Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/HistoryBuffEr and Jayjg/Proposed decision

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

all proposed

Arbitrators should vote for or against each point or vote to abstain.

  • Only items that receive a majority aye vote will be enacted.
  • Items that receive a majority nay vote will be formally rejected.
  • Items that do not receive a majority aye or nay vote will be open to possible amendment by any Arbitrator if he so chooses. After the amendment process is complete, the item will be voted on one last time.
  • Items that receive a majority abstentions will need to go through an amendment process and be re-voted on once.

Conditional votes for, against, or to abstain should be explained by the Arbitrator in parenthesis after his time-stamped signature. For example, an Arbitrator can state that he would only favor a particular remedy based on whether or not another remedy/remedies were enacted.

Proposed temporary orders

[edit]

Template

[edit]

1) {text of proposed orders}

Aye:
Nay:
Abstain:

Temporary ban

[edit]

1) Until a final decision is rendered in this matter, Users HistoryBuffEr and Jayjg are prohibited from editing any Wikipedia pages other than their user pages and the pages related to this arbitration.

Aye:
  1. Fred Bauder 14:30, Dec 14, 2004 (UTC)
  2. James F. (talk) 21:03, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  3. Neutralitytalk 06:25, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)
  4. ➥the Epopt 19:13, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Nay:
  1. mav 06:35, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC) (given what I've seen so far, I think that is excessive; vote below)
Abstain:

2) Until a final decision is rendered in this matter, Users HistoryBuffEr and Jayjg are prohibited from editing any Wikipedia pages (article or talk) that deal with Israel, Palestine, or conflicts/people/events associated thereof.

Aye:
  1. mav 06:35, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  2. Neutralitytalk 06:25, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)
  3. Fred Bauder 17:39, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)
  4. ➥the Epopt 19:13, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Nay:
Abstain:

Proposed principles

[edit]

proposed wording to be modified by Arbitrators and then voted on

Personal attacks

[edit]

1) No personal attacks.

Aye:
  1. Fred Bauder 13:26, Nov 17, 2004 (UTC)
  2. James F. (talk) 18:11, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  3. Jwrosenzweig 23:02, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  4. Grunt 🇪🇺 02:55, 2005 Jan 1 (UTC)
  5. Neutralitytalk 06:25, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)
  6. David Gerard 15:38, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  7. →Raul654 16:24, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)
  8. sannse (talk) 20:40, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  9. ➥the Epopt 19:13, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Nay:
Abstain:

NPOV

[edit]

2) Wikipedia editors are expected to edit from a neutral point of view.

Aye:
  1. Fred Bauder 13:34, Nov 17, 2004 (UTC)
  2. James F. (talk) 18:11, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  3. Jwrosenzweig 23:02, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  4. Grunt 🇪🇺 02:55, 2005 Jan 1 (UTC)
  5. Neutralitytalk 06:25, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)
  6. David Gerard 15:38, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  7. →Raul654 16:24, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)
  8. sannse (talk) 20:40, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  9. ➥the Epopt 19:13, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Nay:
Abstain:

Application of NPOV policy to articles which relate to situations where there is serious conflict

[edit]

3) The Wikipedia policy of editing from a neutral point of view, a central and non-negotiable principle of Wikipedia, applies to situations where there are conflicting viewpoints and contemplates that significant viewpoints regarding such situations all be included in as fair a manner as possible.

Aye:
  1. Fred Bauder 12:36, Nov 18, 2004 (UTC)
  2. James F. (talk) 18:11, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  3. Jwrosenzweig 23:02, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  4. Grunt 🇪🇺 02:55, 2005 Jan 1 (UTC)
  5. Neutralitytalk 06:25, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)
  6. David Gerard 15:38, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  7. →Raul654 16:24, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)
  8. sannse (talk) 20:40, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  9. ➥the Epopt 19:13, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Nay:
Abstain:

Wikiquette

[edit]

4) Wikipedia editors are required to maintain a minimum level of courtesy toward one another, see Wikiquette, Civility and Wikipedia:Writers rules of engagement.

