't think anyone is questioning the actions of the blocking admin from yesterday. Mark Chovain 01:17, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
- I should correct my statements above. Phaedriel was within the letter of things to effect the block she did. I'm just quite shocked by the revelations around PR's block history. I hadn't been following his case before. I know admins cannot look into every detail before making a decision, but considering the growing consensus surrounding the idea that the latest block proposed by Jayjg was misplaced, the restrictions on PR shouldn't be that heavily enforced, particularly when all he did was post about his case. I should mention I feel partially responsible having gone ahead and posted evidence before clearing it with Mark Chovain. PR asked me to consider removing it and I told him I would wait for Mark Chovain's advice. Anyway, the point is that that statement of mine there is little "overzealous" in itself. My apologies (and rather lengthy explanation) :)Tiamut 01:26, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
- I believe Tiamut is referring to the current defacto block (as originally implemented during the CSN). I don't think anyone is questioning the actions of the blocking admin from yesterday. Mark Chovain 01:17, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
- The block that he just received was a good block considering the restrictions that are currently in place on his editing - this is what I am trying to remove though. Ryan Postlethwaite 14:55, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
- Agreed. Tying his hands when the initial proposal for this latest block has been proven to have been based on false information and further, even if true, would have constituted only the violation of guideline is no reason to continue to prevent him from making edits. Further, the stigma of the block is being compounded by overzealous admins who recently just fully blocked him again (even from participating in arbcomm) for an alleged violation of the conditions of this latest block which restrict him to discussing his case on a limited number of pages. This has got to stop. Tiamut 11:47, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
- Proposed. firstly, there's serious doubts as to whether he should have been blocked in the first place, secondally, he's currently only able to edit ArbCom pages, thirdly, due to the current backlog, this is likely to take a while which isn't fair to PalestineRemembered as it's more than likely this is going to end up with parole or an admonishment. Ryan Postlethwaite 11:40, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
- Support I can see see no reason for this block. To prevent what? The proposed community ban, which was based upon a good faith but erroneous charge, failed. Thus, PR should be unblocked without predudice, and this case dismissed.Proabivouac 11:20, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
- How long can someone remain blocked without a reason? Can we please push this one through? Mark Chovain 22:12, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Arbitration is closed
2) This arbitration case is closed with immediate effect, all sides are advised to seek additional dispute resolution before bringing this back to arbitration.
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
- Proposed. Seriously, this is a complete waste of time, we can handle this - someone file an RfC if they really want something doing here, but I fail to see the point of this carrying on. No-ones going to get banned, no-ones going to get admonished and it seems highly likely that the arbitration committee will either find nothing at all, or find something minor for the sake of doing so. As I said on the talk page, let's kick this into touch at the moment - it's way too premature. Ryan Postlethwaite 18:14, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
- Admitidely, PR is still technically blocked (only able to edit ArbCom pages) - but this can be rectified, as soon as it closes he can be free to edit how he wants, and participate in his RfC if people really want to take it further. There's now no consensus to ban/block him, so let's get on with more important things. Ryan Postlethwaite 18:17, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
- I support this proposal. An admin posted a request for input on AN/I and that input was given. Halfway through the process, someone prematurely filed this RfAr. If there are still issues to be resolved, we should use the dispute resolution process, although I can't even see what those issues would be. SlimVirgin (talk) 18:19, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose. The RfAr was appropriate and correctly timed; the discussion had become a straightforward partisan brawl. There are clearly still issues to be resolved, in particular the strong evidence that the initial banning proposal was based on a mistaken assumption. It would be preferable if both parties could agree on an equitable solution (PR to admit error in miscitation, Jay to admit an erroneous accusation and withdraw it) so that this arbitration can be discontinued. However, discontinuing without an agreement would leave the issues outstanding and would do nothing to encourage either PR or Jay to work more constructively with each other in future. The likelihood of an arbitration finding fault on both sides should encourage them to find a mutually acceptable solution rather than finding themselves being censured for their actions. -- ChrisO 18:59, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
- (Added) If Jay was careless enough to make a potentially libelous public accusation without a shred of hard evidence, in a bid to ban an editor with an opposing POV, why shouldn't he be admonished? It's a very serious error of judgment. -- ChrisO 19:23, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
- The claim was not "potentially libelous," so let's not up the ante. Imagine the chaos if we were to start an ArbCom case every time something factually incorrect was said about another person; Chris, you've said things about me that are false, so I could bring a case against you.
