Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive13

Martinphi

The following discussion is an archived report. Please do not modify it. Subsequent reports should be made in a new section.

I'm willing to accept Martinphi's explanation that he didn't intend his comment mean what several editors thought it meant. Thatcher 00:43, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

---

Subject to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Martinphi-ScienceApologist, Martinphi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is not to be disruptive. I find this statement of non-cooperation to be needlessly personal and highly disruptive in our attempts to move beyond page protection: [17]. I removed it [18]. It is my opinion that this user is continuing disruption for the sake of disruption. The current tendentious arbitration request he has made might also be of interest. ScienceApologist (talk) 00:25, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

That was meant to move the debate forward. Please, everyone, read it. It was not a put-down, but a real suggestion which gave people a chance to move forward. Further, it was an assumption of good faith on my part. It says nothing uncivil, though it does say that SA is not a neutral editor, which is simply a statement that he is on one side of the debate- I, also, am not a neutral editor in that sense. In other words, it comments on contributions, not contributors. Reporting here is harassment (also see [19][20]). If you read what I wrote assuming that I really meant SA or other editors to do the things suggested (mediation, writing a new lead while taking into consideration the talk page), you will see what I mean. As far as rudeness, I am talking about the many, many edits like this. Also see [21] .

The Arbitration request is a good-faith attempt to bring the situation to the Arbitrators, and was rejected not because it was invalid, but mainly because it was not specific enough. That was a mistake, but the arbitration request is legit.

Anyway, talking about rudeness openly on the Bleep page was an attempt to move the stalled debate forward, and to try and get a useful process going. Both sides have been rude, as I make clear. The process would re-start if my suggestions were followed, and good faith extended. Meanwhile, if there is no AGF, or even a pretense of AGF, things continue as they are, and nothing will get done, just like I said. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 01:07, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Archived discussion

In what way is it an assumption of good faith to tell SA that he can write a new lead but he will have to promise to not revert any changes and furthermore give up his "right" to edit the article ever again? (I suggest he write such a lead, as a good-faith way to express to the community that he is willing to compromise, and that he will abide by consensus. Also, he will need to give up the option to revert any changes he doesn't like, and give up editing the article directly against or without consensus.) I see very little reason not to ban you from editing the article for 30 days under the terms of your editing restriction. If we going to start tossing blocks at SA for being uncivil when baited, I see no reason to allow you free rein to push his buttons. The ban will be enacted in 24 hours unless there is a consensus of uninvolved admins here that I have got it wrong. Thatcher 01:24, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

This sounds like a fine idea to me, but I would like to see Martinphi prohibited from making frivolous noticeboard complaints. A ban from posting on this board might be in order. --Akhilleus (talk) 01:30, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd rather not. We can ignore them or rapidly decline and archive reports that truly have no merit. It still seems early for an outright ban from the noticeboard. Thatcher 01:40, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I think this edit war declaration by SA today and this WQA by SA are pertinent here. Both sides of this overly long debate have taken to filing frivolous claims to solve their issues and need to stop and solve them themselves. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:45, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

See also this diff [22] where SA says he'll make it 10K words and laughs. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:54, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Good grief, are you seriously interpreting this as a threat to disrupt? I realize you aren't exactly fond of SA, but this is too much. Raymond Arritt (talk) 03:17, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Riiiiight. Because I'm such a villain that I always laugh like this: "Bwa-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha." I don't know what to make of this: it's almost absurd. Anthon01 was basically declaring on my talk page that only a single sentence of criticism should go in the lead of WTBDWK. I was merely pointing out how ludicrous this kind of proscribing is. Question: is there any edit that I've made in the last five years that placed 10K in the lead of any article? After you look through those 20,000 contributions maybe you can tell me whether or not I was being serious. ScienceApologist (talk) 03:21, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I do not appreciate this administrator mischaracterizing a good faith effort to provide an alternative version in talk space, and a report I filed because the user I was upset with told me to go through dispute resolution. What the fuck do you want me to do? Rlevse has all but stonewalled me and I am collecting his constant harranging comments about what I'm doing. I'm sick and tired of it. I would appreciate it if he just stayed out of this stuff because I don't trust him to be fair or neutral. The WQA was made to try to alert people that there was a problem. The comment from the article talk page being referred to is inviting people to edit a version of a lead that I am offering (my version in talk space: not the article's version). It's far from an edit war declaration, and I am so sick and tired of Rlevse misinterpretting my actions and poisoning wells wherever I go in trying to resolve the issues with the massive POV-wars happening at Wikipedia. ScienceApologist (talk) 02:45, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Thatcher, that was not what I meant. That is horrible, and if I said anything similar, SA and everyone has my sincerest apology. I just didn't mean that, but rather that the article shouldn't be edited without consensus, and the new lead should not be under the control of one editor, who would revert anything he doesn't like- not in order to punish SA, but because it just wouldn't work. It wouldn't work for him any more than me.

Anyway, I could defend myself here, but obviously someone has it in for me. I did my best to help out and suggest a way forward, and it is construed as pushing buttons.

God, why would you think I said he should never edit the article again???? What is this???

Again, I'd like a little neutrality here. Not to mention a little fairness and AGF. I won't attempt a detailed explanation, because reading what I wrote in the context of the actual article page and SA's actual suggestions on how to proceed will to a neutral observer show that I was attempting to help, and that only extreme lack of assumption of good faith can say otherwise.

