Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/PalestineRemembered/Evidence: Difference between revisions

Please make a section for your evidence and add evidence only in your own section. Please limit your evidence to a maximum 1000 words and 100 diffs; a shorter, concise presentation is more likely to be effective. Please focus on the issues raised in the complaint and on diffs which illustrate behavior which relates to the issues. If you disagree with some evidence you see here, please cite the evidence in your own section and provide counter-evidence, or an explanation of why the evidence is misleading. Do not edit within the evidence section of any other user.

Anyone, whether directly involved or not, may add evidence to this page. Please make a header for your evidence and sign your comments with your name.

When placing evidence here, please be considerate of the arbitrators and be concise. Long, rambling, or stream-of-conciousness rants are not helpful.

As such, it is extremely important that you use the prescribed format. Submitted evidence should include a link to the actual page diff; links to the page itself are not sufficient. For example, to cite the edit by Mennonot to the article Anomalous phenomenon adding a link to Hundredth Monkey use this form: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anomalous_phenomenon&diff=5587219&oldid=5584644] [1].

This page is not for general discussion - for that, see talk page.

Be aware that arbitrators may at times rework this page to try to make it more coherent. If you are a participant in the case or a third party, please don't try to refactor the page, let the arbitrators do it. If you object to evidence which is inserted by other participants or third parties please cite the evidence and voice your objections within your own section of the page. It is especially important to not remove evidence presented by others. If something is put in the wrong place, please leave it for the arbitrators to move.

Arbitrators may analyze evidence and other assertions at /Workshop. /Workshop provides for comment by parties and others as well as arbitrators. After arriving at proposed principles, findings of fact or remedies, arbitrators vote at /Proposed decision. Only arbitrators may edit /Proposed decision.

The ban was originally proposed at AN/I, discussion later got moved to the more appropriate community santions noticeboard. The discussion is now archived at Wikipedia:Community sanction noticeboard/Archive8#PalestineRemembered again. The discussion initially ran very much one way, but once a more complete picture of the situation emerged, consensus for a ban vanished. Reading the commentary with maximum bias towards banning, discussion ended at 24 in favor, 16 opposed, and 4 either abstaining or unclear, with the trend of new participants at the end definitely running against a community imposed ban. GRBerry 03:55, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Sock puppetry#Keeping heated issues in one small area says (and has said essentially the same thing since at least May 1 2006, before PR began editing):

Some editors use different accounts in talk pages to avoid conflicts about a particular area of interest turning into conflicts based upon user identity and personal attacks elsewhere, or to avoid harassment outside of Wikipedia. A person participating in a discussion of an article about abortion, for example, might not want to allow other participants an opportunity to extend that discussion or engage them in unrelated or philosophically motivated debate outside the context of that article.

If you want to edit a "hot" or controversial subject you may use a sock puppet so long as you do not use any other account to edit the same subject or make it appear that multiple people support the same action.

It is obvious to anyone that has seen Wikipedia in action on topics related to Israeli-Arab relations that that area is regularly subject to editorial conflicts. Similarly, educated adults in the Western world will know that Israeli-Arab relations is a contentious topic when it is discussed in any public forum. Use of single purpose accounts as secondary accounts of an editor active elsewhere is clearly authorized by policy. (Being a SPA with a POV was given as a reason for banning by some discussers, so this correction is needed.) GRBerry 03:55, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Block log.
• Felonisous issued PR's first block of one month, taking all of 9 minutes from Jayjg's initial proposal of a block to decide that almost every edit by PR was dubious, and another 9 minutes to decide to give a 1 month block. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive150#User:PalestineRemembered.
• Five days after PR returned, Jayjg again proposed a block and 3 hours later FM decided to block for 2 months. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive69#The return of PalestineRemembered.
• The third block was issued by Jayjg (if there was any discussion, I haven't found it), with this explanation.
• Jayjg proposed this ban discussion. FM was the third participant and a supporter of a ban. (see discussion)
• FM issued his indefinite block after Seraphimblade undid his, thus knowing that other admins didn't see a consensus for such action in the discussion.
• FM ignored the bias of those supporting a ban but found bias of those opposed to a ban to be a reason to disregard their objections to his action. (See discussion) GRBerry 03:55, 18 May 2007 (UTC) (Updated to correct timing on second block. GRBerry 20:10, 18 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]

