![]() | The Workshop phase for this case is closed.
Any further edits made to this page may be reverted by an arbitrator or arbitration clerk without discussion. If you need to edit or modify this page, please go
here and create an
edit request. |
Case clerk: L235 ( Talk) Drafting arbitrators: Guerillero ( Talk) & Seraphimblade ( Talk) & Doug Weller ( Talk)
Wikipedia Arbitration |
---|
![]() |
|
Track related changes |
Purpose of the workshop: The case Workshop exists so that parties to the case, other interested members of the community, and members of the Arbitration Committee can post possible components of the final decision for review and comment by others. Components proposed here may be general principles of site policy and procedure, findings of fact about the dispute, remedies to resolve the dispute, and arrangements for remedy enforcement. These are the four types of proposals that can be included in committee final decisions. There are also sections for analysis of /Evidence, and for general discussion of the case. Any user may edit this workshop page; please sign all posts and proposals. Arbitrators will place components they wish to propose be adopted into the final decision on the /Proposed decision page. Only Arbitrators and clerks may edit that page, for voting, clarification as well as implementation purposes.
Behaviour on this page: Arbitration case pages exist to assist the Arbitration Committee in arriving at fair, well-informed decisions. You are required to act with appropriate decorum during this case. While grievances must often be aired during a case, you are expected to air them without being rude or hostile, and to respond calmly to allegations against you. Accusations of misbehaviour posted in this case must be proven with clear evidence (and otherwise not made at all). Editors who conduct themselves inappropriately during a case may be sanctioned by an arbitrator or clerk, without further warning, by being banned from further participation in the case, or being blocked altogether. Behavior during a case may be considered by the committee in arriving at a final decision.
1)
2)
3)
1)
2)
3)
4)
I am reading evidence as it comes it and trying to make it more of a discussion of what is going on than a one way evidence dump that the arbs read and act on. While questions are directed to a particular editor anyone can answer them. Note, please do not use this as a place to argue, debate or rehash conflicts. If you disagree with someone's response, post your answer. -- Guerillero | Parlez Moi 02:50, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
@ StevenJ81: In your personal opinion, is there an overarching theme to these Not Here accounts? Are they brand new editors, long term civil POV pushes, admins, zombie accounts? -- Guerillero | Parlez Moi 02:44, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
@ Kingsindian: Would something like GamerGate's 500 edit rule help the situation any? Would this just drive socks more underground? -- Guerillero | Parlez Moi 02:44, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
What about letting admin force a discussion on the talk page of an article if it is plagued by drive by removals?-- Guerillero | Parlez Moi 02:44, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
As I stated Please do not use this as a place to argue, debate or rehash conflicts. This does nothing to resolve the ongoing issues. ArbCom can not and will not make a ruling on content. -- Guerillero | Parlez Moi 18:25, 21 September 2015 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
1) {text of Proposed principle}
2) {text of Proposed principle}
1) Brad Dyer ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been indefinitely blocked as a likely sockpuppet of NoCal100 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). The majority of recent edits by the Brad Dyer account, and a substantial proportion overall, are to articles relating to Israel, Palestine or both. These edits are from a pro-Israeli POV (e.g. [1], [2], [3])
1.1) Brad Dyer engaged in tendentious editing and behaviour which could legitimately be interpreted as trolling, for example characterising this reversion [4] as removing a "copyright violation" and template warning Malik Shabazz, who Brad Dyer will have known is a long-standing Wikipedian, with a newbie copyright warning: [5].
2) {text of proposed finding of fact}
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.
1) {text of proposed remedy}
2) {text of proposed remedy}
1) {text of proposed enforcement}
2) {text of proposed enforcement}
1) As one of Wikipedia's three core content policies, WP:NPOV commands that all narratives will be present in Palestine-Israel articles subject to proper WP:WEIGHT, WP:IMPARTIAL tone and proper handling of WP:BIASED sources.
2) Wikipedia and editors are not judges and their sole purpose is to allow readers to get all information that fulfill WP policy standards such as WP:Verifiability, WP:NOR and WP:Weight. Discarding material based on editors judgement violates WP:NPoV.
