Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Zeq/Proposed decision

Question on temp injunction[edit]

Does this cover things like asking for unprotection for the 2 articles as well? Zeq has been hitting RfP pretty hard the last few days. We remove the requests after rejection but then he immediately recreates it. Thanks. I'm going to unprotect the articles but I'm guessing he'll then want them protected. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 03:45, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An injunction ought to allow us to unprotect the articles, otherwise it's not doing it's job. There shouldn't be any reason for the articles to be protected unless during a spate of vandalism or edit warring. This doesn't prevent him from making repeated requests, but if he continues to make requests, he's POINTing or just being disruptive, in either case take it to WP:ANI or use your admin judgment, but there's no reasonable expectation that these should ever need protection during the injunction, barring some new unrelated conflict. Dmcdevit·t 03:58, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The last time I have requested page protection is over two weeks ago or more so not sure what is "hitting the Rfp page hard the last few days". Many things in Wiki are in the eye of the beholder. I was not making any point or being disruptive, so please : always assume good faith. Zeq 17:41, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Zeq[edit]

Before you close. I urge the ArbCom to engae in discussion with the parties. Something you did not do so far.

You have paid no attention nither to facts nor to motions. You were acrried away after Fred suggestions and for example "punished" Heptor on Palestinian Exoduse" Where he was not active and not even supportive of the tactic I took there.

My tactic there was to remove unrelevant material and one that is clear progeganda after all attempts (well documented in talk) for dispute resolution have failed. Going After Fred suggestion (although he decale his anti israel bias before the case started) shows that you have not made a minimal effort to familiar yourself with the facts: Heptor was not involved in Palestinian exodus but I will not continue to confuse you with facts.

I want to give you anther chance due to embarsmment this case may cause Wikipedia should you decide to go ahead in the direction you went so far. My suggestion: Set it aside and let's talk. Zeq 15:32, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't pass "Removal of well-sourced relevant material"[edit]

Please don't pass Removal of well-sourced relevant material 3) It is unacceptable to remove relevant material from an article if its source is a scholarly work by an authority in the field. in its current state! It looks good, but is flawed, because it would badly damage the NPOV principle that material in an article should present a *balanced* view of a subject; we frequently get people adding material that is indeed well sourced, on topic, but totally unbalanced. William M. Connolley 17:49, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The solution is to find well sourced material which can be added for the opposing position. This is particularly easy to do in the Israeli-Palestinian area where there is a great deal of scholarly work. It is not necessary or desirable that an article be "balanced" at all times. NPOV requires a fair expression of all significant points of view. If one position is fairly expressed that is good, if two are fairly expressed that is better, if all significant points of view are expressed that is best practice and we have a featured article. Fred Bauder 17:55, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am gald that you have started to talk about the real issues. "NPOV requires a fair expression of all significant points of view" and that is EXCATLY what i have been trying to do on talk page of Nakba for several months with not making any progress.

The problem is that the people involved know that once this issue is before ArbCom, arbcom (lead by Fred) would ban the Pro-Israel editor. So the only insentive to compromise goes out the window.

So the question is:

"How to make the article NPOV ?" (i.e. to implement Wikipedia policy ?

One way is to ban users (but than you would have to ban both sides. It takes two to tango and You ignored the roles of Zero, palmiro and others from the Palestinian side in the edit war) In a fact your /proposed descision shows that only one siode was 'edit warring" - not much of a war... Like the sound of one hand cllaping.....

But there are altrnate ways. Ie.e decalring in adavnce that no one will be banned for terying to starive for NPOV and then sit down and seriously mediating the dispute. I am still willing to do that. Even long after you ban me, these articles will require "adult suprevision" so why not start now. ? Zeq 18:18, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is a general comment; it has nothing to do with the Palestinian articles, which I haven't been following. What strikes me is that articles may contain well-sourced and relevant material that's duplicative of other material, making the same point better. It seems to me that removal of such text must be allowed for the sake of readability. --Trovatore 18:23, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Trovatore understand the issue. The section about transfer belong in the article Population_transfer#Middle_East OR if it remain in Nakba it must be balanced with other POV (as possible cause for the Nakba. I am glad, the visiablity of this ArbCom case is drawing more people to the disucssion (that shoud have taken place on Nakab/talk long ago). Zeq 18:34, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Let me re-emphasize that I am not familiar with the issues in the current dispute, and my remarks should not be interpreted as support of either side. --Trovatore 18:36, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. It is your general comment that the ArbCom should look at at. In fact they should review and make considerations before voting not as the case closes. It is clear from the few comments we have on this discussion page that they should reopen the case and examine how to make the articles NPOV. (if at the end they decide the only way to make the articles NPOV is to ban me i will go on my own...:-) so far they seem to forgot what Wikipedia is all about. It is for writing an encyclopedia in a coperative way to come up with NPOV articles. Zeq 18:40, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fred, I'm not talking about I-P issues, none of this is in support of Zeq; I'm thinking mostly of climate change and Reddi type issues. The solution is to find well sourced material which can be added for the opposing position. isn't good enough - there are situations (within cl ch, for example) where "the opposing position" is already there, and nicely referenced; the problem is to ensure that the discussion is *balanced* - this decision would make it very hard to take out unbalanced material. A re-word to:

relevant material with a proper scholarly source by an authority in the field is particularly valuable to wiki, and should only be removed under special circumstances, such as if it is unbalancing the article

would do for me. Just don't put the absolute "unacceptable" in there. William M. Connolley 19:02, 12 February 2006 (UTC).[reply]

This decision does not apply to the articles you cite. We do not follow precedent nor do we create it. We apply Wikipedia policy to particular situations. As we are not looking, and are not going to look at climate change, as a part of this decision, application of this principle to that article is not a part of that decision. It may or may not should particular edits to that article be considered. The principle involved is Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, not Wikipedia:Balance. See Zeq's stuff below for an example of the argument which makes the principle appropriate here. Fred Bauder 22:14, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, OK, that sounds a lot better. With so explicit a disclaimer available to cite at need, I'm happy William M. Connolley 22:20, 12 February 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Zeq's stuff[edit]

"special circumstances" should be well defined. Clearly I removed material that IMHO required to be treasted as "special circumstances"

1. The article was POV all attempts to add NPOV data was deleted by the "owners" of the article.

2. Including only quotes which support one-side POV created the impression that Wikipedia endorse that POV

3. The quotes themself where cherypicked from a book, the author of the book specuifically said that the quote do not proove" what the wikipedia article was trying to proove using these quotes.

4. The whole subject covered by these quotes belong in a different wikippedai article

5. Other parts removed (namly the Hanan Ashrwii quote) which is pure propeganda and has no encyclopedia value (but is still in the article cause it is "well sourced" :

" the Palestinians as a people were slated for national obliteration, cast outside the course of history, their identity denied, and their very human cultural and historical reality suppressed. We became victims of the myth of a land without a people for people without a land whereby the West sought to assuage its guilt over its horrendous anti-Semitism by the total victimization of a whole nation. "

Zeq 19:19, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PS the Ashrwaii quote is using "well sourced" data. However in the decision on 1948 ArbCom decide to ban such sources. I have no doubt that hundrds of Wikipedia articles who rely on Pro-palestnian web sites will now have to be reedited. The actuall quote that the ArbCom decided to delete from the 1948 war apear in an academic book but I will leave this issue to Heptor to argue. I was not involved there.

I am not sure which quote you refer to so I don't think we made any decision to ban "such sources". We have not banned any source as such, but have stated a position that a propagandistic source is not acceptable. A pro-Palestinian website is not by definition either propagandistic or unscholarly, nor is a Zionist website. I think the test is whether they cite scholarly sources, which is possible for both positions. Fred Bauder 00:18, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zeq's answer and motion[edit]

Fred said "I am not sure which quote you refer to" so I suggest you familirieze yourself with the material Zero added (and I removed) this is the same material that zero added again (and I removed....) - you see Fred it takes Two parties to have a edit war (but ArbCom only "punished" the Pro-Israel side......These are the editors who support the country, which is a member of the UN but you think should't exist)- but let's move on.

The ArbCom decision to use only schlary sources is way beyond what current policy state.

This leads to 3 outcomes:

1.Many sources useed all over these articles as well as many other Palestine related articles will have to be removed. For example all the material describing palestinian suffesring in articles such as the wall israel is building in the west bank will have to be removed because it is not coming from the only type of sources you now decalre as valid.

2. You are "punishing" me and Heptor on violating a policy that did not exist when we "violated" it. If you look at the policy as it was before you made this sweeping change to it - we did not violate it.

3. Equality: Zero and others used the same type of sources (and actually Heptor has provided a scholarly source the quote Zero and Ian removed.

Fred, do yourself and the ArbCom a favor: Accept my motion to mediate the content of the articles. I have stated that will not take an active part in the actual editing of these articles (for month or forever) as long as a mediator (or grop of mediator) will work together with the parties to make the articles NPOV (according to Wikipedia own policies) .