He is expected to behave as if blocked, other than participating in this case. Explanation of unblock by Zscout370 GRBerry 03:55, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The first WP:ANI notice, shows that several admins agreed with the block: User:Khoikhoi, User:SlimVirgin, User:Swatjester, User:FeloniousMonk, and user:Humus Sapiens. Others editors commented, but did not respond to questions presented, and no admin contested the block for three days, which is the timestamp on the last comment. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:28, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the second WP:ANI notice, the block was supported by four admins, User:Daniel.Bryant, User:JzG, User:FeloniousMonk, and User:Khoikhoi. It was not objected to. Indefblock was discussed. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:28, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Users can choose to use a sockpuppet single purpose account to edit contentious articles, but that does not mean that they can use these accounts to disrupt Wikipedia and violate WP:NOT#SOAP. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:28, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jayjg has used his blocking tools hastily against editors with opposing POVs. MiddleEastern (talk · contribs) was here for nine days before she was indefinitely blocked by Jayjg who ran a checkuser on her without filing for a RfCU. He concluded that she was a sockpuppet of another banned user simply because she was using a proxy and banned her indefinitely. (See MiddleEastern talk page [2] and the ANI archive [3] for more detail) In other words, this is not the first time that Jayjg imposes heavy blocks on a user who edits articles in a shared area of interest and who holds a POV that opposes his own.

Additionally, this is not the first time that Jossi (talk · contribs), SlimVirgin (talk · contribs), and Humus Sapiens (talk · contribs) have upheld Jayjg's hastily imposed blocks. Note that while tariqabjotu (talk · contribs) also upheld the block against MiddleEastern, [4] he qualified his decision as being based solely on the "semi-proven" sockpuppet allegations and expressed his concerns regarding the quickness to support the block over incivility and potentially racist comments, (while also strongly condemning hate speech).

FeloniousMonk has in the past blocked G-Dett (talk · contribs) for 3RR after SlimVirgin reported her and Jayjg upheld her report. (See: [5]). I was also blocked by SlimVirgin for 3RR (See: [6]. In both cases, the 3RR violation was borderline and disputable and both G-Dett and myself were heavily engaged in discussion on talk to come up with compromise formulations that would put an end to mutiple editor edit wars on the articles in question. There seems to be a pattern of collusion between these administrators to intensively patroll the actions of editors with opposing POVs, and take the first opportunity to impose a block no matter how minor or borderline the violation. Concerns have been raised regarding a potential conflict of interest on the part of Jayjg and SlimVirgin previously (See also: [7]).

In conclusion, the actions of these administrators create an atmosphere wherein Arab editors or editors whose POV might be termed anti-Zionist or post-Zionist are intimidated and harrased. I feel we are held to higher standards than other editors. As was pointed out in the discussion on PalestineRemembered's case prior to this arbitration being opened, Zeq (talk · contribs) who has been cited for repeated violation of Wiki policies has managed to edit here for more than two years without ever being the subject of a permanent block. To propose that PalestineRemembered be permanently blocked for failing to abide by a guideline (WP:CITE), is an example of systematic bias here at Wikipedia. I hope that the community will seriously consider these issues and find a way to address the concerns of all involved. With respect.

• The community considered my case, this ArbCom was raised because there seemed no prospect of consensus to block me.
• The ArbCom was raised here - [8] - while my behaviour is pertinent to the case, I question whether I am the subject of it.

• My first edit on the subject of vulnerable ethnic or other minorities is this one [9] and I'm pleading with people not to damage race relations.
• I did the same thing several times more (though not always coherently!).
• I'm doing the same here [10] and am blocked for 1 month for alleged incivility. This is one of the subjects of this ArbCom it seems to me, which otherwise does not (directly) concern my behaviour.
• I believe my position is clear to all who have seen me editing. There is nothing, ever, to suggest my position is bigoted or racist.

• I believe I can prove that, since my last block, I have editing productively and with virtually no issues (evidence perhaps to follow).
• I long ago stopped using the word "Zionist" (though I discover it's a word I first used here after seeing another do so [11]).

