Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Israeli apartheid/Evidence

I will compile a full list of actions other than edits soon, after tomorrow 5 pm ET. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 17:14, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I find it interesting that you have gone from being a supposedly neutral mediator, to being self-appointed prosecutor-in-chief. Your accusations -- and your debatable reading of the article-naming guidelines, and your other conduct -- will be dealt with in due course. 6SJ7 16:13, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I modified the above comment after seeing the complete chronology of the moves, which you apparently added recently. With that context, it will be very easy to explain what I did, but I am not sure how you will explain your accusatory behavior, in light of what you did (as shown in the chronology). 6SJ7 16:22, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a big surprize, as even as "neutral mediator" Kim took a very partial stance, joining evenytaly one side in this content-debate. Maybe it is her behaviour as "mediator" that has brought us where we are and a better mediator would have prevented what has transpired. Zeq 16:51, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of threaded dialog[edit]

Please read the instructions at the top of the evidence page and follow them. The evidence page isn't for general discussion. Please feel free to use this talk page for that putpose. For the Arbitration Committee. --Tony Sidaway 17:38, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus on moves[edit]

What is the standard for a disputed move? There was a reference somewhere to "approval voting", which suggests a majority is needed, rather than consensus? — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:03, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

At least 60% when through WP:RM, see Wikipedia:Moving_guidelines_for_administrators#Determining_consensus. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 18:07, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See also Wikipedia:Consensus#Consensus vs. supermajority, which is also relevant. -- ChrisO 18:10, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The 60% was missing when I first checked WP:RM in regard the move issue. It's back, now.

Jayjg's evidence[edit]

This edit is curious[1]. Jay had initially claimed that Kim and I had "started" numerous polls. Off the top of my head I don't recall starting any polls so I asked Jay on his talk page which polls I had started[2]. His response was to add "or participated" (see the first link above). So now my crime is having merely participated in polls? Why does Jay not mention the dozens of others, including himself, who participated in these polls, why just Kim and myself? If I didn't start any polls why does Jay see the need to imply that I might have (started or participated) and somehow link me with Kim as if we are acting in cahoots. Jayjg's presentation of his evidence is tortured to say the least. Homey 04:22, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An update, upon Jay's latest edit to his evidence I have now been cleared of the crime of "starting" polls[3], this crime now belongs to Kim alone. This is still a misrepresentation of the facts though as Kim is not the only person to have opened polls. A number of individuals opened polls "confusing" and otherwise, including User:Su-laine.yeo, User:Humus sapiens, User:Bill Levinson, User:Kendrick7 and none other than User:Jayjg [4] yet only Kim is singled out for poll opening and the act of opening a poll is put forward as some sort of crime. Why is this? Why has Jay singled out Kim's opening of a poll to the exclusion of all the other polls, including his own?Homey 04:38, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps because you and Kim are responsible for the entire mess. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 15:48, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That is the line you and Jay are certainly pushing. However, as we see from the fact that Jay had to alter his statement twice, it looks like you have to torture evidence in an attempt to argue that point. Homey 15:58, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think anyone who even glances at these arbitration pages can see what you and Kim are like. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:01, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think anyone who looks at how Jay's had to shift his "evidence" when challenged can come to the conclusion that his argument isn't very credible. First we have the argument that Humus didn't really mean it when he said there was "no consensus", now we Jay falsely claiming that I opened numerous polls when I opened none. Homey 16:11, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Homey and Zeq[edit]

For crying out loud, can't you two stop it? And don't say the other one started it, I have heard that enough from my own children. I sincerely doubt that either of you should be removing any material written by anyone from this page, but especially material written by each other. Given the discussions the two of you have had, and are still having (which by the way, I thought you both agreed to ignore each other), if you have a problem with something that the other has written on the evidence page (or anywhere else), you probably should alert the arbitration clerk (or other neutral authority, if elsewhere) and request action. If you do it yourselves, you just raise suspicions. And it doesn't matter whether you think the material is irrelevant, or threaded dialogue, or whatever; there's no excuse for it on either side. (I can just hear it now, anyway, "But, heeeeeeeeeeeee started it!") 6SJ7 19:15, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I informed Tony Sidaway that Zeq had added a threaded comment to my section and that I've removed it. If Zeq does it again in the future I will inform Tony and ask him to take appropriate action. Homey 19:16, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, but I did not use the "he started it". Zeq 19:19, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As for ignoring each other, we had a method worked out in which complaints about the other would be taken only to User:JDoorjam who would then act on them and, if warranted, take them further. Zeq has decided to disregard that agreement. I am certainly willing to resume ignoring him if he resumes the agreement. 19:22, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

as it turned out, Homey method of "ignoring" me included e-mailing other admins [5] to block me. This is a serious violation of out agreement. Zeq 19:25, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

a) the email I sent did not ask that you be blocked, it simply pointed out my suspicion that you were sockpuppetting