Aye:
  1. Fred Bauder 14:38, Dec 1, 2004 (UTC)
  2. James F. (talk) 18:11, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  3. Jwrosenzweig 23:02, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  4. Grunt 🇪🇺 02:55, 2005 Jan 1 (UTC)
  5. Neutralitytalk 06:25, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)
  6. David Gerard 15:38, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  7. →Raul654 16:24, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)
  8. sannse (talk) 20:40, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  9. ➥the Epopt 19:13, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Nay:
Abstain:

Content of articles

[edit]

5) While the content of articles is the province of Wikipedia editors, a number of Wikipedia policies relate to content in peripheral ways, for example, it is desirable to limit reversions and to provide adequate references for material included in articles. See Reversions, Wikipedia:Edit war, Wikipedia:Three revert rule, Wikipedia:Check your facts, Wikipedia:Cite sources and Wikipedia:Verifiability

Aye:
  1. Fred Bauder 14:38, Dec 1, 2004 (UTC)
  2. James F. (talk) 18:11, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  3. Jwrosenzweig 23:02, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  4. Grunt 🇪🇺 02:55, 2005 Jan 1 (UTC)
  5. Neutralitytalk 06:25, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)
  6. David Gerard 15:38, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  7. →Raul654 16:24, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)
  8. sannse (talk) 20:40, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  9. ➥the Epopt 19:13, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Nay:
Abstain:

Original work and neologisms

[edit]

6) Wikipedia is not the place for publishing original work or development of Neologisms, Wikipedia:No original research.

Aye:
  1. Fred Bauder 16:06, Dec 7, 2004 (UTC)
  2. James F. (talk) 18:24, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  3. Jwrosenzweig 23:02, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  4. Grunt 🇪🇺 02:55, 2005 Jan 1 (UTC)
  5. Neutralitytalk 06:25, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)
  6. David Gerard 15:38, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  7. →Raul654 16:24, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)
  8. sannse (talk) 20:40, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  9. ➥the Epopt 19:13, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Nay:
Abstain:


Three revert rule

[edit]

7) Contributors are expected to obey Wikipedia policies, including the three revert rule.

Aye:
  1. James F. (talk) 19:32, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  2. Fred Bauder 19:51, Dec 7, 2004 (UTC)
  3. Jwrosenzweig 23:02, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  4. Grunt 🇪🇺 02:55, 2005 Jan 1 (UTC)
  5. Neutralitytalk 06:25, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)
  6. David Gerard 15:38, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  7. →Raul654 16:24, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)
  8. sannse (talk) 20:40, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  9. ➥the Epopt 19:13, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Nay:
Abstain:


What is a revert

[edit]

8) The term "revert" as used in Wikipedia policy is intended to include both absolute reverts (that is, where versions differ not at all) as well as edits to versions that are only very slightly different).

Aye:
  1. James F. (talk) 19:32, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  2. Fred Bauder 19:51, Dec 7, 2004 (UTC)
  3. Jwrosenzweig 23:02, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  4. Grunt 🇪🇺 02:55, 2005 Jan 1 (UTC)
  5. Neutralitytalk 06:25, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)
  6. David Gerard 15:38, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  7. →Raul654 16:24, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)
  8. ➥the Epopt 19:13, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Nay:
Abstain:
  1. sannse (talk) 20:40, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC) (I don't think this wording is quite clear - it sort of sounds as though this is saying minor edits are a problem. Perhaps "as well as edits that replace a version with only slight changes from the disputed version"?)


Attempting to avoid claims of reversion

[edit]

9) Attempting to avoid being accused of reversion by making very minor edits that are then edited out again, whilst not expressly forbidden, is in bad faith and against the spirit of policy, and a violation of Wikiquette.

Aye:
  1. James F. (talk) 19:32, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  2. Fred Bauder 19:51, Dec 7, 2004 (UTC)
  3. Jwrosenzweig 23:02, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  4. Grunt 🇪🇺 02:55, 2005 Jan 1 (UTC)
  5. Neutralitytalk 06:25, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)
  6. David Gerard 15:38, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  7. →Raul654 16:24, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)
  8. ➥the Epopt 19:13, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Nay:
Abstain:
  1. sannse (talk) 20:40, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC) again not sure about the wording - isn't clear that this refers to making edits along with the reversion.


Ownership of articles

[edit]

10) No person or group has the right to control content of Wikipedia articles. See Wikipedia:Ownership of articles.

Aye:
  1. James F. (talk) 19:32, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  2. Fred Bauder 19:51, Dec 7, 2004 (UTC)
  3. Jwrosenzweig 23:02, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  4. Grunt 🇪🇺 02:55, 2005 Jan 1 (UTC)
  5. Neutralitytalk 06:25, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)
  6. David Gerard 15:38, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  7. →Raul654 16:24, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)
  8. sannse (talk) 20:40, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  9. ➥the Epopt 19:13, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Nay:
Abstain:

Usability of evidence presented in arbitration cases

[edit]

11) In order for the arbitrators to be able to decide a case based on evidence, the evidence to be presented by the parties must be brief and well organized, focusing on the principle issues involved with adequate references to examples of the behavior complained of.