• I have sometimes been guilty of using poor references (and once of citing wrongly).
• But in general, my information and work on the encyclopaedia has been carefuly prepared, well referenced and relevant.
• I am as careful as I can be about OR.
• I believe my edits are generally helpful to NPOV in articles.
• I have never intentionally been disruptive of articles (nor unintentionally, that I know of).
• In the early days, I was sometimes uncivil (often in relation to trying to get explanations). But this is no longer an issue and the offences are "time-served".
• I have created at least one article that is now stable (Naeim Giladi) and only circumstances have prevented more.

• I was misled as to the consensual basis of this the project, otherwise I might have appealed my blocks, and perhaps not be labouring under these stains on my character and work.
• I was early persuaded there were far more administrators than there really are, leading me to doubt their NPOV. In at least one case I posted an editor I believed to be an administrator with questions, none of which were answered.
• I'm still severely hampered by inexperience, having not discovered how I can "doodle" or sandbox my evidence in private. I'm sure this is causing great amusement, because I have written things I'm no longer sure are relevant and don't wish to use.
• I plan to change my UserName. Not because it is problematical, but because it sometimes appears that way.

Jay's initial charge against PalestineRemembered (hereafter PR) was that he culled material from a 1995 essay written by a Holocaust denier and published on a Holocaust denial website, then attributed it to the primary source (a now defunct New Zealand newspaper) in order to launder the material and cover his tracks: "After doing some investigation, I discovered that PalestineRemembered has never read the Evening Star of Auckland; rather, he has copied his views and references from the Holocaust denial group the Institute for Historical Review," Jay wrote, by way of proposing to have PR permanently banned. [12] PR soon after gave his actual source, the 1989 edition of Bitter Harvest: a Modern History of Palestine (a seminal work of scholarship by Sami Hadawi), along with a full bibliographic citation (extended quotation, edition and year, and page reference). When this was brought to Jay's attention, Jay maintained that his allegation was "as true as ever," adding that even if PR's source was truly Hadawi, then Hadawi himself "was copying [Holocaust denier] Garaudy as well."[13] Sticking to his position, in other words, entailed Jay's arguing that a book published in 1989 had managed to plagiarize an essay written in 1995.

Jay has never retracted his charge that PR source-mined Holocaust-denial materials, even after detailed further demonstrations of its falsity were adduced. [14] [15]. That he altered the wording of his case against PR for Arbcom (wherein he accuses PR more vaguely of having "seriously misrepresented his sources") may be taken as a tacit retraction of the Holocaust-denial-related charges.[16] However, even after this tacit retraction (if we can call it that), several editors pushing for a permaban were still maintaining, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, that PR's probable source was the Holocaust-denial site.[17] [18]

Two issues arise from the Holocaust-denial red herring, briefly: 1) the charge itself was incendiary and highly prejudicial to the ensuing debate about banning PR; and 2) the manner in which key editors, including Jay, clung to the charge even after it was shown to be unfounded (if not demonstrably false), raises serious questions about whether PR has been the target of a fishing expedition, if not an outright witch-hunt.

What remains here is a violation of the guideline WP:CITE#say_where_you_got_it, to which PR has owned up to, here and elsewhere. After the specious accusation of laundering Holocaust-denial materials was discredited, none of those editors pushing for PR to be banned has offered a plausible alternative motive of bad faith on PR's part in his violation of WP:CITE. A seminal work of scholarship carries more weight than a story in a now-defunct regional newspaper, and Wikipedia privileges secondary sources over primary ones, per WP:ATT#Primary_and_secondary_sources; so in no sense can it be plausibly claimed that PR was trying to "buff up" the material he was adding by citing it to the Evening Star. He cited a primary source instead of a secondary, in what has every appearance of having been an honest mistake.--G-Dett 17:14, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm wholly uninvolved in this case and, frankly, I have little sympathy for or interest in the causes espoused by either Jayjg or PalestineRemembered (whom I'll abbreviate as PR). However, as a process wonk and long-standing Wikipedian (editor since 2003, admin since 2004) there are a number of points I'd like to make here.