So in a fact, you don't need to ban me or you can ban me, that is not the issue. The issue is to fix the articles. Zeq 05:25, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed decision on Heptor[edit]

I am highly concerned about the proposed remedies regarding Heptor, which I find hard to justify based the available evidence. It is proposed that "Heptor is banned indefinitely from Palestinian exodus, and is placed on Wikipedia:Probation." However, Heptor made a total of 5 edits to Palestinian exodus:

[1] addition of 1 sentence on the status of Palestinian refugees,
[2] addition of a paragraph on the Jewish exodus from Arab lands,
[3] change of POV tag to POV-because tag,
[4] paraphrase of a paragraph,
[5] minor addition of information on a historian.

Never in the course of the edits did Heptor remove any information from the article, whether sourced or unsourced. I find it hard to believe that a user can be banned from an article for just 5 (!) edits done in good faith, most of them insignificant and none of which is a revert. Pecher ^Talk 15:02, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. It seems that some sort of error is taking place here. Palmiro | Talk 14:49, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As written somewhere else already. I agree. User:ChrisC 21:02, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I accidently switched articles when I was writing the proposal up. Fred Bauder 21:51, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed decision on Zeq[edit]

The proposed decision reads:

Zeq is banned indefinitely from 1948 Arab-Israeli War and Palestinian exodus, and is placed on Wikipedia:Probation. He may be banned by any administrator for good cause from any article which he disrupts by tendentious editing. All bans and the reasons for them to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Zeq#Log of blocks and bans.

Zeq's edits on Israeli Arab show a problem which does not readily resume itself to tendentious editing: his edits reduce the coherence of the article, both by their poor use of language and the confused layout he introduces. The fact that he makes many successive edits and repeatedly reverts aggravates the problem and drives other editors off these articles. Can the decision, whatever it may be, provide for dealing with this problem as well as the question of tendentiousness? Palmiro | Talk 18:22, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I did not look at this particular article, but it can be dealt with under the under the probation he is being put under. While I did not focus on it, Zeq has trouble with spelling and syntax and in my opinion, with logic. He is just not that good at English and at times seems irrational. That is a different problem than tendentiousness but disruptive nevertheless. Fred Bauder 21:56, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Heptor's deletion of material[edit]

As I explained here, I did not notice that Ian Pitchford added material I deleted. There was no mention of this material on the talk page, only a single word, "expand", in the edit summary of this edit. After I reviewed the material he added, I think it is perfectly proper information to be included in the article. However, I do think material he deleted is sourced just as well as what he added. -- Heptor _talk 22:24, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PS: As to the text Ian Pitchford deleted, I hope this finding of fact currently in the workshop will be looked at. -- Heptor _talk 22:57, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PPS: Really, I removed this information by mistake!!!! It was two edits. And I don't even disagree with the information Ian added! Look at my last 5 edits: [6][7][8][9][10]. I was adding information, not removing it. Look, this is just ridiculous! -- Heptor _talk 11:14, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Heptor, you are fighting facts against a biased group of people who don't even know they are biased. They never bother to look at all facts, understand the real issues or read the discussions in talk. They "cherrypick" an edit and build a case around it while ignoring similar edits from the other side. Sean, who had more intimate knowledge on the dispute suggested to ban Ian and me. He surly understood what went on more the the 8 people who call them self "ArbCom" and think that if 200 people voted for them they can do what ever they want. But it is not they who should be blamed: Mr. Wales, own this site and this bias will land on his door step at some point. Zeq 11:42, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Could I possibly get an answer here? At least a confirmation that somebody besides Zeq actually reads this? -- Heptor _talk 01:30, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, why should we ban a user indefinitely from a certain article for just two questionable edits? We don't do that even to simple vandals. I surmise that if those edits had been done by a vandal, s/he would have been warned, then warned again, and only subsequently blocked for some time. I see no reason why a good-faith editor must be treated more harshly than a vandal. Heptor made a number of positive contributions to many articles and an indefinite ban does not look justified. Pecher ^Talk 17:29, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So Heptor, you claim you just made an inadvertent mistake. Fred Bauder 19:46, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Any punishment must be commensurate with the offense. Pecher ^Talk 22:08, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do; on those to edits I didn't notice that Ian Pitchford added information to the article, and I do not have any objections against the material he added. The edit summaries became rather misleading and uncivilious (especially user:Zero0000 excelled with summaries like "take out some of the trash"[11]), so it was hard to know what was really done without reading the text. -- Heptor _talk 00:54, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]