Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Deir Yassin massacre

Case Opened on 13:14, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Case Closed on 00:21, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Please do not edit this page directly unless you wish to become a participant in this request. (All participants are subject to Arbitration Committee decisions, and the ArbCom will consider each participant's role in the dispute.) Comments are very welcome on the Talk page, and will be read, in full. Evidence, no matter who can provide it, is very welcome at /Evidence. Evidence is more useful than comments.

Arbitrators will be working on evidence and suggesting proposed decisions at /Workshop and voting on proposed decisions at /Proposed decision.

Involved parties

• KimvdLinde (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Guy Montag (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Statement by KimvdLinde

I bring this case because I think Guy Montag has violated his probation with the rewrite of the Deir Yassin massacre article, based on Deir Yassin: History of a Lie, The Zionist Organization of America (copies here and here), copyright violations from various websites and votestacking

• Unilateral page move from common name to hardly used name [1], evidence see for example section
• Total rewrite [2], disputed Talk:Deir_Yassin_massacre#Total_Rewrite, no response from Guy to the point mentioned, no discussion.
• Votestacking to prevent move back: opposed, opposed, opposed, opposed, opposed.
• Extensive copyvio: http://www.kimvdlinde.com/wikipedia/Deir_Yassin_Copyright_violation.doc
• Possibly whitewash, but at least biased editing. Page goes effectively from page describing massacre (Supported by historians) to page that obscures that fact (supported by IZL). Selective deletion of sourced material unfavourable for the denialist position. Selective quoting. (evidence gathering in progress)

I plead guilty of moving a page on which I was myself marginally involved by starting a poll to get the page moved back to the more common name and voted in support for that. The rational for the move was posted at WP:AN/I, Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Battle_of_Deir_Yassin.2FDeir_Yassin_massacre:_move_poll_closure_review_requested here and the analysis and conclusion was considered valid [3] [4] and was moved back accordingly by an uninvolved admin [5]. Uninvoled admins told me that I should have not moved it myself as I was involved.. Is dealt with here Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Israeli_apartheid/Workshop#Administrators_admonished and here Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Israeli_apartheid/Proposed_decision#Administrators_admonished.

As for the sequence of events, with the banning and unbanning, let me show this:

• Banned [6], ban confirmed by User:Fred Bauder, see User_talk:Guy_Montag#Banned_from_Battle_of_Deir_Yassin.2FDeir_Yassin_Massacre, ban undone by User:Briangotts[7] (not neutral: [8]), banned for copyvio [9], response from User:SlimVirgin [10], unbanned [11]. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 13:39, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Statement by Guy Montag

I refuse to participate in any of these procedings, nor am I playing any more of her games. She is an administrator who has sided in an debate and then abused her powers to get her way. She is involved in an Arbcomm case dealing with her abuse of powers and has been asked to not participate in the debate at Deir Yassin by more than one editor[12]. She initiated the vote that turned a discussion about the name that was only beginning into an all out pov fest by initiated a vote. After being notified that some of the information might be copywritten, even though much of it was already available in the previous version of the article (of course, no one cared about that because the article agreed with their pov) ar as raw sources in books, I petitioned the authors to receive authorization to use the information in the article, which is completely disfigured without it. I will recieve approval early next week. She causes disputes wherever she edits.

Even though the information can simply be cited within the notes by attributing to the author, Kim has used this technicality by reverting the article and totally rewriting the article according to her pov, even though I requested numerous times to open a workshop where we can work on the content together to insert both povs [13]. Now she is attempting to ban me to stop me from balancing the article. This is a content dispute and Kim is using every heavy handed tactic she has at her disposal to stop me from editing. She should be sanctioned and her admin powers suspended. I have not been approached for mediation, nor did I feel there to be any need for mediation during my detailed discussion and debate with other editors.

Guy Montag 19:30, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Preliminary decisions

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

• Accept. James F. (talk) 19:11, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Accept. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 04:28, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
• Accept. Dmcdevit·t 07:32, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Accept Fred Bauder 19:28, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Final decision

All numbering based on /Proposed decision (vote counts and comments are there as well)

Principles

Authority of an administrator to ban under Probation

1) A single administrator, whether involved in editing of the article or not, may ban a user under a Probation remedy imposed by the Arbitration Committee, unless more than one is required by the terms of the remedy. The sole recourse for overturning such a ban is a successful request for arbitration alleging abuse of discretion by the administrator. Objections may be made to the banning administrator, but no other administrator may overturn the ban.

