all proposed

After considering /Evidence and discussing proposals with other Arbitrators, parties and others at /Workshop place proposals which are ready for voting here.

Arbitrators should vote for or against each point or abstain.

• Only items that receive a majority "support" vote will be passed.
• Items that receive a majority "oppose" vote will be formally rejected.
• Items that do not receive a majority "support" or "oppose" vote will be open to possible amendment by any Arbitrator if they so chooses. After the amendment process is complete, the item will be voted on one last time.

Conditional votes for or against and abstentions should be explained by the Arbitrator before or after his/her time-stamped signature. For example, an Arbitrator can state that she/he would only favor a particular remedy based on whether or not another remedy/remedies were passed.

On this case, 1 Arbitrator is recused and 3 are inactive, so 6 votes are a majority.

For all items

Proposed wording to be modified by Arbitrators and then voted on. Non-Arbitrators may comment on the talk page.

Place those on /Workshop.

Four net "support" votes needed to pass (each "oppose" vote subtracts a "support")
24 hours from the first vote is normally the fastest an injunction will be imposed.

Template

1) {text of proposed orders}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Proposed final decision Information

Choosing descriptive names

1) Wikipedia:Naming_conflict#Descriptive_names, a guideline, suggests, "Choose a descriptive name for an article that does not carry POV implications."

Support:

1. Fred Bauder 17:23, 24 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

1. The project page seems contradictory on this matter. Higher up it clearly states that common names should be used, even when one is controversial. "Wikipedians should not seek to determine who is "right" or "wrong", nor to attempt to impose a particular name for POV reasons. They should instead follow the procedure below to determine common usage on an objective basis. By doing this, ideally, we can choose a name in a systematic manner without having to involve ourselves in a political dispute." This has also long been standard practice. SimonP 20:43, 11 August 2006 (UTC) reply
2. To choose a descriptive name is prima facie to express a POV; editors must instead use a commonly accepted name, preferably one that reputable external authorities have accepted ➥the Epopt 16:26, 12 August 2006 (UTC) reply
3. Per Sean. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 12:58, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
4. James F. (talk) 23:29, 14 August 2006 (UTC) Per Sean. reply
5. Charles Matthews 16:35, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Abstain:

Wikipedia is not a vehicle for propaganda

2) Wikipedia is not a vehicle for propaganda, Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_soapbox.

Support:

1. Fred Bauder 17:23, 24 July 2006 (UTC) reply
2. SimonP 20:43, 11 August 2006 (UTC) reply
3. ➥the Epopt 16:36, 12 August 2006 (UTC) reply
4. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 12:58, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
5. James F. (talk) 23:29, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
6. Charles Matthews 16:35, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

Wheelwarring

3) Wheelwarring, reverts by administrators, and other actions, often using powers reserved to them, is unacceptable whatever the excuse. Wheelwarring will be severely sanctioned. Administrators who habitually engage in wheelwarring will be desysopped.

Support:

1. Fred Bauder 17:23, 24 July 2006 (UTC) reply
2. SimonP 20:43, 11 August 2006 (UTC) reply
3. ➥the Epopt 16:36, 12 August 2006 (UTC) reply
4. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 12:58, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
5. James F. (talk) 23:29, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
6. Clarification: 'wheelwarring', to me, is pejorative. Charles Matthews 16:35, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

Controversial articles

4) Some subjects are so controversial that any article about them on Wikipedia is fated to be the subject of substantial controversy. Such articles should be edited with caution as they offer risk of violation of Wikipedia policies even for experienced editors. Some measure of forgiveness will be extended to those drawn into such articles and, in the heat of the moment, violate minor policies and guidelines.

Support:

1. Fred Bauder 17:23, 24 July 2006 (UTC) Redid sentence Fred Bauder 13:09, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
2. SimonP 20:43, 11 August 2006 (UTC) reply
3. That first sentence is so tautological that it seems quite tautological ➥the Epopt 16:36, 12 August 2006 (UTC) reply
4. Detautologification emphasised. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 12:58, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
5. James F. (talk) 23:29, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
6. Charles Matthews 16:35, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

Shifting advantage

5) If an editor believes that a group of editors has gained a temporary advantage in editing an article, that does not justify disruptive editing in order to nullify the perceived advantage

Support:

1. Fred Bauder 00:16, 7 August 2006 (UTC) reply
2. SimonP 20:43, 11 August 2006 (UTC) reply
3. ➥the Epopt 16:36, 12 August 2006 (UTC) reply
4. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 12:58, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
5. James F. (talk) 23:29, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
6. Charles Matthews 16:35, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

Locus of dispute

1) Israeli apartheid was created May 29, 2006 by HOTR ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) [1]. It has been the site of sustained controversy regarding its content and title. Dispute over the title culminated in a move war between experienced administrators.