I want to emphasize at the outset that my comments aren't intended to "get at" any particular editor, but are intended as an open and frank review of what went wrong in this instance. I'm emphatically not acting as any kind of advocate for PR, who does indeed have a questionable editing record. However, I do have a strong belief in fair play. As a conscientious admin, if I see something going wrong I want to help to fix it.

This episode doesn't do Wikipedia any credit. It exposed serious failings in process and some very poor judgments by experienced editors. Specifically:

The most disturbing aspect of this debacle is the complete lack of any hard evidence presented by the initiating administrator.

In this post, Jayjg accused PR of having "copied his views and references from the Holocaust denial group the Institute for Historical Review" and "passing off Holocaust denial material as your own research, and trying to insert it into articles". His sole basis for making this allegation was that his Google searching had found that the Auckland Evening Star article cited by PalestineRemembered was quoted on a Holocaust denial website. He then assumed that PR had used the same source. However, he made no effort to verify that this was PR's source; he cited no evidence that PR had used this as his source; and he failed to consider the possibility that any other sources might have cited the Evening Star, and that PR might have used those alternative sources. The entire allegation was based on a personal supposition which Jayjg did not bother to verify.

At the very least, this shows remarkable carelessness in making such a serious allegation. It is very disappointing that Jay has not acknowledged the flaws in his case; I hope he takes the opportunity of this evidence page to do so. It also reflects poorly on the other editors who repeated Jayjg's allegation without themselves considering the flaws in his statement or attempting to verify it. We would never accept such haphazard fact-finding in an article, so why would we accept it for something as serious as banning an editor?

Wikipedia has a well-established dispute resolution mechanism. Jayjg knows this very well, having served a year as an arbitrator. However, he made no effort to resolve this dispute by the simplest possible means - asking PR where he obtained the Evening Star quotation. PR was able to answer this question on his talk page within minutes of having been informed that he had been blocked indefinitely - but nobody asked the question. [19] This whole episode could have been avoided if Jayjg had simply discussed the matter with PR rather than jumping to conclusions.

Note that the community sanction noticeboard says at the top of the page, in bold: "Requesting a ban against an editor is not a step to be taken lightly or without trying other means to resolve the situation first." (my emphasis).

It is clear from the evidence that PR's citation did not comply with WP:CITE#Say where you got it. Although compliance is certainly a very good idea, WP:CITE is a guideline, not a policy. An indefinite ban is a grossly disproportionate penalty for an offence of this nature. PR should take more care in attributing sources properly in future. However, a relatively minor breach of one clause of a guideline is not something that should attract anything more than a rebuke.

I am struck by the number of allegations that PR was involved in "deception" in this instance. Many editors supported Jayjg's assertions with accusations that PR was dishonest: "deliberate lying" (JoshuaZ), "deliberately adding false material" (Tom Harrison), "fraudulent use of material" (SlimVirgin), etc. However, this was based on (1) an uncritical assumption of the accuracy of Jayjg's initial allegation; and (2) a belief that PR was acting deceitfully (which is itself reliant on the assumption that PR had something to hide, i.e. using a discreditable source such as a Holocaust denial website).

In many cases, no thought appears to have been given to the possibility that PR was acting in good faith but simply made a citation error; there appears to have been an instant rush for judgment. I attribute this mainly to editors making a snap judgment after looking at PR's block log. This emphasizes the need to properly review the evidence, rather than making instant judgments.

At no point was PR given an opportunity to give his side of the story, nor does Jayjg appear to have informed him of the discussion:

• At 18:17 on 13 May, Jayjg posted his initial accusation.[20]

• At 19:43, Tom Harrison informed PR of the AN/I discussion.[21]

• At 20:01, Seraphimblade informed PR that he had been blocked indefinitely.[22]

In other words, only 18 minutes elapsed between PR being informed of the discussion and being blocked. This haste was unseemly and unnecessary. There was no emergency situation to justify an instant decision; nobody would have been harmed if PR had been allowed to respond to his accusers on the community noticeboard.

The community sanction noticeboard is not "votes for banning". However, as can be seen from the discussion this is exactly how it was used by many editors. This underlines the concerns that were expressed by many in the recent MFD discussion about the community sanction noticeboard. This case is, in fact, a perfect demonstration of those concerns.