3) A clear warning should be given to all involved users about dismissing academic or otherwise reliable sources based on race, ethnicity, nationality, language, ideology etc. Doing this amounts to soapboxing and it directly harms the ability to come to a consensus.
There is a difference between a content dispute, and the willful violation of content policy. ArbCom can determine that a violation of content policy is disruptive, and hence not related to the content itself, but to the behavior of the editor(s) introducing the content.
Editors should not apply core content policy selectively, or provide contradictory arguments. Honesty is expected. Evidence to the contrary is not a a content issue, but a behavioral issue.
1) The rule might prevent the simple undo-undo-undo war but it limits the ability to make partial improvements which requires several edits (if sufficient edit summaries are expected). It also limits cooperation in order to reach consensus on the text since suggestion can be done in +24 intervals. It is used as a cheap tool to take editors to AE even when edit were made as part of an ongoing discussion.
2) This have been discussed dozens of times and editors keep on fighting for it. I see this as a perfect opportunity to have supervised conversation. It might require its own arbitration process in which RS can be discussed as a whole.
Support - It is a large media group with its weekend paper surpassing even Haaretz. It has undeniably bias and some of the language used can be described as propaganda but you can say the same for 99% of the news sources used in PIA. According to William Saletan, "For news, it’s totally on the ball". Editors cling to historical facts and own bias while they use all kind of activists blogs, NGOs websites etc'
3) Some editors WP:CPUSH others over all kind of reasons but when they edit themselves, they don't hold themselves to the same standards. Not even close!
4) I don't talk about some minor mistakes or confusion when summarizing books or changing the text for copyright reason. I mean full on falsification usually done for POVPUSH (why else??).
5) UNDUE is used when it is a clear case of WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT.
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.
1) I'm not sure what is the right forum to hold such discussion but I think the question of what is or isn't RS isn't handled properly right now. RSN seem to become just another channel for the same editors to repeat the same old arguments some have been repeating for over a decade. RS should be looked at in a monitored space and certain guidelines should be drawn.
2) Biased sources on all sides use biased language. An editor should choose the most neutral voiced source or just 'tone it down'.
2) The usage of labels, especially in opinion pieces, harms the encyclopedia's neutrality and should be used with extreme caution or avoided all together.
1) Repeating violation of NPov (or POVPUSH) should be punishable.
(This will require more involvement from uninvolved admins but at this stage it is necessary).
2) {text of proposed enforcement}
1) {text of Proposed principle}
2) {text of Proposed principle}
1) ARBPIA topics remain an extremely challenging and disruptive topic area.
2) {text of proposed finding of fact}
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.
1) Administrators are encouraged to full-protect ARBPIA articles in the face of disruptive activity, under existing discretionary sanctions. Disruption via talk page fights and edit requests is inherently more manageable and less difficult for uninvolved administrators to manage.
2) {text of proposed remedy}
1) {text of proposed enforcement}
2) {text of proposed enforcement}
1) The Committee retains jurisdiction over prior cases, in this instance, the Palestine-Israel articles case.
2) The purpose of Wikipedia is to create a high-quality, free-content encyclopedia in an atmosphere of camaraderie and mutual respect among contributors. Use of the site for other purposes, such as advocacy or propaganda or furtherance of outside conflicts is prohibited. Contributors whose actions are detrimental to that goal may be asked to refrain from them, even when these actions are undertaken in good faith.
3) It is not the role of the Arbitration Committee to settle good-faith content disputes among editors.
4) All Wikipedia articles must be written from a neutral point of view. Merely presenting a plurality of viewpoints, especially from polarized sources, does not fulfill the neutral point of view. Articles should always verifiably use the best and most reputable sources, with prevalence in reliable sources determining proper weight. Relying on synthesized claims, or other "original research", is therefore contrary to the neutral point of view. The neutral point of view is the guiding editorial principle of Wikipedia, and is not optional.