Support:

1. Fred Bauder 17:23, 24 July 2006 (UTC) reply
2. SimonP 20:43, 11 August 2006 (UTC) reply
3. ➥the Epopt 16:36, 12 August 2006 (UTC) reply
4. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 12:58, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
5. James F. (talk) 23:29, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
6. Charles Matthews 16:35, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

POV implications of "Israeli apartheid"

2) The article title "Israeli apartheid" carries point of view implications which associate Israel with the apartheid practices of South Africa. It is also an implied allegation of the newly defined crime of apartheid, which has been characterized as a " crime against humanity" by the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. "Apartheid" has at least some use among Israeli peace activists, "We have so-called democracy for Jewish people or for Palestinians who are living within the 1967 border. But if you live in the Occupied Territories, it's completely apartheid." [2].

Support:

1. Fred Bauder 19:42, 24 July 2006 (UTC) reply
2. ➥the Epopt 16:36, 12 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

1. A ruling on content, I am far from an expert on new developments in international law. - SimonP 20:43, 11 August 2006 (UTC) reply
2. I'm not quite sure what this ruling is saying. If the implication is that "Israeli apartheid" is therefore unacceptable, this is a content ruling. If it isn't, it needs clarification. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 12:58, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
3. James F. (talk) 23:29, 14 August 2006 (UTC) Though true. reply
4. Can't be having ArbCom rulings on this type of thing. Inter alia, it would assume claims of expertise which are not going to be justified. Charles Matthews 16:35, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Abstain:

Propaganda warfare

3) Nations (or other entities) and their supporters which are engaged in conflict attempt to use information as a weapon. This includes attempts to frame a conflict in terms favorable to one side or another. For example, one side may always refer to resistance by the other side as "terror", while the other side may view the conflict as "invasion" or "occupation".

Support:

1. Fred Bauder 19:42, 24 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

1. Quite true, but a rulling on world politics rather than anything directly related to Wikipedia. - SimonP 20:43, 11 August 2006 (UTC) reply
2. I'm afraid that this finding is rather floccinaucinihilipilificatious ➥the Epopt 16:36, 12 August 2006 (UTC) reply
3. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 12:58, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
4. James F. (talk) 23:29, 14 August 2006 (UTC) Content/worldpolitick ruling. reply
5. Charles Matthews 16:35, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Abstain:

Israeli apartheid as reframing

4) Framing the Arab-Israeli conflict as apartheid casts Israel in a bad light, associating it on one hand with the racist apartheid regime of South Africa and on the other with the crime of apartheid. In addition, by implication, it advances the contention that only an integrated multi-ethnic state offers a fair resolution of the conflict [3] [4].

Support:

1. Fred Bauder 19:42, 24 July 2006 (UTC) reply
2. ➥the Epopt 16:36, 12 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

1. Rulling on content. - SimonP 20:43, 11 August 2006 (UTC) reply
2. Another world-politics ruling. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 12:58, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
3. James F. (talk) 23:29, 14 August 2006 (UTC) Again, yes. reply
4. Even if I believed every word, as a personal opinion, I couldn't support this here. Charles Matthews 16:35, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Abstain:

Pejorative political terms

5) There are a number of article titles which can be fairly characterized as Pejorative political terms. A notable example is Islamofascism.

Support:

1. Fred Bauder 19:42, 24 July 2006 (UTC) reply
2. SimonP 20:43, 11 August 2006 (UTC) reply
3. ➥the Epopt 16:36, 12 August 2006 (UTC) reply
4. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 12:58, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
5. James F. (talk) 23:29, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
6. Cf. racial slurs and so on. WP is a reference work, and we have articles on things people are going to look up. Charles Matthews 16:35, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

Conflict

6) In the absence of consensus in the ongoing discussions regarding the appropriate title for Israeli aparthied a move war broke out involving experienced users, Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Israeli_apartheid/Workshop#Wheelwarring_2.

Support:

1. Fred Bauder 19:42, 24 July 2006 (UTC) reply
2. SimonP 20:43, 11 August 2006 (UTC) reply
3. ➥the Epopt 16:36, 12 August 2006 (UTC) reply
4. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 12:58, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
5. James F. (talk) 23:29, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
6. Charles Matthews 16:35, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

Sources

7) Sources of information have been collected at Talk:Israeli apartheid/RS and at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Israeli_apartheid/Evidence#Widespread_use_and_more_RS.

Support:

1. Fred Bauder 19:42, 24 July 2006 (UTC) reply
2. SimonP 20:43, 11 August 2006 (UTC) reply
3. ➥the Epopt 16:36, 12 August 2006 (UTC) reply
4. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 12:58, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
5. James F. (talk) 23:29, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
6. Charles Matthews 16:35, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

Biased editing

8) The article has been subject to biased editing, an extreme example, another.

Support:

1. ➥the Epopt 16:36, 12 August 2006 (UTC) reply
2. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 12:58, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
3. SimonP 20:53, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
4. James F. (talk) 23:29, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
5. Charles Matthews 16:35, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
6. Fred Bauder 01:11, 19 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

Log of actions

9) The controversial nature of the article led to numerous disputes involving actions by a large number of users, including several administrators, Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Israeli_apartheid/Evidence#Log_of_major_actions_.28not_edits.29.