b) Had you not violated our agreement I would have simply brought my concerns to JDoorway instead. You cannot break an agreement and then insist that the other party keep to it. Sorry Zeq, you can't have it both ways. Homey 20:06, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As I said Zeq, I am certainly willing to resume our agreement if you are serious about sticking to it this time. Homey 20:10, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have always obied by it, The original agreement did inculde a specific caveat (that you put in) about arbitration. Once I started comenting here you started smearing me and got me blocked. So if you want to resume our agreement the best I can suggest is that you get blocked (like you arrenged for me) and after that you start compling with our agreement (like I always did). Zeq 20:54, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zeq, I don't think you quite understand what happened. You violated WP:Harassment by posting personal details about me, an action that could have gotten you permanently blocked - indeed one editor who you see as a friend told me that they would have blocked you permanently on the spot had they known about it. As an alternative, I agreed that you wouldn't receive any sort of block for that in exchange for your leaving me completely alone. I agreed to do the same but I made the caveat that I'd be free to comment if an RFA against you were filed by someone else. Somehow, you've twisted that around as if you never violated WP:Harassment to begin with and didn't have a long-term block hanging over your head. Anyway, this is all irrelevent to this page so I suggest we take it back to JDoorway. Homey 21:07, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No Homey, I never violated anything and I am not going to open up this debate with you again. Zeq 21:10, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You opened a wikipedia article about me under my real name so yes, you did violate WP:HARASSMENT.Homey 22:22, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I never made any connection between your wikipedia identity and yor off-wikipedia identity and the article existed before I edited it. What does this have to do with this current ArbCom case ? If you want to file an arbCom case against me on so-called harrasment that took place months ago - go ahead, we should also review your use of blocks and sockpupets. I acted in good faith and edited an article about someone who I think is an important activist. If you claim that the person in that article (the off -wikipedia activist) is you (the wikipedia editor name Homey) maybe this should be adedd to the article (if you can provide a good source for it) - it will show the use activists are doing to use wikipedia to propagate their political agenda via Wikipedia popularity. As you know the article wasdeleted and you are the one who "publizized it" so your claim of harrasment is not genuine - if there was no wilingness from you to expose your off -wikipedia identity you would not go and publicize this again and again. Zeq 06:34, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My chances of winning the Nobel Peace Prize seem to be slipping away here. 6SJ7 22:05, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

":::I never made any connection between your wikipedia identity and yor off-wikipedia identity and the article existed before I edited it. What does this have to do with this current ArbCom case ? "

The article was deleted. You recreated it as a form of intimidation and you did so in retaliation for being banned for stacking the vote at the AFD on Israeli apartheid so it is directly related to the article. You only thought I was an "important activist" because of wikipedia - as for "publicising it" yes, I complained about it as but that is hardly "publicising it". Homey 10:23, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article existed as a redirect to a different article by similar (but not indentical name). The Afd included only 5 entries (of you and your friends mostly) but still when you pointed it out to me (I was not initially aware of it) I respected it. To what else are you going to drag this case too ? As for "publicizing it" - you clearly did and this was already pointed out to you: If you really care about your privacy you don't got and publicize links to an article with your real name and complain: "look how he exposed my privacy..." - I never made the connection between an article on an activist and your identity - you did.Zeq 10:30, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is nonsense. You are arguing that by complaining about my privacy being violated I violated my privacy - this is a convoluted "damned if you do, damned if you don't" argument. It is also incorrect as you will not find a single diff in which I link to the article in question. Homey 10:33, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The claim that you only wrote the article because I am some sort of prominent "activist" is also nonsense as I am not prominent (ie not at all notable) and am not an activist on Israeli/Palestinian issues (what you claimed earlier to be your justification in supposedly happening across my name - when first confronted about this you actually tried to claim it was a pure coincidence, a canard you are no longer pushing). My only "activism" around Israel was writing a single letter to the editor to a Jewish community newspaper and you didn't even mention that in your "article". You wrote it as retaliation because you were blocked and you created it the moment your block ended. Your motivation, and capricousness, in the matter is self-evident as has already been determined by neutral third parties who examined the evidence. The article was created purely as a form of harassment and only acted to further raise tensions and further poison the situation related to Israeli apartheid. Homey 10:49, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: A word about the "common name" "Israeli apartheid"[edit]

While I would vote for Israeli apartheid myself, we seem to have chosen Allegations of Israeli apartheid for now. I think the issue is to move forward without more uproar. I am prepared to forgive and forget the past, but a plan needs to be found to go on without lapsing into warring. Fred Bauder 21:13, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There were multiple policy violations. In fact almost Every policy was broken in this set of articles. (including WP:Sock and WP:Admin) ignorying the biggest abuse of all (the creation and editing of this artyicle turned Wikipedia to what it is WP:Not) must be dealy with to prevent this kind of abuse. Some editors in this article have fooled the comunity for months and months (while ensuring that the false article raise the google count during those month duw to Wikipedia mirroring). This article is not based on WP:RS and should be fixed. If I am not mistaken Fred voted in the past to delete this article. Zeq 21:19, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I did, but subsequent research has resulted in a change of mind. I think the best title would be Status of the Palestinian people which could look at Palestinians and Israeli Arabs objectively as castes without the political overtones associated with Israeli apartheid. Perhaps it could be part of Social and political structure of Israel and occupied Palestine. Fred Bauder 11:56, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Both suggestion are exclent titles that would also set the stage for an NPOV discussion of the subject.
It seems to me that with this suggestion Fred's shows he understand that the biggest violation of NPOV was to create an article with such an POV title as Israeli apartheid.

After such title, all that can be done in the text is to try and mitigate the POV in the title. That was what I was trying to do. Zeq 12:49, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Amnesty[edit]

I'm confused about what's happening here. I didn't put up evidence about Kim van der Linde's misuse of admin tools, because Fred proposed an amnesty, which I think is an excellent idea for a number of reasons, primarily because we all need to move on. However, people are now putting up fresh evidence against Jayjg in relation to other articles. If there are to be sanctions against anyone for policy violations, there must be sanctions against everyone who has done anything similar, and that means I need to put evidence up. However, I would very much prefer not to as I think enough damage has been done. Could Fred please say how he sees this working out so I know how best to proceed? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:01, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have put up a proposed decision. Fred Bauder 02:05, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Fred. I notice that others are continuing to put up evidence and proposed principles, so it's getting somewhat confusing. I'm going to ignore what's happening on the workshop and evidence pages, in that case, and assume that the proposed-decision page is the only thing that matters. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:23, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]