5) Single purpose accounts are expected to contribute neutrally instead of following their own agenda and, in particular, should take care to avoid creating the impression that their focus on one topic is non-neutral, which could strongly suggest that their editing is incompatible with the goals of this project.
6) The general rule is one editor, one account, though there are several legitimate uses of an alternate account. The creation or use of an additional account to conceal an editing history, to evade a block or a site ban, or to deceive the community, is prohibited. Sockpuppet accounts that are not publicly disclosed are not to be used in discussions internal to the project.
7) In cases where all reasonable attempts to control the spread of disruption arising from long-term disputes have failed, the Committee may be forced to adopt seemingly draconian measures as a last resort for preventing further damage to the encyclopedia.
1) {text of proposed finding of fact}
2) {text of proposed finding of fact}
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.
1) {text of proposed remedy}
2) {text of proposed remedy}
1) That Wikipedia is an encyclopedia first is the first of the five pillars, before anything else. And if Wikipedia is "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit," it's a free encyclopedia first, and anyone can edit it second. Without that principle in place, everything else fails. All behavior in this project must be to this end first, before anything else. Behavior not to that end is not permitted, and can ultimately be subject to removal and/or sanction.
2) People use encyclopedias to try to get an understanding of the facts around a topic. Where the facts, or reality, around a topic are disputed, the dispute may be a material fact. But an encyclopedia cannot take sides in the dispute. If something in a Wikipedia article is not written neutrally enough to be included in a paper encyclopedia or its equivalent, it should not be in the Wikipedia article.
3) All other pillars, policies, guidelines and rules (or non-rules) are subsidiary to the goal of creating a neutral encyclopedia. This does not mean that they do not have their own independent value, and one does not deviate from them lightly. But where rigid adherence to any other principle interferes with the goal of creating an encyclopedia—meaning one neutral in point of view—that goal prevails. StevenJ81 ( talk) 14:27, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
4) WP:Assume good faith applies in principle to all contributors. However, where the assumed good faith of a contributor with a demonstrated track record on pillars 1 and 2 collides with the assumed good faith of a contributor with no such track record, the contributor with a track record is entitled to some benefit of the doubt. Even where a contributor with a track record makes a mistake, that contributor is still entitled to some overall benefit of the doubt, notwithstanding the mistake. We are all human. StevenJ81 ( talk) 14:27, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
1) The atmosphere in this topic area is so toxic that many people, including many tenured editors otherwise dedicated to the project, avoid editing here. At best, it is unpleasant and not enjoyable to edit in this area, and it frequently takes days or weeks to resolve problems here. Many people with limited time available for this project therefore avoid this topic area, leaving it to a great extent to be edited by single-purpose accounts (on both sides). StevenJ81 ( talk) 21:54, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
2) Again, the worst offenders are often socks and other single-purpose accounts. Such contributors often feel they have nothing to lose, and much to gain, by flouting the rules. But the result is that even experienced users end up breaking the rules. Sometimes this happens by accident in a well-intended effort to keep things encyclopedic and neutral. Sometimes this happens in frustration at the brazen nature of rule violations in this area. Sometimes this simply happens because it's a subject that evokes passions. Regardless, this topic area is one where at best administrators and other interested, neutral parties have a very difficult time keeping things under control. StevenJ81 ( talk) 13:55, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
3) People taking "sides" in this subject area treat each other poorly, too. But at least each side's threats to impose its editorial perspective on the other balances out. Neutral parties by definition are not attempting to impose an editorial perspective on activists. Accordingly, many contributors see little risk in ignoring honest efforts to broker compromise and consensus.
4) The impact of socks and SPAs is so great that it impacts everything else here. After the influence of such accounts is reduced or removed, it is to be hoped that experienced editors committed to the project will be able to work collegially and collaboratively with each other. However, it cannot be ruled out that reducing the influence of SPAs will unmask other issues that might need to be addressed. StevenJ81 ( talk) 14:21, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
I have endorsed some ideas on other parts of this page. StevenJ81 ( talk) 20:39, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
1) In my view, this requires a minimum of 500 edits in main space—not Talk, User, or anything else—and 90 days' tenure. This is stricter yet than the Gamergate restrictions, but I think necessary. (I would add something to that to make sure the 500 edits aren't trivial, system-gaming edits, but I would leave such a definition to people who are technically more competent than I am.) With any luck, this will help socialize new contributors to the project before they enter into this contentious topic area, and in the process improve articles in other topic areas.