- It seems to me that certain people are just using this as a platform to attack Jay, even though all he did was ask for input on AN/I, which is what admins are supposed to do when they have concerns. Let's face it, PR is not exactly a good editor. SlimVirgin (talk) 19:38, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
- It's exactly nebulous claims like people claiming "PR is not exactly a good editor" which are as good a reason as any to go forward. Just the way even his second and third block proposals were titled The return of PalestineRemembered and PalestineRemembered again as if he were some endlessly problematic editor have been prejudicial, when, still, no one have presented any diffs as evidence to support such an idea. -- Kendrick7talk 20:11, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
- PR messed up with some citing, Jay messed up and thought he was adding false sources into an article and lost patience and took it to AN/I, it went to CN, PR got blocked, there's no consensus for the block to go ahead now, so lets close, move on and allow everyone to get on with their lives and PR and be properly unblocked. If people need it - heres the link they might need - no arbitration. Ryan Postlethwaite 20:24, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
- It'd be nice if Jay withdrew the accusation that PR "copied his views and references from the Holocaust denial group the Institute for Historical Review". --Coroebus 20:38, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
- We don't use arbitration to make people give forced appologies. Ryan Postlethwaite 20:45, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
- That was intended more to convey that if Jay withdrew the accusation, and since PR has admitted misattributing his citation, that'd pretty much be it closed. --Coroebus 20:48, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
- That would be a reasonable outcome. Let both acknowledge making mistakes and let them go on their way. -- ChrisO 22:41, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
- That was intended more to convey that if Jay withdrew the accusation, and since PR has admitted misattributing his citation, that'd pretty much be it closed. --Coroebus 20:48, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
- We don't use arbitration to make people give forced appologies. Ryan Postlethwaite 20:45, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
- It'd be nice if Jay withdrew the accusation that PR "copied his views and references from the Holocaust denial group the Institute for Historical Review". --Coroebus 20:38, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
- Kendrick, you want to "go forward" so you can use this case as a platform to attack Jay. I had little or nothing to do with PR, but my recollection is that he added his own opinions to articles, and constantly abused other editors. Even you told him he was out of order, Kendrick, and you've supported other disruptive editors because they were anti-Zionist (e.g. the Disruptive Apartheid editor), so PR must have been seriously abusive for you to say: "Geez PR, can you please take your foot out of your mouth and try better next time? Your edits to articles aren't terrible, but you have to do something about all the anti-Zionist rants ..." [1] There's no sense in misusing the dispute resolution in this way to discuss a lack of consensus to block an editor, just so that certain others can get their digs in about Jay. It's a waste of everyone's time, and it's actually making the attackers look bad, not Jay. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:40, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)I'm not certain I have any real problem with Jay. If you are talking about User:Kiyosaki, he was my first run-in with any of the incarnations of the DAE, and I WP:AGF'd perhaps longer than most, but I did stop editing with him, and ultimately ignored his cries for my help well before the community properly banned him as a sock. As for PR, I supported PR's second block and gave him some constructive advice. -- Kendrick7talk 21:21, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
- SlimVirgin, frankly I'm getting very tired of this habit of yours of making unprovoked attacks against other editors. You did exactly the same against G-Dett on Talk:Pallywood a while back and you're right, I do "feel that [you] contributed to a poor atmosphere" by doing so. The atmosphere on articles about Arab-Israeli issues isn't just poor, it's thoroughly venomous. This debacle is a direct result of that - essentially, it's Jay lashing out at an editor who annoyed him. From what I've seen of your contributions, you're fully participating in the poisonous backbiting that's going on. Please stop this. It's absolutely not appropriate conduct for any administrator, let alone one as experienced as you. -- ChrisO 22:12, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
- Chris, I'm equally sick of your snide remarks and your certainty that you're the only neutral editor on these articles. You're far from neutral, and you contribute substantially to the poisonous atmosphere, and in fact often initiate it. If you want to avoid poison, you could make a start by not trying to turn ArbCom cases into attacks on admins because you disagree with them politically. Be the change you want to see in the world. SlimVirgin (talk)
- You appear to be mistaking "holding administrators accountable for poor judgment" with "attacks on admins". I believe in accountability. Do you? -- ChrisO 01:06, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