Pass 5-2 at 00:21, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Resetting of Probation

2) Probation which is limited to a term is not reset by bans imposed under it.

Pass 7-0 at 00:21, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Users on Probation

3) Users who are on Probation remain free to edit in the same manner as other users. Unless they are banned from a specific article or area they may continue to engage in the same give and take as other editors.

Pass 7-0 at 00:21, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Failure of Probation

4) Probation may not be available as a remedy in instances where it fails due to lack of administrative support. In such cases it may be necessary to fall back on the remedies used prior to development of Probation, usually bans.

Pass 7-0 at 00:21, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Communication regarding polls

5) Users may communicate in a reasonable manner with other users regarding active polls which for one reason or another they feel the other users might wish to weigh in on.

Pass 7-0 at 00:21, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Administrative discretion in closing polls

6) Administrators may take into consideration all relevant factors when closing a poll. These may include the degree to which the poll drew a significant number of voters, type and extent of campaigning regarding the poll, whether the poll is for reversal of a unilateral action or any other relevant factor.

Pass 7-0 at 00:21, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Administrative action by involved administrators

7) Administrative action requiring discretion requires knowledge of the history and details of issue in question. It is often much easier for an administrator who is involved in the issue to know such factors, provided they are not strongly biased regarding the matter.

Pass 5-2 at 00:21, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Copyright violations

8) Wikipedia:Copyright violations forbids use of material copied from published works. The information in sources may be used if credited. Failure to credit a source is plagiarism.

Pass 7-0 at 00:21, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Naming conventions

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

Pass 7-0 at 00:21, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Choice of article name

10) In addition to the principle that the most common English usage should be used for the title of an article, should conflict arise regarding which title is appropriate "choose a descriptive name for an article that does not carry POV implications", Wikipedia:Naming_conflict#Descriptive_names.

Pass 7-0 at 00:21, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Ban for disruption

11) Users who disrupt an article or set of articles by edit warring or other disruptive behavior may be banned from the affected articles, in extreme cases from the site.

Pass 7-0 at 00:21, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Neutral point of view

12) Wikipedia:Neutral point of view requires that all significant points of view be fairly represented in an article regarding the subject.

Pass 7-0 at 00:21, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Verifiability and reliable sources

13) Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Reliable sources require that information included in an article have been published in a reliable source which is identified and potentially available to the reader.

Pass 7-0 at 00:21, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Findings of fact

Locus of dispute

1) The locus of the dispute is editing by Guy Montag (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) of Deir Yassin massacre and administrative actions by KimvdLinde (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA).

Pass 7-0 at 00:21, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Guy Montag on Probation

2) On October 9, 2005 Guy Montag was placed on Probation for one year with respect to articles which relate to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Yuber#Guy Montag placed on probation. A ban was twice imposed with respect to Deir Yassiin massacre, once for POV disruption (the revision and title change), and again for copyright violation, but lifted both times when other administrators objected - Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement/Archive1#User:Guy Montag Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive123#Deir Yassin and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive123#Guy Montag banned from Deir Yassin massacre (2).

Pass 7-0 at 00:21, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Move to Battle of Deir Yassin

3) On June 29, 2006 Guy Montag moved Deir Yassin massacre to Battle of Deir Yassin with the comment, "Title does not cover the entire scope of events and is only a small claim about events that happened during/ and or after battle; hence the name." [14]. This was combined with a "total rewrite" of the article, see Talk:Battle of Deir Yassin#Total Rewrite and subsequent discussion.

Pass 7-0 at 00:21, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

The poll on moving

4) Following the move there was a poll regarding the move Talk:Deir Yassin massacre#The vote on moving. The result was even, but based on "votestalking" (campaigning) by Guy Montag the vote, when closed by KimvdLinde, was declared to support a move back to massacre.

Pass 7-0 at 00:21, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Soliciting of votes by Guy Montag

5) Guy Montag solicited other users regarding the poll on changing the title to the article in a reasonable manner [15], [16], [17], [18], [19].

Pass 7-0 at 00:21, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Abuse of discretion by KimvdLinde in closing poll

6) KimvdLinde did not abuse her discretion as an administrator in taking into consideration the campaigning by Guy Montag with respect to the poll. Neither did she abuse her discretion by closing a poll regarding which she was an involved editor, discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive123#Battle of Deir Yassin/Deir Yassin massacre: move poll closure review requested and at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive123#What to do if a move poll is determined by partisan reasons?.