Support:

1. Fred Bauder 19:42, 24 July 2006 (UTC) reply
2. SimonP 20:43, 11 August 2006 (UTC) reply
3. ➥the Epopt 16:36, 12 August 2006 (UTC) reply
4. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 12:58, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
5. James F. (talk) 23:29, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
6. Charles Matthews 16:35, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

Shifting bias

10) From time to time there may be bias in Wikipedia articles which concern controversial issues which relate the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, see, for example this recent edit.

Support:

1. Fred Bauder 19:42, 24 July 2006 (UTC) reply
2. From time to time there may be bias in all of our articles. SimonP 20:43, 11 August 2006 (UTC) reply
3. ➥the Epopt 16:36, 12 August 2006 (UTC) reply
4. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 12:58, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
5. James F. (talk) 23:29, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
6. Charles Matthews 16:35, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

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.

Negotiation

1) Editors of articles concerning apartheid are directed to negotiate in good faith appropriate article names using relevant policies and guidelines. If negotiation is unsuccessful, interested parties are required to enter into good faith mediation regarding the matter.

Support:

1. May I suggest "Status of Palestinians in the occupied territories" Fred Bauder 19:51, 24 July 2006 (UTC) reply
2. ➥the Epopt 16:36, 12 August 2006 (UTC) reply
3. I rather fancy liberal use of quotation marks could make this dispute less contentious. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 12:58, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
4. James F. (talk) 23:29, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
5. Charles Matthews 16:35, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
6. SimonP 15:59, 21 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

Administrators admonished

2) All involved administrators are admonished not use their administrative tools without prior discussion and consensus, and to avoid using them so as to continue an editing dispute. Humus sapiens, ChrisO, Kim van der Linde, SlimVirgin, and Jayjg are reminded to use mediation and other dispute resolution procedures sooner when conflicts occur.

Support:

1. Fred Bauder 19:51, 24 July 2006 (UTC) reply
2. SimonP 20:43, 11 August 2006 (UTC) reply
3. ➥the Epopt 16:36, 12 August 2006 (UTC) reply
4. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 12:58, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
5. James F. (talk) 23:29, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
6. Charles Matthews 16:35, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

Centralized discussion

3) Discussion of global issues which concern use of "apartheid" and all polls shall be at Wikipedia:Central discussions/Apartheid with subsidiary dialog on the talk page of affected articles.

Support:

1. Fred Bauder 19:51, 24 July 2006 (UTC) reply
2. SimonP 20:43, 11 August 2006 (UTC) reply
3. ➥the Epopt 16:36, 12 August 2006 (UTC) reply
4. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 12:58, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
5. James F. (talk) 23:29, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
6. Charles Matthews 16:35, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

General amnesty

4) Based on the difficult and controversial nature of this matter, with the exception of Zeq, who remains banned from editing the article, the principal participants in this dispute shall be granted an amnesty for past actions.

Support:

1. Fred Bauder 19:51, 24 July 2006 (UTC) reply
2. ➥the Epopt 16:36, 12 August 2006 (UTC) reply
3. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 12:58, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
4. SimonP 20:53, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
5. James F. (talk) 23:29, 14 August 2006 (UTC) Would prefer suspended sanctions, really, but an amnesty will hopefully suffice, and hopefully not give the wrong message. reply
6. Charles Matthews 16:35, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

Existing bias

5) Recognizing that there may be bias in articles such as Allegations of Israeli apartheid, which by their nature involve criticism of Israeli policies, efforts to correct the situation which result in disruption are discouraged. Patient negotiation is counseled together with assumption of good faith on the part of users who take a pro-Israeli or anti-Israeli point of view. Expressed plainly, a slight bias such as substitution of "allegations of Israeli apartheid" for "Israeli apartheid" is not an excuse for edit or move warring.

Support:

1. Fred Bauder 19:51, 24 July 2006 (UTC) reply
2. There are no good excuses for wheel or edit warring. SimonP 20:43, 11 August 2006 (UTC) reply
3. ➥the Epopt 16:36, 12 August 2006 (UTC) reply
4. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 12:58, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
5. James F. (talk) 23:29, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
6. Charles Matthews 16:35, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Discussion by Arbitrators Information

Implementation notes

Clerks and Arbitrators should use this section to clarify their understanding of the final decision--at a minimum, a list of items that have passed. Additionally, a list of which remedies are conditional on others (for instance a ban that should only be implemented if a mentorship should fail), and so on. Arbitrators should not pass the motion until they are satisfied with the implementation notes.

• The majority for this case is 6.
• Principles: 1 fails, all other pass 6-0
• Findings: 2, 3 and 4 fail, all others pass 6-0.
• Remedies: all pass 6-0.
• Enforcement: There is no enforcement proposal.

Vote

Four net "support" votes needed to close case (each "oppose" vote subtracts a "support")
24 hours from the first motion is normally the fastest a case will close.

1. Close. Dmcdevit· t 23:14, 1 September 2006 (UTC) reply
2. Close. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 23:19, 1 September 2006 (UTC) reply
3. Close. - SimonP 01:19, 2 September 2006 (UTC) reply
4. Close. James F. (talk) 10:50, 2 September 2006 (UTC) reply