Aye:
  1. Fred Bauder 14:26, Dec 14, 2004 (UTC)
  2. Grunt 🇪🇺 02:55, 2005 Jan 1 (UTC)
  3. Yes. Please. Before we all drop dead. Neutralitytalk 06:25, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)
  4. We can tell the difference between a lot of evidence and crapflooding the evidence page - David Gerard 15:38, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  5. →Raul654 16:24, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)
  6. sannse (talk) 20:40, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  7. ➥the Epopt 19:13, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Nay:
Abstain:

Staying cool when the editing gets hot

[edit]

12) When editing on highly conflicted topics, editors should not allow themselves to be goaded into ill-considered edits and policy violations. Administrators in particular have a responsibility to set an example by staying cool when the editing gets hot.

Aye:
  1. David Gerard 15:38, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  2. Fred Bauder 16:43, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)
  3. Grunt 🇪🇺 04:58, 2005 Jan 2 (UTC)
  4. Neutralitytalk 17:06, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
  5. sannse (talk) 20:40, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  6. ➥the Epopt 19:13, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Nay:
Abstain:

Proposed findings of fact

[edit]

proposed wording to be modified by Arbitrators and then voted on

The conflict

[edit]

1) The state of Israel and the Zionist movement are engaged in a protracted conflict with the Palestinian people and other Islamic nations, hereafter refered to as the "conflict"

Aye:
  1. Fred Bauder 13:37, Nov 18, 2004 (UTC)
  2. James F. (talk) 18:13, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  3. Grunt 🇪🇺 02:57, 2005 Jan 1 (UTC)
  4. Neutralitytalk 06:25, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)
  5. David Gerard 15:38, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  6. →Raul654 16:24, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)
  7. sannse (talk) 21:02, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  8. ➥the Epopt 19:13, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Nay:
Abstain:


Information about the conflict

[edit]

2) Information about and characterization of the conflict are themselves part of the conflict, see Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs and Hasbara.

Aye:
  1. Fred Bauder 13:37, Nov 18, 2004 (UTC)
  2. James F. (talk) 18:13, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  3. Grunt 🇪🇺 02:57, 2005 Jan 1 (UTC)
  4. Neutralitytalk 06:25, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)
  5. David Gerard 15:38, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  6. →Raul654 16:24, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)
  7. sannse (talk) 21:02, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  8. ➥the Epopt 19:13, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Nay:
Abstain:


History of disputes about the conflict

[edit]

3) There is a long history of disputes regarding the content of Wikipedia articles concerning the conflict.

Aye:
  1. Fred Bauder 13:37, Nov 18, 2004 (UTC)
  2. James F. (talk) 18:13, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  3. Grunt 🇪🇺 02:57, 2005 Jan 1 (UTC)
  4. Neutralitytalk 06:25, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)
  5. David Gerard 15:38, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  6. →Raul654 16:24, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)
  7. sannse (talk) 21:02, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  8. ➥the Epopt 19:13, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Nay:
Abstain:


Disputes regarding language

[edit]

4) In a number of instances there have been protracted struggles over the language used to characterize various matters, for example, while many others characterise the West Bank and Gaza as the "occupied territories" this is hotly disputed by partisans of Israel who advance other language such as "disputed territories". At times the NPOV policy is honored, for example, in the article West Bank which contains the following language: "The West Bank is considered by the United Nations as occupied by Israel, though some Israelis and various other groups prefer to refer to it as "disputed" rather than "occupied" territory." at other times it is not and protracted edit wars sometimes result over inclusion of one point of view or exclusion of another.

Aye:
  1. Fred Bauder 13:37, Nov 18, 2004 (UTC)
  2. James F. (talk) 18:13, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  3. Grunt 🇪🇺 02:57, 2005 Jan 1 (UTC)
  4. Neutralitytalk 06:25, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)
  5. David Gerard 15:38, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  6. →Raul654 16:24, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)
  7. sannse (talk) 21:02, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  8. ➥the Epopt 19:13, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Nay:
Abstain:


History of NPOV policy enforcement

[edit]

5) Enforcement of the NPOV policy has been lacking in this area and over an extended period POV editing has been engaged in by a number of editors, not only the two before us in this matter.

Aye:
  1. Fred Bauder 13:37, Nov 18, 2004 (UTC)
  2. James F. (talk) 18:13, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  3. Grunt 🇪🇺 02:57, 2005 Jan 1 (UTC)
  4. Neutralitytalk 06:25, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)
  5. David Gerard 15:38, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  6. sannse (talk) 21:02, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  7. ➥the Epopt 19:13, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Nay:
Abstain:


Current status of articles regarding the conflict

[edit]

6) In many instances one side or the other has "won", while Wikipedia has lost, as articles which contain a mix of information favorable to one side or the other remain and protracted edit wars continue.