Pass 5-2 at 00:21, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Copyright violations by Guy Montag

8) Guy Montag copied and pasted substantial sections from various websites for his rewrite of the article, see [20] and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Deir Yassin massacre/Evidence#Copyright violations.

Pass 7-0 at 00:21, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Original research by Guy Montag

9) Guy Montag supported his move of the article with original reasoning [21], see also Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Deir Yassin massacre/Evidence#Original research: massacre definition and subsequent sections.

Pass 7-0 at 00:21, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Failure of Probation

10) Guy Montag disrupted Deir Yassin massacre by tendentious editing and copyright violations which would have supported an article ban under the terms of his Probation, however, he was not banned other than temporarily, see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement/Archive1#User:Guy Montag Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive123#Deir Yassin and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive123#Guy Montag banned from Deir Yassin massacre (2).

Pass 7-0 at 00:21, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

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.

Guy Montag banned

1) Guy Montag is banned from articles which relate to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Pass 7-0 at 00:21, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Guy Montag Probation extended

2) Guy Montag's Probation under the terms of Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Yuber#Guy Montag placed on probation is extended to include one year from the final date of this decision.

Pass 6-0-1 at 00:21, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Administrators encouraged

3) KimvdLinde and other administrators are encouraged to effectively enforce Guy Montag's Probation in appropriate circumstances.

Pass 6-0-1 at 00:21, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Enforcement

Enforcement of restrictions

0) Should any user subject to a restriction in this case violate that restriction, that user may be blocked, initially for up to one month, and then with blocks increasing in duration to a maximum of one year.

In accordance with the procedure for the standard enforcement provision adopted 3 May 2014, this provision did not require a vote.

Appeals and modifications

0) Appeals and modifications

This procedure applies to appeals related to, and modifications of, actions taken by administrators to enforce the Committee's remedies. It does not apply to appeals related to the remedies directly enacted by the Committee. Appeals by sanctioned editors Appeals may be made only by the editor under sanction and only for a currently active sanction. Requests for modification of page restrictions may be made by any editor. The process has three possible stages (see "Important notes" below). The editor may: ask the enforcing administrator to reconsider their original decision; request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators’ noticeboard ("AN"); and submit a request for amendment at "ARCA". If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email through Special:EmailUser/Arbitration Committee (or, if email access is revoked, to arbcom-enwikimedia.org). Modifications by administrators No administrator may modify or remove a sanction placed by another administrator without: the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" below). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped. Nothing in this section prevents an administrator from replacing an existing sanction issued by another administrator with a new sanction if fresh misconduct has taken place after the existing sanction was applied. Administrators are free to modify sanctions placed by former administrators – that is, editors who do not have the administrator permission enabled (due to a temporary or permanent relinquishment or desysop) – without regard to the requirements of this section. If an administrator modifies a sanction placed by a former administrator, the administrator who made the modification becomes the "enforcing administrator". If a former administrator regains the tools, the provisions of this section again apply to their unmodified enforcement actions. Important notes: For a request to succeed, either (i) the clear and substantial consensus of (a) uninvolved administrators at AE or (b) uninvolved editors at AN or (ii) a passing motion of arbitrators at ARCA is required. If consensus at AE or AN is unclear, the status quo prevails. While asking the enforcing administrator and seeking reviews at AN or AE are not mandatory prior to seeking a decision from the committee, once the committee has reviewed a request, further substantive review at any forum is barred. The sole exception is editors under an active sanction who may still request an easing or removal of the sanction on the grounds that said sanction is no longer needed, but such requests may only be made once every six months, or whatever longer period the committee may specify. These provisions apply only to contentious topics placed by administrators and to blocks placed by administrators to enforce arbitration case decisions. They do not apply to sanctions directly authorised by the committee, and enacted either by arbitrators or by arbitration clerks, or to special functionary blocks of whatever nature. All actions designated as arbitration enforcement actions, including those alleged to be out of process or against existing policy, must first be appealed following arbitration enforcement procedures to establish if such enforcement is inappropriate before the action may be reversed or formally discussed at another venue.

In accordance with the procedure for the standard appeals and modifications provision adopted 3 May 2014, this provision did not require a vote.

Log of blocks and bans

Log any block, ban or extension under any remedy in this decision here. Minimum information includes name of administrator, date and time, what was done and the basis for doing it.