Nothing in the Arbitration said I couldn't criticize anything SA did. I have that right, and it is not pushing buttons. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 01:48, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

For the record, the article in question is currently locked because while every other editor was participating in an RfC to discuss changes made to the lead, ScienceApologist edit warred to make sure his lead was installed instead, against the consensus of several editors who were participating in the RfC. Martinphi's suggestion may have been a bit extreme, but a 30 day ban for making it? This might be a bit much, especially since it was SA's actions that led to the page being locked. I'm not an admin, but I wanted to comment in case arbitrators weren't familiar with the background behind Martinphi's comment. If this belongs on someone's talk page rather than here, please feel free to move it. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 01:51, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I meant only that he shouln't make nonconsensus edits- like everyone else. I meant also that it wouldn't work to revert anything he didn't like in a proposed edition of the lead. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 01:56, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Thatcher, It was in context, and should read:

Also, he will need to give up the option to revert any changes to his proposed lead he doesn't like (otherwise the process won't work), and give up editing the article directly against or against consensus. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 02:00, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

• Martin, I did misread the comment somewhat but it is still patronizing and insulting. Presumably you have not agreed to give up your right to revert "nonconsensus" edits made by SA or any other editor of the article. Thatcher 02:17, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

New section

Let's start over. I misinterpreted Martinphi's comment, although I still don't like it. I need to think some more about a response. And SA's "declaration to edit war" clearly applies to a draft of the article lede he was writing in talk space. So give me a few minutes to collect my wits and see what is really going on here. Thatcher 03:40, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I got an email from a party which is friendly, saying that what I said sounded like a command. I do see that, and I did not mean it to. It would have been better not to address SA directly at all. I could have said the same things without speaking directly of him. It was truly my intent to try and bring both peace and progress (I'm not going to pretend I was very hopeful, but it didn't occur to me he would even report it because I didn't think I said anything bad). It certainly wan't my intent to taunt him or push any buttons. But, I can see retrospectively that it could be seen that way, and you and he have my apology.

Just because I want to say this: I have about a 3 hour limit on being angry. I can be very persistent on an issue, but I'm usually not angry after 1-3 hours, often even in life-changing situations. So, I tend to come and edit normally, and assume others are not angry either. The fact is that while my self-control is good, it isn't as good as it looks: if I'd been as angry as people generally must assume, there would be quite a few instances of my (intended) incivility around here. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 04:32, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Added later: I can see how in context of the general dispute it could be seen as my putting myself above the fray and saying how SA should do things if he wants to play. I just didn't mean it that way. I did mean it to be a true and fair analysis of exactly what needed to be done if progress is to be made. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 05:03, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

You may have been trying to propose a solution, but the way it was worded, it could be interpreted as a command. I'm not saying it was, just commenting that thats one possible intepretation. Anthon01 (talk) 05:09, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, understood and already apologized. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 05:48, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

---

"Presumably you have not agreed to give up your right to revert "nonconsensus" edits made by SA" Actually, Thatcher, I mainly have: I've been pretty much sticking to 1RR for a long time now, and doing even that almost never. SA has had the run of the articles, and certainly could out-revert me (and has in I believe every article I tried a revert on). ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 04:57, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Request for clarification

It is unclear whether the arbcom's injunction for Martinphi not to participate in "disruption" was intended to apply solely in article space, or whether it also includes activities such as frivolous use of process and baseless accusations against other users. Specifically, in the Arbitration request noted above Martinphi accused a group of editors of carrying on a campaign of "large and ongoing disruptions." No evidence was provided that the editors in question organized their purported disruptions, nor indeed that their "disruptions" were anything other than attempts to present perspectives with which Martinphi disagreed. Thus it would be useful for arbcom to clarify the scope of its remedy. Raymond Arritt (talk) 01:24, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I changed that to "create," rather than "organize," per your interpretation. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 04:44, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

"Any edit judged to be disruptive" and "banned from any page or set of pages" clearly applies to all pages on Wikipedia (also by convention in past cases). For example, evidence cited by the Arbs included edits to user talk and the Featured Article talk page. Do you wish to request enforcement for disruption by Martinphi somewhere? Or just asking for future reference? Thatcher 01:28, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Such phrasing by the Committee always means including talk, unless they exempt it. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:41, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Mostly for clarification. Historically Martinphi has tended to read arbcom decisions in a very narrow and formalistic sense, so I wanted to clarify the proper interpretation. Martinphi, do you acknowledge now being aware of this interpretation of the ruling's scope? Raymond Arritt (talk) 02:17, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I have no idea about unwritten tradition. But I don't know why the committee would bother to write it out so carefully if what they really meant was "ban/block him if you feel there is cause." It was obviously very specific and carefully written. I accepted it as written, and endeavored to conform to it. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 04:36, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

The words were: "Should they make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be disruptive, they may be banned from any affected page or set of pages." They went on:

"Should they violate this ban, they may be blocked for the duration specified in the enforcement ruling below." Emphasis added. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 04:39, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