Aye:
  1. Fred Bauder 13:37, Nov 18, 2004 (UTC)
  2. James F. (talk) 18:13, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  3. Grunt 🇪🇺 02:57, 2005 Jan 1 (UTC)
  4. Neutralitytalk 06:25, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)
  5. David Gerard 15:38, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  6. sannse (talk) 21:02, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  7. ➥the Epopt 19:13, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Nay:
Abstain:

Editing by HistoryBuffEr as 66.93.166.174

[edit]

7) A number of the edits by User:66.93.166.174 can be identified as being by HistoryBuffEr (signed HistoryBuffEr), (signed HistoryBuffEr), post by 66.93.166.174 signature by HistoryBuffEr Earlier edits are consistent with HistoryBuffEr's POV and editing pattern, see [1], [2] and [3]. See also page histories to see proximity and similarity of edits by HistoryBuffEr and 66.93.166.174. Although HistoryBuffEr claims the ip address 66.93.166.174 is a "shared account" there is no evidence of any editor with an editing style different from HistoryBuffEr editing using that ip; therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that all edits by 66.93.166.174 were made by the person who edits using HistoryBuffEr.

Aye:
  1. Fred Bauder 23:18, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC)
  2. James F. (talk) 18:28, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  3. Grunt 🇪🇺 02:57, 2005 Jan 1 (UTC)
  4. Neutralitytalk 06:25, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)
  5. David Gerard 15:38, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  6. sannse (talk) 21:02, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  7. ➥the Epopt 19:13, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Nay:
Abstain:


Personal attacks by HistoryBuffEr

[edit]

8) HistoryBuffEr has engaged in personal attacks on Jayjg, see [4], [5], [6] , [7], [8] and [9]

Aye:
  1. Fred Bauder 13:28, Nov 17, 2004 (UTC)
  2. James F. (talk) 18:13, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  3. Grunt 🇪🇺 02:57, 2005 Jan 1 (UTC)
  4. Neutralitytalk 06:25, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)
  5. David Gerard 15:38, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  6. sannse (talk) 21:02, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  7. ➥the Epopt 19:13, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Nay:
Abstain:

Point of view editing by Jayjg

[edit]

9) Jayjg has edited Wikipedia articles which concern the Israeli-Palestinian confict in a point of view way, see [10], [11], [12] a series of edits where Jayjg, while engaged in an edit war, removed the notice {{TotallyDisputed}} from the hotly disputed article, Arab-Israeli conflict following which he continued his edit war with Alberuni which has persisted over a month regarding inclusion of information that the September 11, 2001 attacks were justified by al-Qaida as being an extension of the Arab-Israeli conflict. The first instance of this disputed material being added was on October 8 by Alberuni at [13]. There is very little or no discussion on the talk page by either party which addresses how this information might be appropriately handled as opposed to repeatedly inserting and removing it.

Aye:
  1. Fred Bauder 14:32, Nov 17, 2004 (UTC)
  2. James F. (talk) 18:13, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    Grunt 🇪🇺 02:57, 2005 Jan 1 (UTC)
  3. Neutralitytalk 06:25, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)
  4. David Gerard 15:38, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Nay:
  1. sannse (talk) 22:14, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    I dont see enough evidence to support this. Removal of {{TotallyDisputed}} is not in itself non-NPOV, especially when it refers readers to a discussion that doesn't exist. Once discussion started on the talk page, Jayjg stopped removing the notice.
    The majority of Jayjg's edits in response to Alberuni's edit [14], [15], [16], [17], [18] were not excessively harsh, leaving most of Alberuni's text intact. Only the removal of the Sept. 11 paragraphs is really questionable [19]. This was edit was not sufficiently discussed, but I consider this more an issue of edit warring than non-NPOV. Discussion did take place [20], [21], but (as stated above) not in relation to how it might be appropriately handled.
  2. On reflection, agree with sannse. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 00:22, 2005 Jan 13 (UTC)
  3. ➥the Epopt 19:13, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Abstain:

NPOV editing by Jayjg

[edit]

10) Jayjg also makes edits from a neutral point of view and often significantly contributes to the accuracy of information included in Wikipedia articles, for example see this example of NPOV edit, which removes a link to site which draws an unjustified pro-Zionist conclusion, see [22] and Jayjg's explanation at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/HistoryBuffEr_and_Jayjg/Evidence#Anti-Zionism; see also [23]. For an example of editing material added by HistoryBuffEr which clarified the nature of the information, see [24] and his explanation at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/HistoryBuffEr_and_Jayjg/Evidence#Yasser_Arafat_4. At times he has negotiated with other editors on "his side" such as Lance6wins regarding the accuracy of pro-Zionist material [25], [26]