- I think if you and I are going to argue, we should take it elsewhere. But to reply, I believe in being responsible and using common sense. What a responsible admin would have done in this case is quietly e-mail Jay and point out to him that there was evidence that PR had taken the material from a legit source. Jay would then likely have posted to that effect on AN/I and withdrawn his concerns, and that would have been the end of it. Instead, a bunch of people (including the usual suspects) jumped on the chance to kick Jay to the curb, and started the pompous footstomping about how outrageous it is to block an account with all of 200 edits to the encyclopedia, who's been ranting about Zionists almost the whole time he's been here. It hasn't reflected well on you, speaking of accountability. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:18, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
- G-Dett did precisely this at 19:51, 13 May, on the community noticeboard: "PalestineRemembered gives his source here: Bitter Harvest: a Modern History of Palestine, by Sami Hadawi, p.59 [2]." Jay dismissed this at 20:28, insisting that "the charges were accompanied by evidence, and they appear to be as true as ever"; he posted again at 20:46 to reiterate his certainty. Zero0000 posted on the CN at 12:23 on 14 May that he had been able to establish PR's source definitively. However, Jay has not made any public comment on this matter since 14 May. While I don't think anyone here is defending PR's past record (I'm certainly not), getting rid of a bad editor using a baseless accusation is not the way that it's done in these parts. I'd like to think that we as a community have a bit more integrity than that. -- ChrisO 01:39, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
- Come on, Chris, you know as well as I do that if this involved an editor called User:ZionismForever, who went around insulting Arab or Muslim editors, and who'd made only 200 edits to articles, you wouldn't have batted an eyelid if he was banned, no matter the reason. SlimVirgin (talk) 02:18, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
- G-Dett did precisely this at 19:51, 13 May, on the community noticeboard: "PalestineRemembered gives his source here: Bitter Harvest: a Modern History of Palestine, by Sami Hadawi, p.59 [2]." Jay dismissed this at 20:28, insisting that "the charges were accompanied by evidence, and they appear to be as true as ever"; he posted again at 20:46 to reiterate his certainty. Zero0000 posted on the CN at 12:23 on 14 May that he had been able to establish PR's source definitively. However, Jay has not made any public comment on this matter since 14 May. While I don't think anyone here is defending PR's past record (I'm certainly not), getting rid of a bad editor using a baseless accusation is not the way that it's done in these parts. I'd like to think that we as a community have a bit more integrity than that. -- ChrisO 01:39, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
- I think if you and I are going to argue, we should take it elsewhere. But to reply, I believe in being responsible and using common sense. What a responsible admin would have done in this case is quietly e-mail Jay and point out to him that there was evidence that PR had taken the material from a legit source. Jay would then likely have posted to that effect on AN/I and withdrawn his concerns, and that would have been the end of it. Instead, a bunch of people (including the usual suspects) jumped on the chance to kick Jay to the curb, and started the pompous footstomping about how outrageous it is to block an account with all of 200 edits to the encyclopedia, who's been ranting about Zionists almost the whole time he's been here. It hasn't reflected well on you, speaking of accountability. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:18, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
- You appear to be mistaking "holding administrators accountable for poor judgment" with "attacks on admins". I believe in accountability. Do you? -- ChrisO 01:06, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
- Chris, I'm equally sick of your snide remarks and your certainty that you're the only neutral editor on these articles. You're far from neutral, and you contribute substantially to the poisonous atmosphere, and in fact often initiate it. If you want to avoid poison, you could make a start by not trying to turn ArbCom cases into attacks on admins because you disagree with them politically. Be the change you want to see in the world. SlimVirgin (talk)
- PR messed up with some citing, Jay messed up and thought he was adding false sources into an article and lost patience and took it to AN/I, it went to CN, PR got blocked, there's no consensus for the block to go ahead now, so lets close, move on and allow everyone to get on with their lives and PR and be properly unblocked. If people need it - heres the link they might need - no arbitration. Ryan Postlethwaite 20:24, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
- If this case doesn't go forward, then I'm sure soon enough there'll be more "PR at it yet again" threads on the noticeboard, or else this'll end up here at arbcom again in some other form. It is strange to me that he's been blocked so many times before, and when I looked at the supposed justifying diffs, they didn't really justify his harsh treatment. All the hazy allegations in the air should be either conclusively proven or summarily withdrawn. Otherwise, they will continue to color people's perceptions of him, will affect his ability to freely edit, and will probably be used as vague justification for yet another block. nadav (talk) 21:15, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
- Nadav1 articulates the key point here, and well.--G-Dett 21:34, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
- It's exactly nebulous claims like people claiming "PR is not exactly a good editor" which are as good a reason as any to go forward. Just the way even his second and third block proposals were titled The return of PalestineRemembered and PalestineRemembered again as if he were some endlessly problematic editor have been prejudicial, when, still, no one have presented any diffs as evidence to support such an idea. -- Kendrick7talk 20:11, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