So then, is it your interpretation is that the ruling does not apply to disruption outside of article space? By your reading you'd have to first be banned from a page outside of article space (say, WP:RFAR) and then you'd have to violate that ban before any blocks could be applied, correct? Just trying to make sure everyone is on the same page here. Raymond Arritt (talk) 04:57, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Martin is correct about the manner in which the restriction is to be enforced, if necessary. He may be banned from any page or set of pages he disrupts, and if he violates the ban by editing such pages (or evades it by editing while logged out or using sockpuppets) he can be blocked. Personally, I start with temporary bans and only escalate if problems persist, and blocks for violating any bans similarly start out brief and escalate only if necessary. Thatcher 05:41, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

If I understand what you're saying, does this mean arbcom didn't intend to restrict disruption in Wikipedia space (say, frivolous use of process)? Raymond Arritt (talk) 05:54, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Arritt, that isn't what I said: only that a total ban from WP is not in the Arbitration case, but only blocks after violation of specific-page bans. That is not how it was applied before when I was blocked, as I wasn't banned from a page nor did I violate a ban.

And Thatcher, here is the text of the blocking:

1) Should any user subject to an editing restriction in this case violate that restriction, they may be briefly blocked, up to a week [but only] in the event of repeated violations. After 5 blocks, the maximum block shall increase to one month.[23]

I was blocked once, and I still can't see how that block was within the specified process.

I also think that my edit at Bleep was not intended to be anything bad, and I fully intend to not directly engage SA in the future in the way I did there. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 05:59, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Again, I'm trying to clarify whether disruption in Wikipedia-space is relevant here. Your explanation above indicates that arbcom did not intend that any sanction could be applied for disruptive activities such as frivolous use of WP:RFAR, WP:RFC, and such. Correct? (All this is hypothetical of course; I'm sure you would never consider doing such things.) Raymond Arritt (talk) 06:04, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Raymond, the decision says "Any edits" and both Martin and I have used the formulation "any page" so I am confused at your apparent confusion. The restriction applies to all of Wikipedia, including article, talk, project, template, and any other space. (As a matter of personal preference, I would be extremely reluctant to ban anyone from the pages of the dispute resolution process itself, but it could be done under appropriate circumstances.) Thatcher 13:16, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

OK, let me state how a hypothetical sequence of events would work. Let's suppose Martinphi brings frivolous action in an RfC. He could then be banned from that RfC. If he continued to edit on that RfC, he could be blocked. If he did not continue editing that RfC, he could bring a frivolous arbcom case. He could then be banned from editing on that arbcom case. If he continued to edit on that arbcom case, he could be blocked. If he did not continue editing that arbcom case, he could bring a frivolous RfC (different from the first RfC). And so on, and on, and on, because it would be a different "page" each time. If there's something wrong with this interpretation, please point out what's wrong. Raymond Arritt (talk) 17:58, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

While that is true in a hypertechnical sense I doubt admins would tolerate that for long. JoshuaZ (talk) 20:48, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

That's precisely why I asked the question in this way. It addresses Martinphi's inclination to interpret Wikipedia policy in a "hypertechnical" sense. I have no doubt that if Martinphi engaged in the behavior I describe above, he'd object strenuously to any sanction. And he'd almost certainly be able to find an admin with a sympathetic ear who would overturn any block. (Again, all this is hypothetical of course.) Raymond Arritt (talk) 21:48, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Sure they will...because here we are... Shot info (talk) 21:37, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

• Who is being hypertechnical here? Topic or page bans are at the discretion of uninvolved admins. If an admin thought that Martin had sufficiently misused some of the noticeboards and project spaces to warrant a ban from all of them, the admin could do so. Page bans can be appealed to this page, ANI or Arbcom if the banned editor feels an error has been made. The problem of overturned blocks is not unique to Arbitration enforcement and can also be taken up with Arbcom. Thatcher 00:36, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Enforcement of Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Palestine-Israel_articles

The following discussion is an archived report. Please do not modify it. Subsequent reports should be made in a new section.

Thatcher's 30-day restriction concludes this notice. I, and I suspect he as well, am not inclined to turn this into a lengthy debate. El_C 01:59, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

---

ArbCom recently rendered a decision in this case, but the decision is not specific as regards either articles or editors. However, the basic decision was to apply additional and ongoing scrutiny to edits in this area. A working group on the problem was to be established. ArbCom stated that "Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process." So this issue is appropriate for arbitration enforcement.

The current issue is edit warring in Jewish lobby. Over the weekend, a rough consensus on article content had been reached. Then, in tag team editing, reverts were made by Armon (talk · contribs), Jayjg (talk · contribs), and I am Dr. Drakken (talk · contribs) (who may be a sockpuppet) to remove content that these users find unacceptable. These users have repeatedly acted to remove cited quotes which disagree with their position. (Most recently, they're removing a citation to an article by the editor of The Forward about the Jewish lobby. They've also removed quotes from The Economist in previous edits, but that was weeks ago. We're not talking about fringe sources here.) Latest diff: [26]

• So, given the ArbCom decision, it's now the job of arbitration enforcement to deal with the problem. I'd suggest a temporary ban on the above editors from the indicated article, just to quiet things down a bit. Once the ArbCom working group is up and running, we may have a better way to deal with this. Thanks. --John Nagle (talk) 04:20, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