2) This means:
All edits that violate these conditions are subject to reversion on those grounds alone. Such reversion does not count against 1RR or any successor rule. (However, restoration of such edits, with appropriate documentation, also does not violate 1RR or any successor rule.) StevenJ81 ( talk) 20:14, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
3) This, too, is a rule that in theory already applies everywhere, but is widely ignored here. However, any editor's right to have a consensus discussion—and to revert edits that ignore such a request—should be absolute.
1) The concept here is that a contributor regularly and/or brazenly flouts the rules. Examples include, but are not limited to, the following:
The assumption is that the bar is high against invoking these rules, because the penalties are strict. But an administrator has the authority in these cases to do the following:
Further, once those penalties are invoked, CU is run routinely to prevent violations by sleeping sockpuppets. StevenJ81 ( talk) 21:23, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
2) Wording will need to be tightened. But the concept here is, once again, that (for example, not exhaustive):
An edit so reverted may be restored the same day if proper documentation is included. StevenJ81 ( talk) 21:35, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
1) The 1RR rule has served well to slow down conflict and encourage use of talk page discussion. However there are some unintended deficiencies in the 1RR rule that lead it to create article instability. In particular, the rule favors someone (anyone, even an ill-intentioned sock) who wants to make a change. One person wanting to make a change can enforce it indefinitely against one person seeking to keep the existing text. It should be the other way around: when two editors disagree on the text, the existing text should have the edge. Another (lesser) problem with the rule is that nobody really knows whether changing very old text is a revert; administrators at AE have expressed multiple contradictory opinions. The precise meaning of "revert" in practice is critically important when only one is allowed. Zero talk 02:03, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
2) The I/P area is beset by repeated appearance of socks. The existing practice is that requests for CU are usually refused unless evidence is provided linking the new account with a specific older account. This seriously inhibits the rapid detection and removal of socks. Zero talk 02:03, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
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.
1) The 1RR rule should be replaced by a rule based on this concept:
Probably this needs some wordsmithing. Note that that the 1RR caveat that consecutive edits are counted as one is not needed. The proposal does not prevent someone from adding several new bits of text, or deleting several old bits of text, in one day. It only prevents someone from making a change and then immediately doing it again if it is reverted. However, the 1RR caveat that IP users can be reverted more than once (up to 3RR) probably should apply here too. Zero talk 02:03, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
2) (a) When an account has been identified and blocked as a sock, checkuser to locate new and sleeper accounts should be undertaken.
(b) An unusual amount of prior knowledge in a new editor, combined with a clearly one-sided editing strategy, should be grounds for requesting a CU.
In case (b), in order to prevent unreasonable fishing, the CheckUser can decline the request if not satisfied that the criteria are satisfactorily met. Zero talk 02:03, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
1)
2)
1) There are lots of editors that feel strongly about this conflict, and not so many editors have no strong opinion about this at all.
2) Nearly all users in this field are engaging in a gigantic WP:battleground, and neutral editors are rare.
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.
1) Articles directly relating to the Palestine-Israeli conflict are fully protected. Uninvolved adminstrators may enact changes after consensus on the talk page, or a dead discussion with no consensus, if appropiate per policy. This measure and its success will be reevaluated by the Arbitration Comitee after one year, and earlier, if necessary. Corrections of obvious typing errors and deletion discussion notices may be inserted by adminstrators directly without discussion. Consensus for the removal of illegal content is to be assumed.
2) {text of proposed remedy}
1)
2) {text of proposed enforcement}
1)
2)
1)
2)
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.
1) {text of proposed remedy}
2) {text of proposed remedy}
1) {text of proposed enforcement}
2) {text of proposed enforcement}
Place here items of evidence (with diffs) and detailed analysis
![]() | The Workshop phase for this case is closed.