- (Added) If Jay was careless enough to make a potentially libelous public accusation without a shred of hard evidence, in a bid to ban an editor with an opposing POV, why shouldn't he be admonished? It's a very serious error of judgment. -- ChrisO 19:23, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
- Disagree - There are still too many issues here. PR is not willing to have Jayjg apologise for the sake of closing this case. Why is PR still blocked? He's done nothing wrong. All involved editors should be blocked, or none should be. Why has Jayjg been given the benefit of the doubt beyond all evidence, yet PR still blocked in the absence of any eviedence of wrong-doing. Mark Chovain 21:49, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
- He isn't blocked, and there are no other involved editors; all that happened here is that an admin posted his suspicions and other admins responded. There's no question that PR has been disruptive — the suspicion he was lifting material from a Holocaust denial website was simply the last straw. The community judged him insufficiently disruptive to block indefinitely. End of story. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:58, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
- No evidence has been submitted to the case file yet that he has in recent months been "disruptive." This is the kind of statement that either should not be made, or should be profusely backed up with evidence, and is exactly what I was referring to above. PR has said that this case is about clearing his name of all such allegations (or proving them). nadav (talk) 22:11, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
- No, Jay made a specific, unconditional assertion of fact (not "suspicions") against PR. Nor did the community "judge him insufficiently disruptive" - the judgment of some of the community (not including you) was that Jay had made an erroneous charge. It wasn't a matter of being "insufficiently disruptive", it was a matter of there literally being no basis to the charge. Really, it doesn't do you any credit to misrepresent things this way. -- ChrisO 22:12, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
- He is still blocked. The software block has been lifted to let him edit this page, but he will be blocked again if he edits anything else, as happened the other day. How would we all like being treated as a guilty party when there is still no evidence supporting a block? Mark Chovain 22:29, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
- If it closes now, PR can edit as he wishes - there really isn't anything to arbitrate. Ryan Postlethwaite 22:04, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
- He isn't blocked, and there are no other involved editors; all that happened here is that an admin posted his suspicions and other admins responded. There's no question that PR has been disruptive — the suspicion he was lifting material from a Holocaust denial website was simply the last straw. The community judged him insufficiently disruptive to block indefinitely. End of story. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:58, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
- The key question is this: does Jay still stand by his original charge that PR "copied his views and references from the Holocaust denial group the Institute for Historical Review"? (And since she's here, can I ask SlimVirgin if she still stands by her charge that PR made "fraudulent use of material"?) The allegations haven't been withdrawn. If Jay stands by his charge we can't dismiss the case summarily. I've asked him to clarify his position, and I hope he takes this opportunity to withdraw the charge - I note that PR has already acknowledged his errors in the evidence page. If Jay does agree to withdraw, I'd be in favour of closing the case as well. Hopefully both parties will then reflect on this episode and learn the appropriate lessons. -- ChrisO 22:12, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
- It looks like the constant back-and-forths between administrators in good standing, as well as the desire of one of the involved parties to continue, are further reinforcement of the reasons the arbitrators took on this case. I am disappointed that quarrels of this sort are occurring on the very page that is meant to resolve them. nadav (talk) 01:31, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
- I've read Zero's explanation of where PR's information could have come from, and in the interests of concluding this dispute, I'm happy to accept his evidence, and I apologize to PalestineRemembered for not asking him directly where he really got his material from before soliciting advice on AN/I. Jayjg (talk) 02:03, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
- I believe that addresses the outstanding issue (hopefully to PR's satisfaction). Assuming all parties are happy I support Ryan's motion that this arbitration be closed. -- ChrisO 02:06, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
- I'll let PR know that you "accept the evidence" "in the interests of concluding this dispute". You use interesting wording though. "... Zero's explanation of where PR's information could have come from". Is there a competing hypothesis? Mark Chovain 02:46, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
- of course there is. A competing hypothesis is that PR got the quote exactly where jay claims he did, but once he became aware of the fuax pas, he quickly searched for alternate sources (or has some alternate sources conveniently provided to him by his supporters) and once he found a more respectable source, claimed that is the original source. I don't know if this is the case any more than i know if the former hypothesis is true - but let's not pretend that jaygj's original hypothesis has somehow been proven false by the emergence of an equally credible or even more credible hypothesis. Isarig 03:13, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