The article has now been locked for 24 hours. So there's some time available to decide what to do next. --John Nagle (talk) 04:29, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Nagle, it is just as easy (and accurate) to describe the recent events as "Over the weekend, a group of editors decided to challenge the long-standing consensus on article content, and in tag team editing, reverts were made by Nagle (talk · contribs), Jgui (talk · contribs), and Carolmooredc (talk · contribs) to insert controversial content that these users favor, over the objections of numerous editors who have explained their objections carefully on the Talk page." In fact, you seem to be the one most actively reverting, and skating very close to violating wikipedia's 3RR rule (or rather, cleverly gaming the system) by making exactly 3 ([27], [28], [29], [30]) reverts in 24 hours. Are you advocating that only the editors who disagree with you be banned, or should ArbCom look very carefully at what you've been up to, in light of the arbitration case you have referenced? I am Dr. Drakken (talk) 04:37, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, as Dr. Drakken points out, there has been a strong consensus on the article that, per WP:NOR and WP:NEO, only sources discussing the term be used, rather than sources using the term. As per WP:NEO:

An editor's personal observations and research (e.g. finding blogs and books that use the term) are insufficient to support use of (or articles on) neologisms because this is analysis and synthesis of primary source material (which is explicitly prohibited by the original research policy).

I have carefully been replacing sources that use the term with reliable sources that describe the term, and accompanied my edits with copious Talk: discussion. User:G-Dett, who is normally on User:Nagle's "side", for example, supported these changes: [31] User:Georgewilliamherbert, an uninvolved admin who examined the situation came to the same conclusion, and had to warn User:Nagle and User:Carolmooredc about it:[32] [33] A number of other editors, including User:Armon, User:Humus Sapiens, User:IronDuke, User:Lobojo, User:Yahel Guhan and User:I am Dr. Drakken have disputed the insertion of Nagles's policy violating material. Despite this, User:Nagle, User:Carolmooredc, and now User:Jgui have continued to edit war on the article, in violation of policy. John Nagle, in particular, has reverted the article 16 times since January 7, often completely ignoring Talk discussion. Nagle's suggestion that those he has been edit-warring against be banned is interestingly one-sided, but fails to deal with the principle issue, Nagle's stubborn refusal to abide by policy. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:50, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Procedurally, now what? This is an unusual situation, because ArbCom passed the buck to "any uninvolved administrator" and a working group yet to be formed. -John Nagle (talk) 04:54, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, now that the article has been locked, you won't be able to engage in your edit-warring and 3RR gaming any more. Perhaps instead you will engage meaningfully on the Talk: page, for a change. It hasn't happened until now, but one can always hope. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:02, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm willing to take a 30-day break from all Jewish-Israel-Palestine related articles if Jayjg (talk · contribs), Armon (talk · contribs), and I am Dr. Drakken (talk · contribs) do, and any new users who edit in those articles are sockpuppet-checked against those users and myself. This was one of the suggestions from ArbCom in this arbitration. If not, arbitration or mediation would be fine with me. But we have to use a dispute resolution mechanism at this point. (From Jayjg's 2006 arbitration: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Israeli apartheid "Humus sapiens, ChrisO, Kim van der Linde, SlimVirgin, and Jayjg are reminded to use mediation and other dispute resolution procedures sooner when conflicts occur.") --John Nagle (talk) 05:16, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

The problem, however, appears to be only with your editing on the Jewish lobby page. Wouldn't it make more sense, for a change, for you to engage meaningfully in Talk: instead? You've already been admonished by an outside and uninvolved administrator to do so.[34] [35] I'm certainly willing to go to mediation too, as the next logical step in this process; I am quite confident that all my edits have been in accord with policy. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:25, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Jayjg (talk · contribs) has a long history of contentious editing and arbitrations. ( 2006 arbitration (User admonished, amnesty granted.) 2007 arbitration #1 (User left Wikipedia during arbitration. ArbCom: "As the Committee has been unable to determine which actions in this matter, if any, were undertaken in bad faith, and as the community appears to be satisfactorily dealing with the underlying content dispute, the case is dismissed with no further action being taken.") 2007 arbitration #2 (Misuse of "checkuser" privilege. ArbCom: "Jayjg is reminded to avoid generating drama by making public proclamations of misbehavior before attempting private discussion and resolution of the issue.") In fact, he's in a mediation on another article right now: Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/New antisemitism. (I added myself to that one, although I haven't actually edited that article in some time.) So I'm probably not the problem. But let's go to mediation. --John Nagle (talk) 05:53, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

This is counterfactual and self-evidently so. This is really pointless. The instigator here is pretending that the issue is with what the sources says, when, in fact, he knows the issue with his edits is that they are Original Research. He is continually inserting uses of the term, rather than descriptions of the term i order to shoehorn all sorts of tangential issues and personal POV into the article. Lobojo (talk) 22:46, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

---

From: User:Carolmooredc - I suggested mediation on Talk:Jewish_lobby yesterday and initially thought it was not best to come here to arbitration. But after reading the above, and because I believe this is one of the most important wikipedia articles on Israel/Palestine and related issues, I think at least WP:Mediation Cabal if not full blown arbitration needed:

• Wikipedia is the only dictionary or encyclopedia very explicitly defining the term besides the difficult to find Books.Google version of Dictionary of Politics, pg 243. I noticed a phrase encyclopedia asked for suggestions of phrases. When I suggested “Jewish Lobby” they wrote back and said they would not try to define it - I should look at Wikipedia’s definition!
• Why is there so much heat on this topic? Just for a commonsense reference point, do a google search and you will see that perhaps 1/3 of those who use Jewish Lobby obviously are antisemites; perhaps 1/3 who use it are mainstream Jewish or media sources. However, 1/3 are sources who are critical of Israel - or even people who thinking they are praising Jews!
• Never the less, despite the mainstream uses of the phrase, even mild critics of organized Jewish lobbying (usually on Israel) who use the phrase in an innocuous manner are lumped in with the antisemites and their careers and jobs threatened.
• As professors Stephen Walt and John Mearsheimer note on page 188 of The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy: “In fact, anyone who merely claims that there is an Israel Lobby runs the risk of being charged with anti-Semitism, even though AIPAC and the Conference of Presidents and the Israeli media themselves refer to America’s ‘Jewish Lobby’. In effect, the lobby first boasts of its own power and frequently attacks anyone who calls attention to it.”
• Therefore there is a vested (if sometimes unconscious) interest in keeping Wikipedia’s definition of "Jewish Lobby" limited only to the anti-Semitic meaning, and by any means necessary, including dubious claims of WP:NEO and WP:OR, in a very WP:POV fashion, possibly through tag team editing and sock puppets.

Just to respond to a couple points made earlier:

• Whether this article was WP:POV for excluding non-antisemitic uses of the term has been an ongoing Talk:Jewish_lobby issue for over two years, with a near even split between opinions (which maybe slanted by tag team editing and sock puppets).
• Here Editor User:Georgewilliamherbert suddenly appeared and initially opined that User:Nagle and I were “misinterpreting the policies.” However, after he admitted he was unsure on some points, and he could not answer other counter-points, he stopped replying and disappeared.
• On January 17th I got disgusted and said would not try to edit the article any more because of WP:POV behavior of editors. I had made few changes anyway because of it, just wrote a lot on talk.
• Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Palestine-Israel_articles appeared on January 19.
• User:G-Dett then appeared with an Outside comment and made an excellent critique of the problems with WP:NEO and WP:NPOV.
• User:Jgui then came in for first time and re-wrote the article in line with the suggestions above. The intro looked a lot more NPOV, though I didn’t study all the changes assuming it would quickly be reverted.
• Since then I have made only 4 edits to the article itself. 1. to remove POV statement (which was reverted); 2. to make another statement less POV (which was reverted); 3. to revert back to Jgui’s new changes (which was reverted); 4. to add to the first paragraph reliable source quote (“Dictionary of Politics” above) that G-Dett found that actually discusses neutral use of term, though I assume that will be nitpicked away at and reverted. The link already has been removed. Carol Moore 14:40, 22 January 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

---

• With respect, the question for this board is not one of content, but whether one, several, or all editors of this article are acting so disruptively that sanctions are needed. It would help for someone to list a few key diffs for each person against whom sanctions are requested. Thatcher 14:54, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Good point. It's really a content dispute, of course. There's a long history in this area, but the current content issues have been well-described above.

Looking at the recent sequence of significant edits:

• 03:54, 19 January 2008 Jgui (Talk | contribs) (14,530 bytes) (Edit to include G-Dett's excellent suggestions, and flesh out and distinguish the difference uses. Please see TALK) There'd been considerable discussion on Talk, and much disagreement. G-Dett had proposed some changes, and Jgui implemented them in this edit. The lead sentence changed from "The Jewish lobby is a term referring to allegations that Jews exercise undue influence in a number of areas, including politics, government, business, the media, academia, popular culture, public policy, international relations, and international finance. " to "Jewish lobby is a phrase sometimes used to refer loosely to the Israel lobby in the United States, primarily AIPAC, the AJC, and other Jewish-American lobbying organizations." This was a well thought out, but controversial, edit.
• 06:56, 19 January 2008 Yahel Guhan (Talk | contribs) (12,630 bytes) (rv. old version was much better). This was a straight revert, by someone who had not previously participated in the discussion.
• 07:03, 19 January 2008 Nagle (Talk | contribs) (14,530 bytes) (Undid revision 185376763 by Yahel Guhan (talk) Please discuss on talk page before reverting. Thanks.) This is me, reverting Guhan.
• 23:09, 19 January 2008 Yahel Guhan (Talk | contribs) (12,630 bytes) (Undid revision 185377759 by Nagle (talk)- this is excessively POV and removes much sourced content) Another revert by Guhan.
• 03:14, 20 January 2008 Jgui (Talk | contribs) (14,530 bytes) (Undid revision 185523456 by Yahel Guhan. Another editor has removed sourced content with inaccurate claims. PLEASE READ AND CONTRIBUTE TO TALK.) Jgui reverts Guhan.
• 01:06, 21 January 2008 Jayjg (Talk | contribs) (11,936 bytes) (per talk and WP:NOR, removing examples that simply *use* the term rather than *discuss* it, fixing narrow American-centric modifications, adding other sources that *discuss* the term) Next is a rather complex edit by Jayjg. It's not a revert. The lead paragraph is reasonably neutral, but sources that disagree with the "Jewish lobby term is anti-Semitic" position have been removed.
• 03:03, 21 January 2008 Nagle (Talk | contribs) (13,531 bytes) (Restore quote from editor of The Forward, specifically talking about the Jewish lobby) I restore quote from the editor of the Forward writing about the Jewish lobby, deleted by Jayjg, but otherwise leave the article alone.
• 03:09, 21 January 2008 Nagle (Talk | contribs) (13,569 bytes) (Wikilink lobbying groups) I fix a link. At this point, edits are small and consensus seems to be emerging. Jayjg has had his say, and my only exception to that is his deletion of the quotation from the Forward.
• 08:51, 21 January 2008 Jgui (Talk | contribs) (15,150 bytes) (Fix several problems with the previous version, and better organize the material, without deleting anything. Please SEE and CONTRIBUTE to TALK.) Jgui makes some substantial changes. The content is about the same, but the emphasis and ordering are different.
• 15:28, 21 January 2008 I am Dr. Drakken (Talk | contribs) (13,569 bytes) (re-organized back to the previous organiztion - see the LENGTHY discussion on Talk) Straight revert of Jgui's previous edit (but not my two previous edits.)
• 17:17, 21 January 2008 Nagle (Talk | contribs) (13,560 bytes) (Removed word "exercise", per humorous comments in talk. Lead sentence made no sense.) We have a humor break. G-Dett has pointed out in Talk that the lead sentence, which begins "Jewish lobby is a term used to indicate Jewish exercise influence" doesn't make sense; it sounds like this is about working out at the gym. So I delete the word "exercise" in a one word edit.
• 21:26, 21 January 2008 Jgui (Talk | contribs) (15,150 bytes) (rv to previous version which was deleted contrary to WP guidelines - this is discussed in detail in Talk - Please SEE and CONTRIBUTE to Talk.) Jgui reverts back to his own previous version. No new content.
• 23:36, 21 January 2008 Armon (Talk | contribs) (11,936 bytes) (rv to Jay. We have to abide by policy) Armon reverts all the way back to Jayjg's previous version. No new content.
• 00:49, 22 January 2008 Carolmooredc (Talk | contribs) (12,470 bytes) (added definition from The Dictionary of Politics: Selected American and Foreign Political and Legal Terms to relevant section) Two edits by Caroomooredc, adding a reference to a definition of "Jewish lobby" from a political dictionary. This is controversial, because Jayjg has previously stated on Talk that ""Jewish lobby" isn't a neologism? Great, please direct me to the standard dictionary entry where I can read about this term, then." Jayjg has insisted that "Jewish lobby" is a neologism (even though there are cites to it appearing in Time Magazine thirty years ago), and thus the exclusion standards of WP:NEO can be applied. If "Jewish lobby" isn't a neologism, then many of Jayjg's deletions are out of policy.
• 01:59, 22 January 2008 Nagle (Talk | contribs) (12,462 bytes) (Choppy editing returned that non-sentence that made someone think of Muscle Beach. Fix.) Another humor break; all this editing accidentally brought back the word "exercise", leading to a silly lead sentence. So I take that out again.
• 02:00, 22 January 2008 Nagle (Talk | contribs) (14,057 bytes) (Restore Goldberg quote that keeps getting deleted.) I put back the Goldberg quote from The Forward that was deleted in Armon's revert above.
• 02:38, 22 January 2008 Armon (Talk | contribs) (12,462 bytes) (rm Goldberg. Again, this is NOT about the term) Armon deletes the Goldberg quote from The Forward again.
• Four edits by Jayjg. The Goldberg quote is deleted again, there's some rewording and rearrangement, and one cite is added.
• 03:44, 22 January 2008 Nagle (Talk | contribs) (14,019 bytes) (Undo unauthorized deletions of cited material, but use Jayjg phrasing for Raymond quote.) I put back the Goldberg quote, change "allege" back to "indicate" in the lead, and accidentally delete a new cite added by Jayjg in his previous four edits. (I've apologized on talk for my sloppyness there; that cite should go in.)
• 03:46, 22 January 2008 Jayjg (Talk | contribs) (12,490 bytes) (remove WP:NOR, per talk - I believe this is about the 50th time this has been explained to you John.) Jayjg reverts back to his previous version, deleting the Goldberg quote.

At this point the article is protected by another admin, which is where we are now.

--John Nagle (talk) 17:00, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

With this background, the key issue becomes clear. There's strong objection by Armon (talk · contribs), Jayjg (talk · contribs), Yahel Guhan (talk · contribs), and I am Dr. Drakken (talk · contribs) to the inclusion of citations which demonstrate the use of the term "Jewish lobby" in more or less neutral contexts. Months ago, we had a similar dispute over an article in The Economist which wrote about the Jewish lobby (see "Quotes from the Economist" in Talk:Jewish lobby), and a few weeks back there was a similar dispute over a quote from the head lobbyist for AIPAC about the Jewish lobby. --John Nagle (talk) 17:23, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Note that all the substantive edits from the above-listed editors came from Jayjg (talk · contribs); the others just reverted, and didn't write much. This may or may not be a sockpuppet/meatpuppet situation. I can't tell. I am Dr. Drakken (talk · contribs) has some sockpuppet characteristics. I requested a checkuser Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/I am Dr. Drakken and the response was "Unrelated. However, this person has been using open proxies. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:47, 22 January 2008 (UTC)" So we have an ambiguous result there. What's current policy on editing via open proxies? --John Nagle (talk) 17:23, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Note that it is known that Jayjg collaborates with other editors off-wiki which could be interpreted as 'gaming the system'. Catchpole (talk) 17:50, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