Any further edits made to this page may be reverted by an arbitrator or arbitration clerk without discussion. If you need to edit or modify this page, please go
here and create an
edit request. |
Case clerk: L235 ( Talk) Drafting arbitrators: Guerillero ( Talk) & Seraphimblade ( Talk) & Doug Weller ( Talk)
Wikipedia Arbitration |
---|
![]() |
|
Track related changes |
Purpose of the workshop: The case Workshop exists so that parties to the case, other interested members of the community, and members of the Arbitration Committee can post possible components of the final decision for review and comment by others. Components proposed here may be general principles of site policy and procedure, findings of fact about the dispute, remedies to resolve the dispute, and arrangements for remedy enforcement. These are the four types of proposals that can be included in committee final decisions. There are also sections for analysis of /Evidence, and for general discussion of the case. Any user may edit this workshop page; please sign all posts and proposals. Arbitrators will place components they wish to propose be adopted into the final decision on the /Proposed decision page. Only Arbitrators and clerks may edit that page, for voting, clarification as well as implementation purposes.
Behaviour on this page: Arbitration case pages exist to assist the Arbitration Committee in arriving at fair, well-informed decisions. You are required to act with appropriate decorum during this case. While grievances must often be aired during a case, you are expected to air them without being rude or hostile, and to respond calmly to allegations against you. Accusations of misbehaviour posted in this case must be proven with clear evidence (and otherwise not made at all). Editors who conduct themselves inappropriately during a case may be sanctioned by an arbitrator or clerk, without further warning, by being banned from further participation in the case, or being blocked altogether. Behavior during a case may be considered by the committee in arriving at a final decision.
1)
2)
3)
1)
2)
3)
4)
I am reading evidence as it comes it and trying to make it more of a discussion of what is going on than a one way evidence dump that the arbs read and act on. While questions are directed to a particular editor anyone can answer them. Note, please do not use this as a place to argue, debate or rehash conflicts. If you disagree with someone's response, post your answer. -- Guerillero | Parlez Moi 02:50, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
@ StevenJ81: In your personal opinion, is there an overarching theme to these Not Here accounts? Are they brand new editors, long term civil POV pushes, admins, zombie accounts? -- Guerillero | Parlez Moi 02:44, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
@ Kingsindian: Would something like GamerGate's 500 edit rule help the situation any? Would this just drive socks more underground? -- Guerillero | Parlez Moi 02:44, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
What about letting admin force a discussion on the talk page of an article if it is plagued by drive by removals?-- Guerillero | Parlez Moi 02:44, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
As I stated Please do not use this as a place to argue, debate or rehash conflicts. This does nothing to resolve the ongoing issues. ArbCom can not and will not make a ruling on content. -- Guerillero | Parlez Moi 18:25, 21 September 2015 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
1) {text of Proposed principle}
2) {text of Proposed principle}
1) Brad Dyer ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been indefinitely blocked as a likely sockpuppet of NoCal100 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). The majority of recent edits by the Brad Dyer account, and a substantial proportion overall, are to articles relating to Israel, Palestine or both. These edits are from a pro-Israeli POV (e.g. [1], [2], [3])
1.1) Brad Dyer engaged in tendentious editing and behaviour which could legitimately be interpreted as trolling, for example characterising this reversion [4] as removing a "copyright violation" and template warning Malik Shabazz, who Brad Dyer will have known is a long-standing Wikipedian, with a newbie copyright warning: [5].
2) {text of proposed finding of fact}
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.
1) {text of proposed remedy}
2) {text of proposed remedy}
1) {text of proposed enforcement}
2) {text of proposed enforcement}
1) As one of Wikipedia's three core content policies, WP:NPOV commands that all narratives will be present in Palestine-Israel articles subject to proper WP:WEIGHT, WP:IMPARTIAL tone and proper handling of WP:BIASED sources.
2) Wikipedia and editors are not judges and their sole purpose is to allow readers to get all information that fulfill WP policy standards such as WP:Verifiability, WP:NOR and WP:Weight. Discarding material based on editors judgement violates WP:NPoV.