Although I am reluctant to ascribe partisan motives to (most of) the editors involved in this debacle, I believe that the case does have its roots in the intense partisanship that disfigures our Middle Eastern articles. It is clearly relevant that the initial proposal to ban PR and a significant number of votes to support a ban came from one partisan camp, while PR himself and many of the votes against banning came from the other camp. This does not mean that the episode was motivated by partisan concerns. However, some of the comments on the community noticeboard discussion were clearly influenced by partisanship.

The fault in this case goes far wider than Jayjg alone, but as the initiator of this controversy he does obviously have a very high degree of responsibility for it. Regrettably, Jay has shown repeated poor judgment on matters relating to his special interests (i.e. Israel and the Middle East). This is the third high-profile controversy involving Jay in the past six weeks. I believe a consistent pattern has emerged of precipitate, poorly-considered administrative actions, undertaken without any attempt to verify assumptions or engage in dispute resolution, and subsequently reversed amid controversy. Specifically:

• On 1 April, Jay speedily deleted an image page relating to a map of Israel which was being worked on by a number of editors, including myself.[23] The speedy deletion violated long-established policy, no valid rationale was given and none of the editors involved were consulted. Jay's actions were quickly overturned following an AN/I discussion. The issues relating to the map were later successfully resolved and the map is now in widespread use across Wikipedia.

• On 26 April, Jay unilaterally overturned the outcome of a deletion debate.[24] The action violated long-established policy, no valid rationale was given and the closing administrator was not consulted. Jay's actions caused a major controversy and were overturned by a large majority of (often highly critical) editors in a DRV discussion. The article in question was later successfully merged into a new, broadly supported article.

Similarly, in this latest incident, Jay has sought to ban an editor based on an unverified assumption, made no effort to verify that assumption, and appears not to have consulted anyone else to corroborate his assumption. The basis for his action has again proved faulty and has again produced a major controversy.

All three of these controversies were unnecessary and could have been avoided quite trivially with a little forethought and consultation with other editors. I believe that, at the very least, Jay needs to act more carefully in future. -- ChrisO 23:10, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

John254 calls for PalestineRemembered to be reblocked [25]. Phaedriel then blocks PalestineRemembered [26], although she admits she is unaware of the background to this case [27]. She unblocks hours later after opposing voices are raised in the AN/I discussion. Catchpole 12:56, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While my position is that PR's disruption warrants sanctions, I would just like to make a brief comment on ChrisO's evidence above. I believe that his presentation of "Pattern of poor judgment by Jayjg" [sic] is an unfair description of events which leaves out significant details, including ChrisO's own action:

• Missing from the description of the April 1st events are ChrisO's unilateral speedy deletion of an image and its Talk (as well as on the Commons), against the consensus on Talk, in a content dispute to which he was party. Jayjg, who "had previously played no part in the discussion", was reversing in part that action.
• Jayjg's action was not "quickly overturned" in the AN/I discussion as ChrisO asserts. In fact, much, if not all of the censure was directed at ChrisO, who had taken questionable admin action for the second time that week. Neither is the map in "widespread use across Wikipedia", rather the previous discussion was allowed to continue until a new image formulation was agreed upon.
• The article in question was not "successfully merged", so much as the AfD and DRV served as an impetus for the creation of a new entry not subject to the scoping or original research problems of the original. While Jayjg may have acted out of process, there is no need to further frame his actions as having been without rationale or support from many editors.

I would also like to emphasise at the outset that my comments aren't intended to "get at" any particular editor, but rather are meant to provide a fuller context to issues that were presented as salient to this discussion. Tewfik^Talk 16:41, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Place argument and diffs which support the second assertion; for example, your second assertion might be "So-and-so makes personal attacks", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits where So-and-so made personal attacks.

before using the last evidence template, please make a copy for the next person

Place argument and diffs which support your assertion; for example, your first assertion might be "So-and-so engages in edit warring", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits to specific articles which show So-and-so engaging in edit warring.

Place argument and diffs which support the second assertion; for example, your second assertion might be "So-and-so makes personal attacks", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits where So-and-so made personal attacks.