• The article Jewish lobby is placed on 1 revert per day per editor limitation by CMoreschi, and I concur. Exceeding one revert per day will result in blocks. I will try and determine whether additional sanctions are needed against individual editors. Thatcher 22:39, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

• John Nagle, you need to write more concisely. This is unreasonable. El_C 22:50, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

• Thatcher asked you for "a few key diffs". Tens is not a few. El_C 01:28, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Result

Result I am well aware that nearly everyone will have an opinion that I have either sanctioned the wrong people, or not sanctioned enough of the right people. The editors in this area are going to have to get used to imperfect justice. The best way to not be sanctioned is not to get pulled in front of Arbcom; it is too late for that, and admins reviewing these complaints will make good faith efforts, but we (or at least I) have neither the patience of Job nor the wisdom of Solomon, so we will do the best we can. With that said, in addition to the 1RR per day limit at Jewish lobby imposed by Moreschi, the following restrictions are imposed:

• Nagle (talk · contribs)
• Armon (talk · contribs)
• Yahel Guhan (talk · contribs)
• Jgui (talk · contribs)
  • Limited to one revert per week per page on all pages related to the conflict area, excepting obvious vandalism, subject to a 24 hour block per violation. Reverts must be discussed on the talk page. Mischaracterization of content disputes as "vandalism" will double the block. This restriction expires in 30 days (22 February 2008, 00:00 UTC) unless extended. Thatcher 01:53, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Eupator

I am Dr. Drakken

Andranikpasha

Sarah777

Highways 2

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Highways 2: Does this violate the temporary injunction? --Rschen7754 (T C) 02:40, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

It just looks to me like the editor created subpages for the project for things like participants. I don't see how this is a change in scope or approach; please explain further if you think so. Dmcdevit·t 03:38, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

No, the page move - is that a scope change? --Rschen7754 (T C) 03:57, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Here is the page move. In the first Highways case, the issue was a dispute over preferred terminology between "Roads" and "Highways." Is that also an issue in the current case? If so, then the move should be reverted. If you can point to a section of the evidence page or parties' statements showing that terminology is once again part of the dispute, that would help. If no other admin picks up on this, I will come back to it tonight. Thatcher 13:15, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeesh that's a lot of moves. The moves definitely expands the scope of the Pennsylvania Wikiproject, (as does this series of edits, as "roads" is a larger set that includes "State highways" as a subset. If you want to get technical about the language, the injunction prohibits change the scope of USRD or of adding disputed cases to USRD or its subprojects, but does not prohibit changing the scope of the subprojects. This seems nonsensical to me. If there is a dispute about whether a certain stretch of pavement should be included in a "Highways" project, surely renaming the project to "Roads" completely changing the playing field of the dispute. On the other hand, no one else has edited the PASH in almost 3 months, so there is hardly an active dispute about the scope of the PA project. Does this intersect in some way with USRD so that the moves have a more significant impact than it appears? Thatcher 04:21, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Including articles in a subproject also includes them into USRD's assessment categories, as articles are tagged for a subproject by using the USRD template with a state parameter. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 02:54, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Right, but this wasn't adding or removing roads, it was changing the name of the PA subproject from "Highways" to "Roads". I'm unclear on what should be done but there have been no strong objections noted here, and since the project was dead for months any objections will likely come from non-PA editors who have not been working on PA highways/roads articles. So I think I'll let this one slide with the option to reopen later if needed. Thatcher 02:01, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Highways 2 - again

Space Cadet

See all under "Another Eastern European flamer". The answer of the user for the notice was a accusation of racism or nazism against the admin. [56].--80.190.200.171 (talk) 18:19, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

people often lash out when informed of blocks or other restrictions, and admins are expected to have thicker skins. I would be much more concerned about his behavior on articles and talk pages. Thatcher 04:06, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Another Eastern European flamer

Pallywood

HanzoHattori

User:Jaakobou

I am filing this request as per the decisions made in the arbitration case Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles.

User:Jaakobou, who's editing behaviour was the initial cause for the RfArb, is back at his usual edit-warring, tendentious editing, POV-pushing and point-pushing.

I must admit, I am currently an involved party in two disputes with him, namely

• Talk:Israeli-Palestinian conflict#Disputed vs. Occupied, yet again..., where after two RfCs (here and here) it was agreed that we would use the term "occupied territories" when referring to the West Bank and Gaza Strip in the context of them being occupied, User:Jaakobou ignored the consent and re-inserted the "disputed territories" [62]. During the ensuing discussion he then unilaterally changed the text to use neither of the terms. This is a clear case of disruption because he didn't like the term used.
• Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-01-21 Gilad Shalit, which is still ongoing.

But this is just disclosure.

What this request is about are a series of edits to relatively quiet, low-traffic articles

• Doghmush: removal of the word Palestine, claiming that it was not the name used at that time, whereas the article on Palestine itself states otherwise.
• Haim Farhi: removal of any mention of Palestine, replaced with Israel or Land of Israel, which makes little sense since the context is pre-1948, thus pre-Israeli.
• Mar Saba: replaced Palestine with Israel when the location, following the coordinates in the top-right corner of the page, is smack in the middle of the West Bank.