3) A clear warning should be given to all involved users about dismissing academic or otherwise reliable sources based on race, ethnicity, nationality, language, ideology etc. Doing this amounts to soapboxing and it directly harms the ability to come to a consensus.
There is a difference between a content dispute, and the willful violation of content policy. ArbCom can determine that a violation of content policy is disruptive, and hence not related to the content itself, but to the behavior of the editor(s) introducing the content.
Editors should not apply core content policy selectively, or provide contradictory arguments. Honesty is expected. Evidence to the contrary is not a a content issue, but a behavioral issue.
1) The rule might prevent the simple undo-undo-undo war but it limits the ability to make partial improvements which requires several edits (if sufficient edit summaries are expected). It also limits cooperation in order to reach consensus on the text since suggestion can be done in +24 intervals. It is used as a cheap tool to take editors to AE even when edit were made as part of an ongoing discussion.
2) This have been discussed dozens of times and editors keep on fighting for it. I see this as a perfect opportunity to have supervised conversation. It might require its own arbitration process in which RS can be discussed as a whole.
Support - It is a large media group with its weekend paper surpassing even Haaretz. It has undeniably bias and some of the language used can be described as propaganda but you can say the same for 99% of the news sources used in PIA. According to William Saletan, "For news, it’s totally on the ball". Editors cling to historical facts and own bias while they use all kind of activists blogs, NGOs websites etc'
3) Some editors WP:CPUSH others over all kind of reasons but when they edit themselves, they don't hold themselves to the same standards. Not even close!
4) I don't talk about some minor mistakes or confusion when summarizing books or changing the text for copyright reason. I mean full on falsification usually done for POVPUSH (why else??).
5) UNDUE is used when it is a clear case of WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT.
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.
1) I'm not sure what is the right forum to hold such discussion but I think the question of what is or isn't RS isn't handled properly right now. RSN seem to become just another channel for the same editors to repeat the same old arguments some have been repeating for over a decade. RS should be looked at in a monitored space and certain guidelines should be drawn.
2) Biased sources on all sides use biased language. An editor should choose the most neutral voiced source or just 'tone it down'.
2) The usage of labels, especially in opinion pieces, harms the encyclopedia's neutrality and should be used with extreme caution or avoided all together.
1) Repeating violation of NPov (or POVPUSH) should be punishable.
(This will require more involvement from uninvolved admins but at this stage it is necessary).
2) {text of proposed enforcement}
1) {text of Proposed principle}
2) {text of Proposed principle}
1) ARBPIA topics remain an extremely challenging and disruptive topic area.
2) {text of proposed finding of fact}
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.
1) Administrators are encouraged to full-protect ARBPIA articles in the face of disruptive activity, under existing discretionary sanctions. Disruption via talk page fights and edit requests is inherently more manageable and less difficult for uninvolved administrators to manage.
2) {text of proposed remedy}
1) {text of proposed enforcement}
2) {text of proposed enforcement}
1) The Committee retains jurisdiction over prior cases, in this instance, the Palestine-Israel articles case.
2) The purpose of Wikipedia is to create a high-quality, free-content encyclopedia in an atmosphere of camaraderie and mutual respect among contributors. Use of the site for other purposes, such as advocacy or propaganda or furtherance of outside conflicts is prohibited. Contributors whose actions are detrimental to that goal may be asked to refrain from them, even when these actions are undertaken in good faith.
3) It is not the role of the Arbitration Committee to settle good-faith content disputes among editors.
4) All Wikipedia articles must be written from a neutral point of view. Merely presenting a plurality of viewpoints, especially from polarized sources, does not fulfill the neutral point of view. Articles should always verifiably use the best and most reputable sources, with prevalence in reliable sources determining proper weight. Relying on synthesized claims, or other "original research", is therefore contrary to the neutral point of view. The neutral point of view is the guiding editorial principle of Wikipedia, and is not optional.