Aye:
  1. Fred Bauder 14:32, Nov 17, 2004 (UTC)
  2. James F. (talk) 18:13, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  3. Grunt 🇪🇺 02:57, 2005 Jan 1 (UTC)
  4. Neutralitytalk 06:25, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)
  5. David Gerard 15:38, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  6. sannse (talk) 21:02, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  7. ➥the Epopt 19:13, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Nay:
Abstain:

Point of view editing by HistoryBuffEr

[edit]

11) HistoryBuffEr has made point of view edits to articles which concern the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, see this edit of September 21, 2004 which ignited a brief edit war with Jayjg. This edit, repeatedly inserted, contains this language, "Palestine Jews then declared independent State of Israel in 1948, in violation of the U.N. Partition resolution, and began killing, expelling and terrorizing the indigenous Arab population, ethnically cleansing about 870,000 (about 80%) of native Arab population (see Palestinian Exodus)." In one revert, the comment, "NPOV Jayjg's propaganda)" was added [27]. Additional examples include [28], and [29].

Aye:
  1. Fred Bauder 14:32, Nov 17, 2004 (UTC)
  2. James F. (talk) 18:13, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  3. Grunt 🇪🇺 02:57, 2005 Jan 1 (UTC)
  4. Neutralitytalk 06:25, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)
  5. David Gerard 15:38, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  6. sannse (talk) 00:27, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  7. ➥the Epopt 19:13, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Nay:
Abstain:

Later example which also ignited an edit war

[edit]

11.1) On October 12, 2004, HistoryBuffEr, inserted similar language in History of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict [30], igniting an edit war with User IZAK, see Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/IZAK/Proposed_decision#Responding_to_a_POV_edit. See also this edit using the language, "The Israeli terror acts created about 750,000 Palestinian refugees" with the comment, 'NPOV cause of refugees; attacks on civilians are spelled "TERROR"'

Aye:
  1. Fred Bauder 14:05, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)
  2. Grunt 🇪🇺 02:57, 2005 Jan 1 (UTC)
  3. Neutralitytalk 06:25, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)
  4. David Gerard 15:38, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  5. ➥the Epopt 19:13, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Nay:
Abstain:
  1. sannse (talk) 23:29, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC) Should be combined with the 11)

Extensive rewriting by HistoryBuffEr

[edit]

12) HistoryBuffEr has frequently made edits which involve extensive rewriting of articles which relate to the conflict, see [31] and [32]. These edits, due to their complexity and numerous instances of included POV material, result in edit wars which are not easily resolved. See [33] for a brief discussion on this point by Jayjg and HistoryBuffEr.

Aye:
  1. Fred Bauder 14:32, Nov 17, 2004 (UTC)
  2. James F. (talk) 18:13, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  3. Grunt 🇪🇺 02:57, 2005 Jan 1 (UTC)
  4. Neutralitytalk 06:25, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)
  5. David Gerard 15:38, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  6. sannse (talk) 21:02, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  7. ➥the Epopt 19:13, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Nay:
Abstain:

Failure to discuss controversial edits

[edit]

13) Despite, as User:66.93.166.174, making a complete and very POV revision of the article Israeli-Palestinian conflict on September 13, 2004 ([34]) HistoryBuffEr failed to enter any dialogue on Talk:Israeli-Palestinian conflict. He followed the same pattern with respect to Arab-Israeli conflict ([35]), responding to Jayjg's request to talk with insults meanwhile insisting that a disputed notice remain at the head of the article despite his failure to discuss the issues.

Aye:
  1. Fred Bauder 20:20, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC)
  2. James F. (talk) 18:28, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  3. Grunt 🇪🇺 02:57, 2005 Jan 1 (UTC)
  4. Neutralitytalk 06:25, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)
  5. David Gerard 15:38, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  6. sannse (talk) 00:16, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  7. ➥the Epopt 19:13, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Nay:
Abstain:

Original work by HistoryBuffEr

[edit]

14) HistoryBuffEr has inserted into the article Yassir Arafat [36], and other articles, [37], the novel phrase, "occupation colonies", which is meant to desribe Israeli settlements in the West Bank and Gaza. When quieried regarding the use of this phrase he responded, not with references to its use in published work, but with argumentation regarding its propriety, see [38]. Googling for this phrase produces a few hits, one [39] a reprint of Wikipedia's article on a China Daily forum; a second use at [40] on http://www.miftah.org/ a Palestinian information site; the third, possibly independant, use of the phrase would not load (There are, of course, a few hits on Wikipedia pages).