All three edits involve articles in which User:Jaakobou had not been involved in during the past 6 months or so and they all involve only the removal of the word Palestine, even when clearly not warranted.

All three edits also represent a clear pattern of singling-out articles containing words or phrases that User:Jaakobou doesn't like. This is WP:TE, WP:DE and WP:POINT in their purest form.

After the first two, I contacted User:Jaakobou's mentor, User:Durova (here) who discussed this with User:Jaakobou, yet to no avail, since the third edit came shortly thereafter.

Despite previous bans, the whole arbitration and mentorship, User:Jaakobou has shown little or no insight and they have had no effect on his behaviour, I would suggest a long, healthy topic ban.

Cheers and kind regards, pedro gonnet - talk - 01.02.2008 09:25

Its a basic content misunderstanding. Pedro has not made discussion attempts to understand why I believe one thing and he believes another. Doghmush family used a Turkish source using the word Gaza and not using the word Palestine (I verified this by contacting a Turkish speaking wiki editor). Palestine is a term not used to refer to Gaza by the Ottomans at the early 1800s - the used term was 'Damascus Wilayah' and Jerusalem Sanjak'.

I am more than puzzled at the (unreferenced) edit warring accusation since Pedro made an edit on Gilad shalit which was not agreed upon in the mediation [63] but I have not reverted him and continued discussions.

Also, me and Pedro are currently discussing issues on a Gilad Shalit mediation, and Pedro's assertions have been less than accurate there and here also. He has a clear mis-perception of rules (Sample: asking a page be reverted to his version and protected [64]) and is attempting to silence others rather than discuss.

If anything, Pedro has been in violation of the Decorum principals with some of his comments and actions. Most notably the "assumptions of bad faith" and "incivility".

p.s. Pedro, if you believe I've made an error, please explain your position on the article's talk page using relevant sources, not the AE noticeboard. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 19:59, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I've reviewed the three edits cited by Pedro and I don't believe this merits a topic ban. In response to this discussion, I've looked into the issue of the Ottoman terminology for Palestine and it isn't a simple matter to determine what territories were regarded as part of Palestine at that time (see my edit here). I think some confusion can be excused here. On the second issue, this edit is certainly sloppy work by Jaakobou - it's plainly anachronistic to refer to Napoleon trying to conquer "the land of Israel" - but by itself it doesn't merit a block or topic ban. On the third issue, this edit is plainly wrong; as this map shows (see top right), the location is well outside even the territory that Israel claims. Assuming good faith, this error shows that Jaakobou needs to take more care with sourcing - if you're going to put something in an article, you need to be sure that it's right, so the lesson is always check your facts first. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:42, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I admit to my error on the Mar Saba article; Not knowing its accurate location, assuming that "Palestine" is not an actual recognized country and replacing it with Israel, who if I'm not mistaken is internationally responsible for the area. Considering the now known location, I think the edit made by ChrisO [65] is well and neutral. Hoping this is a sign that we're leaving our old disputes in the past.

p.s. I've started discussions for the Haim Farhi article, and you're invited to participate. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 23:28, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

p.p.s. we can all be wrong at times. Chris, I've added a reference and reinserted [66] your removal of the Kidron Valley [67] from the Mar Saba article. I promise that you won't see your error on the WP:AE noticeboard with any tendentious editing charges. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 23:46, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Glad to hear it. :-) I'm still confused though, could you address my query on Talk:Mar Saba? (And since further discussion on that topic isn't germane to this page, I'd suggest that this thread be closed.) -- ChrisO (talk) 00:24, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Second Intifada

There seems to be an edit war going on here, in violation of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles, where it seems users are edit warring. It seems tag-team reverting may be being used in this case. Yahel Guhan 05:41, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Some diffs please? Thatcher 13:07, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

my bad. The following users are tag team- edit warring largly seems to be against User:Michael Safyan.

User:Bless sins: [68] [69] [70]

User:Tiamut: [71]

User:Al Ameer son: [72]

User:Michael Safyan: [73][74][75] Yahel Guhan 01:03, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

• With the exception of a logged out editor using a public terminal to avoid scrutiny (possibly), the article seems to have calmed down for now. Please report if it flares up again. Thatcher 12:47, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Could someone explain how this could be construed as tag-team edit warring? I made exactly one revert, which I discussed extensively before making and afterward. Additionally, Michael Safyan, Bless Sins and Al Ameer Son were all engaged in discussion over the issues as well. How is this tag-team edit-warring rather than colloborative editing exactly? I need to understand what it is that is wrong about the behaviour of editors here (specifically) so as to avoid repeating similar mistakes (if any) in the future. Thanks. Tiamut^talk 18:51, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Gilabrand

Could an uninvolved admin please notify this user of the potential sanctions specified by Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles? He/she appears to be reverting in the POV that areas in East Jerusalem are parts of Israel, a POV adopted by (part of) Israel's government but essentially nobody else. I noticed this on Tomb of Samuel but it also seems to be happening at Gilo. No drastic action needed, I just want to be sure he's aware of the special sensitivity which applies to Isr-Pal articles since that decision. <eleland/talkedits> 18:53, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

HanzoHattori, again