- I think Zero showed that the wording of the edit made it more likely that it had come from the book than from the Holocaust denial site. The point is that PalestineRemembered has edited in such a way that his taking material from a Holocaust denial site is not beyond the bounds of real possibility, given his obsession with "Zionists." If anything good can come of this, it'll be that PR changes his editing style so that the benefit of the doubt is extended more readily in future. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:19, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Template
3)
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Proposed temporary injunctions
Template
1)
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
2)
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
3)
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
4)
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Questions to the parties
Proposed final decision
Proposed principles
Community bans
1) Community bans are enacted where a user has exhausted the community's patience to the point where he or she has been indefinitely blocked by an administrator—and no one is willing to unblock them. If there is not a strong consensus for a ban, then it should not be enforced.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
- Proposed. Ryan Postlethwaite 21:45, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
- Right this I assume means that community bans are not a vote correct? It is useless to speak about percentages, if uninvolved editors in good standing object to a ban, then its not time to ban. —— Eagle101Need help? 23:46, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
- Community bans have never been a vote. The key point is that the user "has been indefinitely blocked by an administrator — and no one is willing to unblock them". In this particular case, no ban was in force - Jayjg was soliciting a ban, not implementing one. Strictly speaking, the discussion was a misuse of the community sanctions noticeboard (though it's not Jay's fault, since he originally posted his ban request to WP:AN/I and it got moved to the CN by someone else). -- ChrisO 23:22, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
- Right this I assume means that community bans are not a vote correct? It is useless to speak about percentages, if uninvolved editors in good standing object to a ban, then its not time to ban. —— Eagle101Need help? 23:46, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
- Proposed. Ryan Postlethwaite 21:45, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Citing sources
2) It is improper to copy a citation from an intermediate source without making clear that you saw only that intermediate source.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
- Proposed. The wording is taken directly from WP:CITE#Say where you got it. -- ChrisO 23:30, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
- This could be a little stronger. As WP:CITE#Say where you got it says, one should actually cite the intermediate source. I wonder how this can become an enforceable policy rather than just a guideline as WP:CITE seems to make it. Having an ArbCom ruling would be a start, but somehow this should get into an official policy page. With the status of WP:ATTR still up in the air, where should it go? --Zerotalk 12:21, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Evidentiary basis for banning
3) Proposed and enacted bans must be based on well-documented evidence of misconduct.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- I suspect the casework for this is thin, if only because this business at WP:CN is such a new development. There's really no agreed policy for such a thing, whatever certain partisans have argued. Quickpolls, as I recall, never claimed to "ban" anybody. The whole idea behind a community ban was that no-one could forsee undoing the block, which was obviously not the case here. Complicated cases went to the Arbitration Committee, who had the time and patience to review the evidence. Even Arbcom doesn't "ban" longer than one year most of the time. Mackensen (talk) 15:05, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
- Proposed. A very basic principle, though surprisingly enough it doesn't seem to be listed in Wikipedia:Arbitration policy/Past decisions. Maybe an arbitrator can provide guidance on whether this has already been established? -- ChrisO 23:42, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Use of single purpose accounts
4) The use of a single-purpose account for a given class of edits is permitted. However, it does not give an editor free rein to use that account abusively.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
- Proposed, based closely on wording in Wikipedia:Arbitration policy/Past decisions#Sockpuppets (and related principles). The key principle here is that SPAs should not be used abusively. See also Wikipedia:Single-purpose account. -- ChrisO 08:44, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
- Alternate accounts should not be used either to give the impression that there is more support for a position than actually exists, or to avoid the scrutiny of other editors by ensuring you leave no audit trail. WP:SOCK says:
- Proposed, based closely on wording in Wikipedia:Arbitration policy/Past decisions#Sockpuppets (and related principles). The key principle here is that SPAs should not be used abusively. See also Wikipedia:Single-purpose account. -- ChrisO 08:44, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Using sock puppet accounts to split your contributions history means that other editors can't detect patterns in your contributions. While it may be legitimate to do this from time to time (for example, by creating a special account to make edits that might serve to identify you in real life or to avoid harassment), it is a violation of this policy to create multiple accounts in order to confuse or deceive editors who may have a legitimate interest in tracking your contributions.