Aye:
  1. Fred Bauder 15:42, Dec 7, 2004 (UTC)
  2. James F. (talk) 18:28, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC) Well, I'm not absolutely convinced that HB created the term, given that it appears elsewhere, but it doesn't seem to have gained sufficient traction to be used here, either way.
  3. Grunt 🇪🇺 02:57, 2005 Jan 1 (UTC)
  4. Neutralitytalk 06:25, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)
  5. David Gerard 15:38, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  6. sannse (talk) 00:55, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  7. ➥the Epopt 19:13, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Nay:
Abstain:

Discourtesy by HistoryBuffEr

[edit]

15) HistoryBuffEr has engaged in discourteous behavior toward others in his editing conflicts with them, see [41]. [42] and [43].

Aye:
  1. Fred Bauder 14:41, Dec 1, 2004 (UTC)
  2. James F. (talk) 18:13, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  3. Grunt 🇪🇺 02:57, 2005 Jan 1 (UTC)
  4. Neutralitytalk 06:25, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)
  5. David Gerard 15:38, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  6. sannse (talk) 21:02, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  7. ➥the Epopt 19:13, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Nay:
Abstain:


Negotiations by the parties

[edit]

16) The parties, together with partisans for their general point of view and assisted at times by informal mediators such as Ed Poor, have engaged in extensive negotiations regarding the structuring of articles concerning the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, see Talk:Occupation of Palestine. These negotiations while difficult, have sometimes been successful.

Aye:
  1. Fred Bauder 15:07, Dec 4, 2004 (UTC)
  2. James F. (talk) 18:13, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  3. Grunt 🇪🇺 02:57, 2005 Jan 1 (UTC)
  4. Neutralitytalk 06:25, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)
  5. David Gerard 15:38, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  6. sannse (talk) 21:02, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  7. ➥the Epopt 19:13, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Nay:
Abstain:


Violations of reverting guidelines by Jayjg

[edit]

17) Jayjg has violated the general community guidelines on Wikipedia:How to revert a page to an earlier version which evolved into the Three-Revert Rule on several occasions directly, including 4 reverts in 144 minutes on Anti-Semitism between 20:55, 9 Jul 2004 and 23:16, 9 Jul 2004, and, similarly, 4 reverts in 129 minutes to Historicity of Jesus between 19:09, 21 Jul 2004 and 21:28, 21 Jul 2004, and repeatedly on Dore Gold in the month and half over which the article has existed.

Aye:
  1. James F. (talk) 20:04, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  2. Fred Bauder 21:23, Dec 7, 2004 (UTC)
  3. Grunt 🇪🇺 02:57, 2005 Jan 1 (UTC)
  4. Neutralitytalk 06:25, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)
  5. David Gerard 15:38, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  6. sannse (talk) 01:06, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC) (yes, but note that this didn't have the same weight at that point as it does now)
  7. ➥the Epopt 19:13, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Nay:
Abstain:

State of the evidence

[edit]

18) The principals in this matter have been very verbose in their presentation of evidence, see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/HistoryBuffEr and Jayjg/Evidence/Full version, expanding their presentation to the point that it is unwieldly, confusing and essentially unusable by the Arbitrators.

Aye:
  1. Fred Bauder 14:23, Dec 14, 2004 (UTC)
  2. Grunt 🇪🇺 02:57, 2005 Jan 1 (UTC)
  3. Neutralitytalk 06:25, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)
  4. David Gerard 15:38, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  5. sannse (talk) 21:02, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  6. ➥the Epopt 19:13, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Nay:
Abstain:

Request for summary of evidence

[edit]

19) A request has been made by the arbitrators for a summary of the evidence in this matter at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/HistoryBuffEr and Jayjg/Evidence. Neither of the principals have HistoryBuffEr has not been forthcoming with a[n adequate] summary.

Aye:
  1. Fred Bauder 14:23, Dec 14, 2004 (UTC)
  2. Grunt 🇪🇺 02:57, 2005 Jan 1 (UTC)
  3. Neutralitytalk 06:25, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)
  4. David Gerard 15:38, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  5. sannse (talk) 19:23, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC) (added "adequate", as HistoryBuffEr has written there, but not in the form requested or with the information required)
  6. ➥the Epopt 19:13, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Nay:
  1. sannse (talk) 20:27, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC) (this has been done since Fred's comment. In HistoryBuffEr's case there are serious problems with the lack of actual evidence though)
Abstain:

Proposed decision

[edit]

Remedies

[edit]

proposed wording to be modified by Arbitrators and then voted on

HistoryBuffEr banned for personal attacks

[edit]

1) HistoryBuffEr is banned for 30 days for making personal attacks.

Aye:
  1. Fred Bauder 14:17, Nov 18, 2004 (UTC)
  2. James F. (talk) 18:16, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  3. Grunt 🇪🇺 03:00, 2005 Jan 1 (UTC)
  4. Neutralitytalk 06:25, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)
  5. David Gerard 15:38, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  6. sannse (talk) 02:12, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  7. ➥the Epopt 19:13, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Nay:
Abstain:

HistoryBuffEr banned for discourtesy

[edit]

2) HistoryBuffEr is banned for 30 days for discourtesy.