5) Single purpose accounts are expected to contribute neutrally instead of following their own agenda and, in particular, should take care to avoid creating the impression that their focus on one topic is non-neutral, which could strongly suggest that their editing is incompatible with the goals of this project.
6) The general rule is one editor, one account, though there are several legitimate uses of an alternate account. The creation or use of an additional account to conceal an editing history, to evade a block or a site ban, or to deceive the community, is prohibited. Sockpuppet accounts that are not publicly disclosed are not to be used in discussions internal to the project.
7) In cases where all reasonable attempts to control the spread of disruption arising from long-term disputes have failed, the Committee may be forced to adopt seemingly draconian measures as a last resort for preventing further damage to the encyclopedia.
1) {text of proposed finding of fact}
2) {text of proposed finding of fact}
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.
1) {text of proposed remedy}
2) {text of proposed remedy}
1) That Wikipedia is an encyclopedia first is the first of the five pillars, before anything else. And if Wikipedia is "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit," it's a free encyclopedia first, and anyone can edit it second. Without that principle in place, everything else fails. All behavior in this project must be to this end first, before anything else. Behavior not to that end is not permitted, and can ultimately be subject to removal and/or sanction.
2) People use encyclopedias to try to get an understanding of the facts around a topic. Where the facts, or reality, around a topic are disputed, the dispute may be a material fact. But an encyclopedia cannot take sides in the dispute. If something in a Wikipedia article is not written neutrally enough to be included in a paper encyclopedia or its equivalent, it should not be in the Wikipedia article.
3) All other pillars, policies, guidelines and rules (or non-rules) are subsidiary to the goal of creating a neutral encyclopedia. This does not mean that they do not have their own independent value, and one does not deviate from them lightly. But where rigid adherence to any other principle interferes with the goal of creating an encyclopedia—meaning one neutral in point of view—that goal prevails. StevenJ81 ( talk) 14:27, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
4) WP:Assume good faith applies in principle to all contributors. However, where the assumed good faith of a contributor with a demonstrated track record on pillars 1 and 2 collides with the assumed good faith of a contributor with no such track record, the contributor with a track record is entitled to some benefit of the doubt. Even where a contributor with a track record makes a mistake, that contributor is still entitled to some overall benefit of the doubt, notwithstanding the mistake. We are all human. StevenJ81 ( talk) 14:27, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
1) The atmosphere in this topic area is so toxic that many people, including many tenured editors otherwise dedicated to the project, avoid editing here. At best, it is unpleasant and not enjoyable to edit in this area, and it frequently takes days or weeks to resolve problems here. Many people with limited time available for this project therefore avoid this topic area, leaving it to a great extent to be edited by single-purpose accounts (on both sides). StevenJ81 ( talk) 21:54, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
2) Again, the worst offenders are often socks and other single-purpose accounts. Such contributors often feel they have nothing to lose, and much to gain, by flouting the rules. But the result is that even experienced users end up breaking the rules. Sometimes this happens by accident in a well-intended effort to keep things encyclopedic and neutral. Sometimes this happens in frustration at the brazen nature of rule violations in this area. Sometimes this simply happens because it's a subject that evokes passions. Regardless, this topic area is one where at best administrators and other interested, neutral parties have a very difficult time keeping things under control. StevenJ81 ( talk) 13:55, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
3) People taking "sides" in this subject area treat each other poorly, too. But at least each side's threats to impose its editorial perspective on the other balances out. Neutral parties by definition are not attempting to impose an editorial perspective on activists. Accordingly, many contributors see little risk in ignoring honest efforts to broker compromise and consensus.
4) The impact of socks and SPAs is so great that it impacts everything else here. After the influence of such accounts is reduced or removed, it is to be hoped that experienced editors committed to the project will be able to work collegially and collaboratively with each other. However, it cannot be ruled out that reducing the influence of SPAs will unmask other issues that might need to be addressed. StevenJ81 ( talk) 14:21, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
I have endorsed some ideas on other parts of this page. StevenJ81 ( talk) 20:39, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
1) In my view, this requires a minimum of 500 edits in main space—not Talk, User, or anything else—and 90 days' tenure. This is stricter yet than the Gamergate restrictions, but I think necessary. (I would add something to that to make sure the 500 edits aren't trivial, system-gaming edits, but I would leave such a definition to people who are technically more competent than I am.) With any luck, this will help socialize new contributors to the project before they enter into this contentious topic area, and in the process improve articles in other topic areas.