- If PR did this, then he's in violation of the policy, which means the account should be indefblocked, and the main account blocked at the discretion of the blocking admin. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:05, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
- If, if, if. Where's the evidence that a) he is a sockpuppet, and b) that he has attempted to deceive anyone? Mark Chovain 22:01, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
- Perhaps we should ask for a check user. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:04, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
- Indeed. There's no evidence of sockpuppetry that I'm aware of, and I've not seen any evidence that PR has been attempting to "confuse or deceive editors". Absent such abuse, the use of SPAs is entirely legitimate. I should emphasize that "single purpose account" is not synonymous with "sockpuppet". -- ChrisO 22:20, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
- Doesn't there need to be probable cause or evidence of some sort to do this? Or is idle curiosity considered sufficient?--G-Dett 22:38, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
- Does it mean nothing to you that he has done nothing wrong? Mind if I send some investigators around to go through your home? If you want to know if he's a sock-puppet, just ask him (don't forget to say "please"). Mark Chovain 22:42, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
- If, if, if. Where's the evidence that a) he is a sockpuppet, and b) that he has attempted to deceive anyone? Mark Chovain 22:01, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
- If PR did this, then he's in violation of the policy, which means the account should be indefblocked, and the main account blocked at the discretion of the blocking admin. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:05, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Template
5) {text of proposed principle}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
6) {text of proposed principle}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
7) {text of proposed principle}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Proposed findings of fact
The Community ban discussion failed to reach a consensus
1) Despite initial support, the community ban discussion failed to reach a consensus.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
- Proposed. Ryan Postlethwaite 21:51, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
- I agree here, though there was an attempt to close this as a "speedy ban" (my term) something less then 2 hours after it was opened. Thats not nearly enough time to dig for evidence. —— Eagle101Need help? 23:48, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
- I agree with this. By my count, there were 28 for a ban, 17 against, and three unclear. And this was a very dubious result, because the initial charge (of copying from a holocaust denial website) was totally unfounded and false. I don't see how this can be interpreted as community support for an indefinite ban. RolandR 00:51, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
- Right, but bans are not a vote, if upstanding editors that are not involved in the dispute object to the ban, it should not be done. (Also keep in mind that a ban is only an indef block that no other admin will undo) :) —— Eagle101Need help? 01:58, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
- Agree. No need for counting as there was no evidence for the charges. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 01:57, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
- I agree with this. By my count, there were 28 for a ban, 17 against, and three unclear. And this was a very dubious result, because the initial charge (of copying from a holocaust denial website) was totally unfounded and false. I don't see how this can be interpreted as community support for an indefinite ban. RolandR 00:51, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Locus of dispute
2) The locus of this dispute is the sourcing of a quote from the Auckland Evening Star newspaper.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
- Proposed. -- ChrisO 07:40, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Miscitation of source
3) In editing Zionist political violence PalestineRemembered erroneously cited a quotation from the Auckland Evening Star as coming from the original source, but failed to note that he had obtained the quotation from a secondary source.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
- Proposed. PR has already admitted this, I believe. -- ChrisO 23:28, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Controversy over source
4) In proposing a community ban of PalestineRemembered, Jayjg asserted that PalestineRemembered had obtained the disputed quotation from a Holocaust denial website. In his defence, PalestineRemembered asserted that he had obtained the quotation from a mainstream work of scholarship published in 1989.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
- Proposed. This reflects the arguments and counter-arguments that have been put forward. -- ChrisO 07:52, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Evidentiary problems
5) Jayjg's initial proposal for a community ban presented no evidence that PalestineRemembered had used the Holocaust denial website as his source. No effort was made to verify this assertion and the possibility that other sources existed was not addressed.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
- Proposed. See my comments on the Evidence page. -- ChrisO 23:35, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Dispute resolution not undertaken
6) Jayjg and PalestineRemembered did not discuss the disputed quotation prior to the community ban proposal, and dispute resolution was not undertaken.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
- Proposed, based on the established sequence of events. -- ChrisO 07:59, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
- Dispute resolution wasn't undertaken before the RfAr was filed either, which is one of the reasons this case is inappropriate. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:47, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
- Let's not forget that six arbitrators agreed that the case was appropriate. It's their opinion that counts here. You might want to look at their reasons to refresh your memory. -- ChrisO 22:23, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
- The ones who gave a reason seemed to think PR was going to be banned. But he isn't, so what's left to be done? SlimVirgin (talk) 00:46, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