Aye:
  1. Fred Bauder 15:38, Dec 2, 2004 (UTC)
  2. James F. (talk) 18:16, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  3. Grunt 🇪🇺 03:00, 2005 Jan 1 (UTC)
  4. Neutralitytalk 06:25, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)
  5. David Gerard 15:38, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  6. sannse (talk) 02:12, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  7. ➥the Epopt 19:13, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Nay:
Abstain:

Editing restrictions

[edit]

3) HistoryBuffEr and Jayjg are prohibited for a period of one year from editing any article which relates to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict except in the following manner: each edit shall involve insertion or removal of one discrete piece of information which shall be referenced either by comment or footnote to a specific page in a book published in English and readily available in libraries or by purchase. References to urls are acceptable only if the site is in English and the information referenced is readily located by consulting the webpage.

Aye:
  1. Fred Bauder 14:17, Nov 18, 2004 (UTC)
  2. I'm a little worried that this might turn out to be fruitless. James F. (talk) 18:16, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  3. Grunt 🇪🇺 03:00, 2005 Jan 1 (UTC)
Nay:
  1. Should not include Jayjg Fred Bauder 16:48, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)
  2. Ditto. Neutralitytalk 17:08, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
  3. sannse (talk) 02:12, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC) agree with Fred
  4. ➥the Epopt 19:13, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Abstain:
  1. Jayjg knows the right thing to do; I don't think HistoryBuffEr does - David Gerard 15:38, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)


3.1) HistoryBuffEr is prohibited for a period of one year from editing any article which relates to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict except in the following manner: each edit shall involve insertion or removal of one discrete piece of information which shall be referenced either by comment or footnote to a specific page in a book published in English and readily available in libraries or by purchase. References to URLs are acceptable only if the site is in English and the information referenced is readily located by consulting the webpage.

Aye:
  1. David Gerard 15:38, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  2. Fred Bauder 16:48, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)
  3. Neutralitytalk 17:08, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
  4. sannse (talk) 16:40, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  5. ➥the Epopt 19:13, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  6. On reflection, agree that HB is problematic here. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 20:14, 2005 Jan 15 (UTC)
Nay:
Unfair to single out HB in this aspect. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 03:00, 2005 Jan 1 (UTC)
Abstain:

3.2) HistoryBuffEr is prohibited for a period of one year from editing any article which relates to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Aye:
  1. Upon reflection, I don't believe HistoryBuffEr would be able or willing to comply with less onorous restrictions Fred Bauder 16:44, Dec 7, 2004 (UTC)
  2. Neutralitytalk 06:25, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)
  3. David Gerard 15:38, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  4. ➥the Epopt 19:13, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Nay:
  1. Unfair to single out HB here as well. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 03:00, 2005 Jan 1 (UTC)
  2. sannse (talk) 16:40, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC) prefer the above
Abstain:

Remedies in the case of dispute

[edit]

4) For the period of editing restrictions in the event information is disputed, the source of the information may be included in the article as may conflicting information.

Aye:
  1. Fred Bauder 14:17, Nov 18, 2004 (UTC)
  2. Of course. James F. (talk) 18:16, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  3. Grunt 🇪🇺 03:00, 2005 Jan 1 (UTC)
  4. Neutralitytalk 06:25, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)
  5. David Gerard 15:38, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  6. sannse (talk) 16:40, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  7. ➥the Epopt 19:13, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Nay:
Abstain:

Prohibition against removal of referenced information

[edit]

5) For the period of editing restrictions neither HistoryBuffEr nor Jayjg may remove any adequately referenced information from any article which relates to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Doing so may result in a 24-hour block imposed by any administrator. In the case of Jayjg, unblocking himself will be severely dealt with.

Aye:
  1. Fred Bauder 14:17, Nov 18, 2004 (UTC)
  2. James F. (talk) 18:16, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  3. Grunt 🇪🇺 03:00, 2005 Jan 1 (UTC)
  4. Neutralitytalk 06:25, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)
  5. David Gerard 15:38, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  6. sannse (talk) 16:40, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  7. ➥the Epopt 19:13, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Nay:
Abstain:

Reorganization of articles

[edit]

6) For the period of editing restrictions reorganizations of articles which do not involve addition or removal of information may be done by either party. The other party may not revert, nor may the initiator of the reorganization restore the reorganization should a third party revert.