2) This means:
All edits that violate these conditions are subject to reversion on those grounds alone. Such reversion does not count against 1RR or any successor rule. (However, restoration of such edits, with appropriate documentation, also does not violate 1RR or any successor rule.) StevenJ81 ( talk) 20:14, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
3) This, too, is a rule that in theory already applies everywhere, but is widely ignored here. However, any editor's right to have a consensus discussion—and to revert edits that ignore such a request—should be absolute.
1) The concept here is that a contributor regularly and/or brazenly flouts the rules. Examples include, but are not limited to, the following:
The assumption is that the bar is high against invoking these rules, because the penalties are strict. But an administrator has the authority in these cases to do the following:
Further, once those penalties are invoked, CU is run routinely to prevent violations by sleeping sockpuppets. StevenJ81 ( talk) 21:23, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
2) Wording will need to be tightened. But the concept here is, once again, that (for example, not exhaustive):
An edit so reverted may be restored the same day if proper documentation is included. StevenJ81 ( talk) 21:35, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
1) The 1RR rule has served well to slow down conflict and encourage use of talk page discussion. However there are some unintended deficiencies in the 1RR rule that lead it to create article instability. In particular, the rule favors someone (anyone, even an ill-intentioned sock) who wants to make a change. One person wanting to make a change can enforce it indefinitely against one person seeking to keep the existing text. It should be the other way around: when two editors disagree on the text, the existing text should have the edge. Another (lesser) problem with the rule is that nobody really knows whether changing very old text is a revert; administrators at AE have expressed multiple contradictory opinions. The precise meaning of "revert" in practice is critically important when only one is allowed. Zero talk 02:03, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
2) The I/P area is beset by repeated appearance of socks. The existing practice is that requests for CU are usually refused unless evidence is provided linking the new account with a specific older account. This seriously inhibits the rapid detection and removal of socks. Zero talk 02:03, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
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.
1) The 1RR rule should be replaced by a rule based on this concept:
Probably this needs some wordsmithing. Note that that the 1RR caveat that consecutive edits are counted as one is not needed. The proposal does not prevent someone from adding several new bits of text, or deleting several old bits of text, in one day. It only prevents someone from making a change and then immediately doing it again if it is reverted. However, the 1RR caveat that IP users can be reverted more than once (up to 3RR) probably should apply here too. Zero talk 02:03, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
2) (a) When an account has been identified and blocked as a sock, checkuser to locate new and sleeper accounts should be undertaken.
(b) An unusual amount of prior knowledge in a new editor, combined with a clearly one-sided editing strategy, should be grounds for requesting a CU.
In case (b), in order to prevent unreasonable fishing, the CheckUser can decline the request if not satisfied that the criteria are satisfactorily met. Zero talk 02:03, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
1)
2)
1) There are lots of editors that feel strongly about this conflict, and not so many editors have no strong opinion about this at all.
2) Nearly all users in this field are engaging in a gigantic WP:battleground, and neutral editors are rare.
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.
1) Articles directly relating to the Palestine-Israeli conflict are fully protected. Uninvolved adminstrators may enact changes after consensus on the talk page, or a dead discussion with no consensus, if appropiate per policy. This measure and its success will be reevaluated by the Arbitration Comitee after one year, and earlier, if necessary. Corrections of obvious typing errors and deletion discussion notices may be inserted by adminstrators directly without discussion. Consensus for the removal of illegal content is to be assumed.
2) {text of proposed remedy}
1)
2) {text of proposed enforcement}
1)
2)
1)
2)
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.
1) {text of proposed remedy}
2) {text of proposed remedy}
1) {text of proposed enforcement}
2) {text of proposed enforcement}
Place here items of evidence (with diffs) and detailed analysis