- Well, as has already been pointed out, there's the not-insignificant issue of the outstanding allegation against PR. Is he guilty of plagiarising a Holocaust denial website and passing this off or isn't he? Do you still stand by your support of this claim? More importantly, does Jay? -- ChrisO 01:10, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
- The ones who gave a reason seemed to think PR was going to be banned. But he isn't, so what's left to be done? SlimVirgin (talk) 00:46, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
- Let's not forget that six arbitrators agreed that the case was appropriate. It's their opinion that counts here. You might want to look at their reasons to refresh your memory. -- ChrisO 22:23, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
- Dispute resolution wasn't undertaken before the RfAr was filed either, which is one of the reasons this case is inappropriate. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:47, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
- Proposed, based on the established sequence of events. -- ChrisO 07:59, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Single-purpose account
7) PalestineRemembered is a self-acknowledged single-purpose account created for the purpose of editing articles relating to the Arab-Israeli conflict, a particularly contentious topic area.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
- Proposed. Should be uncontroversial, nobody disputes this. -- ChrisO 08:12, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
- Does this mean he's a sockpuppet of another editor? SlimVirgin (talk) 04:07, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
- I don't believe there is any subtext here. The proposed finding is only that his account is used for editing a narrow range of contentious articles; nothing more. If anyone wants to claim that PR is a sockpuppet, then that will need to be done separately, and would require a completely different set of evidence. I don't think anyone has anything to gain by mincing words or overloading meanings. Mark Chovain 04:42, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
- Does this mean he's a sockpuppet of another editor? SlimVirgin (talk) 04:07, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
- Proposed. Should be uncontroversial, nobody disputes this. -- ChrisO 08:12, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
- If he's not a sockpuppet, what's the point of this finding, and what's the meaning of "self-acknowledged"? SlimVirgin (talk) 19:58, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
- That's exactly the point I'm working towards. The fact he is a single purpose account was used as an argument for banning in the CSN discussion by a number of editors. No evidence has ever been presented that he is making any attempt to deceive other editors. The point is that this is a non-point. It's a little like a finding of "I woke up this morning". It doesn't mean anything, but other editors seem to want to bring it up over and over again. Mark Chovain 21:55, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
- And where does he acknowledge it? SlimVirgin (talk) 20:45, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
- Who? PR? No-one in the case has asked him if he is a sock-puppet or not. Without any evidence of wrong-doing, why would it matter? If it's just for your own curiosity, then why not ask him yourself? Mark Chovain 22:05, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
- Chris O's proposal is "PalestineRemembered is a self-acknowledged single-purpose account ..." (emphasis added). My question is: where has he acknowledged it? SlimVirgin (talk) 22:35, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
- Wikipedia talk:Single-purpose account#PalestineRemembered is an SPA. -- ChrisO 22:47, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
- Ah yes, sorry. And further to ChrisO's link, I can confirm that PR still stands by that statement. Mark Chovain 22:50, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
- And further still to my link, an SPA is not synonymous with a sockpuppet. -- ChrisO 22:56, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
- Chris O's proposal is "PalestineRemembered is a self-acknowledged single-purpose account ..." (emphasis added). My question is: where has he acknowledged it? SlimVirgin (talk) 22:35, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
- Who? PR? No-one in the case has asked him if he is a sock-puppet or not. Without any evidence of wrong-doing, why would it matter? If it's just for your own curiosity, then why not ask him yourself? Mark Chovain 22:05, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
- If he's not a sockpuppet, what's the point of this finding, and what's the meaning of "self-acknowledged"? SlimVirgin (talk) 19:58, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
- The SPA issue is a red herring. There are numerous SPAs on Israel-Palestine pages. Some have been at it for years and have even risen to the level of admins. PR has only been editing for a few months, and we really don't know what sort of range of interests he may or may not develop. That's his business, not that of Arbcom. Many editors begin by editing almost obsessively in a particular area, and then spiral outward from there. Maybe he will, maybe he won't, but it's beside the point. The only reason the SPA issue even came into the discussion is because several editors in the CS-discussion were under the erroneous impression that editing as an SPA was a bannable offense, whereas in fact it's specifically allowed. The SPA issue is relevant only insofar as it points to yet another way in which PR has been singled out.--G-Dett 13:29, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Contentious editing
8) PalestineRemembered has a history of contentious editing and has been blocked on three previous occasions in the past seven months.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
I'd like to see this broken into two separate points. The claim of "a history of contentious editing" is subjective, should be quantified, and needs substantial evidence. The claim of three blocks is objective. While these are clearly related, the points are likely to be discussed in very different ways. Mark Chovain 10:19, 20 May 2007 (UTC)Retracted. Mark Chovain 22:06, 21 May 2007 (UTC)- I second that very well articulated proposal. Tiamut 10:32, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
- Comment by others:
Template
9) {text of proposed finding of fact}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
10) {text of proposed finding of fact}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Proposed remedies
Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.