Aye:
  1. Fred Bauder 14:17, Nov 18, 2004 (UTC)
  2. James F. (talk) 18:16, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  3. Grunt 🇪🇺 03:00, 2005 Jan 1 (UTC)
  4. Neutralitytalk 06:25, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)
  5. David Gerard 15:38, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  6. sannse (talk) 16:40, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  7. ➥the Epopt 19:13, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Nay:
Abstain:

Personal attack parole for HistoryBuffEr

[edit]

7) HistoryBuffEr is placed on standard personal attack parole for three months. If he makes any edits which are judged by an administrator to be personal attacks, then he shall be temp-banned for a short time, up to three days, and the parole shall be reset.

Aye:
  1. David Gerard 18:29, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC) - if you think 3 days is too long, feel free to cut it to 24 hours; however, I do think at least 3 months good behaviour is needed
  2. Fred Bauder 18:59, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)
  3. Neutralitytalk 02:23, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
  4. Grunt 🇪🇺 02:46, 2005 Jan 2 (UTC)
  5. sannse (talk) 02:12, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  6. ➥the Epopt 19:13, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Nay:
Abstain:

Enforcement

[edit]

proposed wording to be modified by Arbitrators and then voted on

Edits unsupported by authority

[edit]

1) For the period of editing restrictions edits by either HistoryBuffEr or Jayjg which are not referenced may be removed by any user. In the event the reference given does not support an edit made by either of them it may be removed after notification to them and an explanation made on the talk page of the article.

Aye:
  1. Fred Bauder 14:41, Nov 18, 2004 (UTC)
  2. Grunt 🇪🇺 03:00, 2005 Jan 1 (UTC)
  3. Neutralitytalk 06:25, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)
  4. Sometimes these things need to be stated in particular - David Gerard 15:38, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  5. sannse (talk) 16:40, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  6. ➥the Epopt 19:13, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Nay:
Abstain:
  1. People can do this anyway, surely? James F. (talk) 18:18, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
True, but in the ordinary case the other party may simply revert, in this case, if they do they may be subject to a ban. Fred Bauder 16:52, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)

Violation of editing restrictions

[edit]

2) For the period of editing restrictions, edits by HistoryBuffEr which violate them may be removed by any user. Repeat violations may be sanctioned by an adminstrator by a short ban (up to one day for intial violations, up to a week for repeat violations).

Aye:
  1. Fred Bauder 16:49, Dec 7, 2004 (UTC)
  2. Neutralitytalk 06:25, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)
  3. David Gerard 19:14, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  4. sannse (talk) 16:40, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  5. ➥the Epopt 19:13, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  6. On reflection, agree that HB is problematic here. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 20:16, 2005 Jan 15 (UTC)
Nay:
Again, unfair to single out HB here. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 03:00, 2005 Jan 1 (UTC)
Abstain:

2.1) For the period of editing restrictions, edits by HistoryBuffEr and Jayjg which violate them may be removed by any user. Repeat violations may be sanctioned by an adminstrator by a short ban (up to one day for intial violations, up to a week for repeat violations).

Aye:
  1. Grunt 🇪🇺 03:00, 2005 Jan 1 (UTC)
  2. Neutralitytalk 06:25, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)
  3. Assuming such restrictions are in place - David Gerard 15:38, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  4. sannse (talk) 16:40, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC) (as David said, assuming such restrictions are in place)
  5. Fred Bauder 18:59, Jan 15, 2005 (UTC)
  6. ➥the Epopt 19:13, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Nay:
Abstain:

Discussion by Arbitrators

[edit]

General

[edit]

My feeling is that HistoryBuffEr and Jayjg are only two of the many POV editors in this hotly disputed area. Conflict in this area has been a part of Wikipedia for as long as I can remember. It would be unfair to single either of them out by banning them from the area when they are part of a larger group which has routinely broken NPOV editing rules in this area. We can apply the same editing rules to any of the rest of them if they continue with their current practices should they not take this decision as a guide to their own editing. Fred Bauder 14:23, Nov 18, 2004 (UTC)

I agree. --mav 06:37, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I happen to believe that the editing restrictions detailed above should be applied to everyone editing those articles - hence my votes opposing any such editing restrictions placed on HB alone. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 03:23, 2005 Jan 1 (UTC)

Jayjg knows the right thing to do and generally consistently does it, but has been goaded into blowing his top on occasion. But of late he's been acting in an exemplary fashion - David Gerard 18:29, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Motion to close

[edit]

Four Aye votes needed to close case

  1. Everything likely to pass has passed. Let's get this over with. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 20:17, 2005 Jan 15 (UTC)
  2. Aye: ➥the Epopt 22:47, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  3. David Gerard 23:12, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  4. Aye, sannse (talk) 23:16, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/HistoryBuffEr_and_Jayjg/Proposed_decision&oldid=808006097"