PalestineRemembered admonished
1) PalestineRemembered is admonished for breaching the citation guidelines, and is urged to take more care in future when citing sources.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
- Proposed. This appears to be proportionate to the admitted offence. -- ChrisO 07:39, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
- Possibly, but this would be better sorted in an RfC, is there a pattern of bad citing of sources? No. Ryan Postlethwaite 22:07, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
- Proposed. This appears to be proportionate to the admitted offence. -- ChrisO 07:39, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Jayjg admonished
2) Jayjg is admonished for proposing a community ban without a sound basis in evidence, and is urged to take more care in future when taking such actions.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
- Proposed. Jay's inexplicable carelessness in initiating this controversy on the basis of an unverified assumption needs to be acknowledged. We need to make it clear as a matter of policy that bans must be imposed on the basis of hard evidence, not unverified assumptions. -- ChrisO 07:39, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
- No way, Jay brought it for community review - he didn't just jump in and block - no need for this. Ryan Postlethwaite 22:06, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
- Not quite - Jay solicited a ban ("I am proposing a permanent block at this point.") He didn't present his case and say "what do the rest of you think of this?" It does neither Jay nor the community any credit that Jay acted without any hard evidence whatsoever, and that around 25 editors, including the two admins who actually blocked PR, then supported Jay without trying to verify his assertions. As an ex-arbitrator, Jay of all people should know the importance of basing administrative decisions on firm evidence. We should all know this. Too many of us failed in our responsibilities as admins in this incident. This isn't a matter of pillorying Jay; but we do need to acknowledge that this needless controversy is essentially the result of very poor judgment all round. -- ChrisO 22:40, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
- No way, Jay brought it for community review - he didn't just jump in and block - no need for this. Ryan Postlethwaite 22:06, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
- In response to jgordon's comment above. He made false claims, which he still hasn't retracted, even in the face of the strongest possible evidence otherwise. Other editors are still repeating his claims as gospel. Rather than giving PR a chance to provide his referenced, he went in with all guns blazing to try and get an editor with whom he frequently disagrees with banned. This looks far too much like an attempt to silence a competing view-point to just let it go. It's that behaviour that got us here in the first place. Mark Chovain 00:35, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
- And I'd like to remind everyone again, that while we have evidence of Jayjg bypassing the dispute resoltion processes, and no evidence against PR of any wrong-doing, PR is still not allowed to edit. Why would anyone see 'praising' Jayjg when he clearly made a mistake as a higher priority than getting rid of this unfair limitation on PR? Mark Chovain 00:40, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
- Please. No evidence of any wrong-doing on PR's part? We have clear evidence of a violation of WP:CITE, acknowledged by PR, and subject to a proposed admonishment by ChrisO. Isarig 02:11, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
- That's trivial - If I look through your edit history, will I find absolutely no instances where you forgot to cite? Since when is it a blockable offence? He supplied the reference a couple of hours after it was requested. He's being accused of much worse things here than forgetting to cite. He's currently blocked without a shred of evidence of any of the accusations being presented. No-one has even been able to tell him why he is currently not allowed to edit! Is it because he forgot to add a citation? If that's the reason, we better all be very careful about any edits we make - any one of could get an indefinite block. Mark Chovain 02:41, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
- Please. No evidence of any wrong-doing on PR's part? We have clear evidence of a violation of WP:CITE, acknowledged by PR, and subject to a proposed admonishment by ChrisO. Isarig 02:11, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
- PR is not blocked. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:43, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
- PR has been unblocked on the condition that he not edit any pages whatsoever besides the arbcom pages, his own talkpage, and Mark Chovain's talkpage. nadav (talk) 01:00, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
- While I'm sure he'd love to take your word for it, I suspect you might be guessing. As I keep on saying - he is not permitted to edit articles other than his RfArb and his talk page. Are you arguing semantics, or do you genuinely believe there are no restrictions on PR's right to edit? If you believe he is free to edit, perhaps you might like to explain this Mark Chovain 01:12, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
- And I'd like to remind everyone again, that while we have evidence of Jayjg bypassing the dispute resoltion processes, and no evidence against PR of any wrong-doing, PR is still not allowed to edit. Why would anyone see 'praising' Jayjg when he clearly made a mistake as a higher priority than getting rid of this unfair limitation on PR? Mark Chovain 00:40, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
- I suggest the following wording instead: "Jayjg is admonished for making grave negative allegations about PalestineRemembered without a sound basis in evidence, and is urged to take more care in future before making negative assertions about an editor." nadav (talk) 01:00, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
- Proposed. Jay's inexplicable carelessness in initiating this controversy on the basis of an unverified assumption needs to be acknowledged. We need to make it clear as a matter of policy that bans must be imposed on the basis of hard evidence, not unverified assumptions. -- ChrisO 07:39, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
- jpgordon, with all due respect, I'm afraid you've missed the point. Nobody is complaining that Jay acted unilaterally. The complaint is that he acted without any evidence and made no effort to corroborate his assumption. Are you sure that you want to endorse the principle that it's praiseworthy to make unevidenced allegations in order to get other users banned? -- ChrisO 01:01, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Dispute resolution advised
3) PalestineRemembered and Jayjg are advised to engage in calm discussion and the use of dispute resolution when in conflict.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
- Proposed, based on a nearly identical remedy in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Kosovo. -- ChrisO 07:39, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Template
4) {text of proposed remedy}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
5) {text of proposed remedy}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
6) {text of proposed remedy}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
7) {text of proposed remedy}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
8) {text of proposed remedy}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
9) {text of proposed remedy}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Proposed enforcement
Template
1) {text of proposed enforcement}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
2) {text of proposed enforcement}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
3) {text of proposed enforcement}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
4) {text of proposed enforcement}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
5) {text of proposed enforcement}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Analysis of evidence
Place here items of evidence (with diffs) and detailed analysis
Template
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
General discussion
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others: