Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 3/Workshop

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.

Template
1)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
2)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
3)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
1)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
2)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
3)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
4)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Questions to the parties

 * Arbitrators may ask questions of the parties in this section.

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 &#124;  Parlez Moi  02:50, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Guerillero's Questions for 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 &#124;  Parlez Moi  02:44, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
 * As you suggested to any contributor to answer too, here is my feeling:
 * I have never met any admin deeply involved in the I/P issue. I think they still don't have been affected by the issue. I am happy to see that when a contributor becomes an admin, s/he also makes his/her our values (that's just my mind);
 * I think there are long term civil pov pushers, unfortunately; without pointing anybody I think the way to recognize them is the "1 pov editing" that is discussed by several contributors on the "evidence page".
 * The WP:NOTHERE accounts are really a recurrent issue and, from my point of view, the main one because they make lose a lot of energy. Some are "long term" ; others are "new accounts".
 * Brand new editors and socks are not the main issue from my point of view when they do not make civil pov pushing and jsut attack or insult but they are from the point of view of many other contributors. It is true that they harass (and keep harassing) contributors. I was myself threathened and outed "severely" but if it is true that are affected you finish by relativising.
 * Pluto2012 (talk) 20:54, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
 * That's a good question. With your kind permission, I'd like to think about the question as you've posed it before I respond. But I will do that reasonably soon. StevenJ81 (talk) 17:45, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I've thought about this quite a bit, and I've come to the conclusion that there is one theme in common, but a couple of different variations on that theme.
 * First, what they're not: Admins. I think it's fair to say that admins are reticent to step in on this topic. They are not necessarily expert enough on the topic to make hard calls here. They don't want to be accused of biased behavior themselves, and (I sense) they don't want to be sanctioned as administrators for bias. (This is a hunch. But I was accused of being a biased administrator on one of my attempts at mediating an edit war. I'm sure if I had really been an admin I wouldn't have been happy about that.) So leaving aside the question of whether Malik in the end went too far in his response in this situation (he did, apparently), I think admins surely need to be given protection and benefit of the doubt from ArbCom and other "powers-that-be" in this topic area whenever they make a hard call. Sometimes they will get it wrong, but admins perhaps more than anyone else need some support as long as they're really trying to do the right thing in their role as admins.
 * Second, most of the people I think of as NOTHERE have been around less than two years, and usually less than a year. (I can't say there are no longer-term ones.) If they're not an IP or outright newbie, then I tend to consider them NOTHERE if they never edit outside the topic area (or on talk or project pages related to the topic area). Maybe that's a little unfair. We'll get some opinions that some newcomers can make very valuable contributions. No doubt true. But this topic area is so toxic that I think we need to err in the direction of exclusion. Why not let people practice by making contributions in areas that aren't so emotional? They can get used to the rules, and perhaps be infected just a little bit with the ideals of the project. After that, they can contribute here, too.
 * Zombies, socks? I don't know. I know from talking to many people, from watching talk pages, etc., how bad a problem this is in the topic area. Per se they have not been my individual problem quite as much, but mainly because I quickly got burned and withdrew. But my problems have been with people I deemed NOTHERE, and by definition accounts like those are NOTHERE, so I make some common conclusions.
 * To me, the overarching theme is POV pushing. But the two variations of the theme are "civil" and "uncivil". They both exist, and occasionally I even wonder if there isn't some good cop, bad cop going on.
 * In many ways the "uncivil" ones are easier to deal with according to current rules. You can revert, block, etc., because in general they're violating some rule or another. (Caveat: an administrator needs to be willing. And if you actually have to go to an AN discussion, it takes forever, while the problem goes on. We need a quicker solution.)
 * The civil ones are more insidious, because they know the rules, and selectively use them to justify their POV pushing. ("I don't have to write the full, balanced article. I can write this, and leave the balancing to others.") ("If you think this is UNDUE, add other material to reweight the article.") At that, some of the rules are (appropriately) flexible, so sometimes you just can't get people to see things in context. In the United Synagogue situation I mentioned elsewhere, the article was start-class: bigger than a stub, but not enormously long, either. Someone was writing about criticism of the organization's support for Israel, and added text equivalent to about 80% of the current size of the article. (There were RS arguments too, but leave those aside for now.) I suggested that something like two paragraphs (25-35% of article length) on the organization's Israel advocacy—one in description, and one in critique—would be about the right weight, given the scope of the organization's activities. I was told in no uncertain terms that Israel was by far the most important thing the organization does, influencing everything else, and that weight wasn't measured by paragraphs. The person was not willing to interpret any rule in any way other than which would allow her to add exactly what she wanted, the way she wanted. (And this after she agreed to work with me on a compromise, I'd add.) There are no outright violations of civility rules, and if there aren't any technical violations of edit-war rules, it is almost impossible to get an administrator to intervene. (Who's going to block someone for consistently adding material that is UNDUE?) Even if you want to do the right, pure thing, you almost have to goad someone into rule breaking to get the attention of an administrator—and that's not right, either.
 * I'm sure we will still have POV pushers if we get rid of NOTHERE people. But it's my hope that if two opposite POV pushers who are committed to the encyclopedia work together, they'll be able to craft a reasonably neutral compromise that an encyclopedia can live with. If that's not the case, we'll come back and do this again. But I don't even think there's a way to know how experienced editors without the pressure of NOTHEREs will manage until we try it. So even if it's a multi-step process, we need to start here.
 * The first draft of what I will propose in the workshop is at User talk:StevenJ81/How do we make it better, if you're interested in having an early look. Not all of that will work as I wrote it, but it's a start. StevenJ81 (talk) 15:10, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I opposed any "get tough" measures and still oppose them now. In the United Synagogue article, I see that there was an RfC and the WP:UNDUE material was cut out, and the person who wanted to add it was indeffed. The current system worked: why fix something which is not broken? The more I think about this case in general, the more I convince myself that the serious issues here cannot be legislated in this ArbCom case. It is often impossible to distinguish "civil POV pushing" and good-faith editing. I do not even know what exactly this case is about, since there are no parties, and no fixed agenda, and everyone has a laundry list of things they want to look at. I think content issues cannot - and indeed should not - be legislated here. What should be done is to concentrate on technical matters, like sockpuppetry, and clarifying the rules already present, like WP:1RR, and how WP:NPOV is to be interpreted by WP:AE. Kingsindian &#9821;&#9818; 01:57, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
 * But how much efforts should be invested to remove/add such material? The the history of United Synagogue and it is insane. I have been stubborn myself on a few edits but only when the other editors argument was complete nonsense or showed clear double-standards based on bias (or both). This should be resolved. Settleman (talk) 10:06, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
 * The user would probably have been blocked right last December if someone bothered to use the talk page, or even make a complaint about edit-warring. The war only continued as long as it did because the other user MikeSchwartz continued edit-warring ineffectually and made exactly 0 comments on the talk page. Then, there was continued edit-warring with multiple people in April. There were plenty of "evidence" against this person. There was no report at WP:AN3, and the very first WP:ANI thread against her resulted in her getting banned. That it took so long as it did was because people choose to argue through edit summaries without using the talk page. Kingsindian &#9821;&#9818; 16:11, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't know if this process would have gone more efficiently or not. What I do know is that a tremendous amount of time and energy are spent dealing with situations like this, and that this is time and energy better spent on productive content creation. StevenJ81 (talk) 16:53, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
 * You would agree that fighting vandalism or propaganda is as important as "content creation"? As far as I can see, it took exactly 1 RfC and 1 ANI to ban this user. It is true that people argue a lot on talk pages and get frustrated, but the system worked very efficiently for this, if people use it sensibly. Indeed, my main advice to all editors in this area is to realize that you don't have to convince everyone: if you reach an impasse, just use WP:DR (RfC works well) and move on. And if one "loses" the RfC, drop the stick. There are plenty of bad articles to be fixed. Kingsindian &#9821;&#9818; 17:46, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Naturally fighting vandalism and propaganda is as important as "content creation". But I'd rather keep it out of here in the first place than have to fight it once it's here. And I personally think that reducing the volume of contributions from NOTHERE editors will reduce the amount of time we have to spend fighting vandalism and propaganda. (Just to be clear: reduce it, not eliminate it.) StevenJ81 (talk) 18:34, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Naturally fighting vandalism and propaganda is as important as "content creation". But I'd rather keep it out of here in the first place than have to fight it once it's here. And I personally think that reducing the volume of contributions from NOTHERE editors will reduce the amount of time we have to spend fighting vandalism and propaganda. (Just to be clear: reduce it, not eliminate it.) StevenJ81 (talk) 18:34, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Guerillero's Questions for Kingsindian
Would something like GamerGate's 500 edit rule help the situation any? Would this just drive socks more underground? -- Guerillero &#124;  Parlez Moi  02:44, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
 * On wp:fr we have seen contributors making 500 fast edits (such as add a space in some articles) in order to get the 500 edits to get the right to vote to some elections. Anyway, I think the rule could discourage some "gamers" anyway. Pluto2012 (talk) 21:00, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I am sorry, I wasn't even aware that a discussion was going on here (for some reason the ping didn't work). As I said already on the main case page, I do not support a 30/500 rule. Gamergate is a very narrow area, and a 30/500 rule can make sense. This is a very wide area, and people are often interested in a very small part of it. The collateral damage due to this would be very high, while determined socks can easily circumvent it. Kingsindian &#9821;&#9818; 01:14, 20 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 &#124;  Parlez Moi  02:44, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
 * My mind, which may not be shared, is that contributors may sometimes know the issue better than admins. I think that admins, wisely, left the area. For me the questions is rather: how to determine who can "force" anything in staying in compliance with our principles. Pluto2012 (talk) 21:00, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I am not sure how this would work. One is already "forced" to discuss if there is an edit-war, since one could technically be banned/blocked. Slow motion edit-wars (which don't technically break WP:1RR) are also sometimes discussed on WP:AE and acted upon. Kingsindian &#9821;&#9818; 01:25, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
 * How about this: no adding/removing the same material for the third time without some indication of consensus on the talk page ? The limitation should be global for any number of editors. Once someone made a bold change and someone else reverted it, it should not be re-done by anyone in a reasonable amount of time without a discussion. Attempts of compromise should also be proposed on the talk page first, to avoid repeated warring over minor variations of essentially the same edit. This would eliminate slow-going edit wars and multi-party edit wars. &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 08:06, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I am fine with the first part of WarKosign's proposal. However, the second part is not good. Often it is good to simply make a compromise edit, which cuts down on needless discussion, which goes off on tangents on the talk page. An edit on the main space focuses the conversation. It can always be objected to or reverted if people don't agree. Kingsindian &#9821;&#9818; 16:20, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I see your point, but my concern is that "compromise edit" would be used as an excuse to continue pushing in and out the same edit with minor changes. I can't remember seeing an edit in this area that was reverted, and then a compromise reached by another bold edit that was a reasonable compromise agreed by all sides. If there is such an edit, it won't take much effort to propose it on the talk page and ensure everybody (silently) agree to it. &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 19:20, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
 * See this for an example. It is still being debated on the talk page. Kingsindian &#9821;&#9818; 19:29, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
 * It seems to me that in this case your attempted compromise edit didn't help - both slow-going edit war and the talk page discussion are still going on. A prohibition to push essentially the same content back and forth would eliminate the edit warring and maybe better focus the editors on the discussion. &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 20:01, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
 * That is not accurate. My text was not removed afterwards: the original text was added together with that. The discussion now is whether the compromise text captures all aspects of the original text in a good way. This is what I meant that making an edit focuses the discussion. Kingsindian &#9821;&#9818; 12:42, 22 September 2015 (UTC)


 * There is excessive unbalance in the number of editors in PIA. And certain editors seems to follow each other in a friendly/supportive way. This make 1RR one-sided and consensus a joke. I don't have a solution but preserving the current situation is harmful for the encyclopedia and its neutrality. Maybe an admin should be in charge of some content disputes with the authority to put sanctions on editors as needed (like absurd claims or double standards). This can be very effective and a few short blocks will put everyone back in line. Settleman (talk) 09:58, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
 * If there is a local consensus which you disagree with, open an RfC to get outside editors to comment. WP:1RR is a tool to reduce edit-warring: it makes no judgement on whether the current article is a WP:WRONGVERSION. I hear that you are an eventualist. Stuff gets fixed eventually: WP:1RR only helps in this regard by forcing discussion on the talk page. Kingsindian &#9821;&#9818; 10:04, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Do you compare an article created the day before to an article that sits for years with false information or lacking WP:BALANCE? Back to Susya article, the Israeli point of view was completely missing and a baseless claim by 'HR'-NGOs were part of the article for years. A light finger on the 'protection finger' can only leave distorted articles in their faulty position. Settleman (talk) 15:42, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

=Proposed final decision=

Template
1) {text of Proposed principle}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
2) {text of Proposed principle}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

User:Brad Dyer
1) has been indefinitely blocked as a likely sockpuppet of . 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., , )


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Support. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 07:52, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose. This is not factual, my block had nothing to do with being a sock puppet. Brad Dyer (talk) 19:26, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment by others:
 * Proposed. Relevant as this account appears to have been created with the intent of tone-trolling. Guy (Help!) 09:25, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

1.1) Brad Dyer engaged in tendentious editing and behaviour which could legitimately be interpreted as trolling, for example characterising this reversion 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:.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Oppose. Removing quotes from sentences that were copied word-for-word from a copyrighted source is precisely a copyright violation. Brad Dyer (talk) 19:26, 24 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Proposed. Guy (Help!) 11:16, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Template
2) {text of proposed finding of fact}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Proposed remedies
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.

Template
1) {text of proposed remedy}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
2) {text of proposed remedy}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
1) {text of proposed enforcement}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
2) {text of proposed enforcement}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Neutrality is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia
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.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Narratives deserve place on Wikipedia
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.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Sources should NOT be dismissed based on editors own bias
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.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * This statement can be a starting point of discussion with respect to third-party sources. When it comes to sources that are not third-party, it breaks down. Many sources exist primarily to promote or propagandise in favor of a particular cause, and it is perfectly legitimate to cite that fact in reliability discussions. Zerotalk 04:04, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
 * If it said "... academic or otherwise reliable soruces solely based on race ..." I could support it better. Zero is right that these can be legitimate criteria to discuss. At the same time, Settleman is trying to make the point that, for example, Arutz Sheva should not be reflexively dismissed as unreliable just because of its generally pro-settler editorial perspective. It is still a news reporting organization and in some cases that reporting is reliable and usable. Personally, I think for such sources each reference needs to be judged for reliability on its own merit. StevenJ81 (talk) 13:58, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Disrupting Wikipedia by disregarding core content policies is not a content issue
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.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Editors are expected to interpret core content policy consistently
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.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

1RR has many shortcomings
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.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Arutz 7 is an RS
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'


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * We are not going to maker content decisions -- Guerillero &#124;  Parlez Moi  21:32, 20 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Although there is no chance arbcom will agree to certify a source, I'll note my severe disagreement with this assessment. Zerotalk 09:55, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Like I wrote in the small font, I think RS should be discussed, if not as part of this, than in some other forum. Right now there is no clear silverline for what sources can or can't be used. The decision is taken by whoever stick his feet deeper in the sand. Blogs/partisan sources/biased sources - they are all good or bad randomly (or not). Settleman (talk) 15:46, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
 * First, ArbCom will not certify a source. However, as I said above, I think a source like Arutz 7 falls out somewhere in the middle. It is not the New York Times or the Wall Street Journal that is (more or less) inherently reliable at all times and for all purposes. It is also not a mouthpiece organ of a totalitarian state whose objectivity is always subject to suspicion. Rather, an individual citation of Arutz 7 deserves scrutiny and should be judged on its own merits. StevenJ81 (talk) 14:02, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree but some editors leave it in if the info is 'unharmful' for the 'Palestinian cause' and remove it when it is. Settleman (talk) 06:56, 2 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Support Artuz Sheva is a major media outlet in a country with a free and lively press. I can see no standard or principle that would exclude this paper without excluding half or more of the news outlets in countries with a free press.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:25, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment: clearly, Arb.com will not rule on this, I just note with astonishment that editors presume as WP:RS, a source which employ people like Giulio Meotti, (who is completely radioactive for any other publishing houses due to stuff like this). Also, this request is forum-shopping, see here, Huldra (talk) 23:40, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Some editors are hypocrites
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!


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Proposed - I am yet to meet an editor who is an imbecile. The truth is, ALL the editors I interacted with so far are extremely smart and capable. But then comes a silly responses that I wouldn't expect from a 3 years old or some double standards that could be explained as a hard case of amnesia but clearly that isn't the case. The only explanation I have is that some editors are hypocrites who feel comfortable enough to act on it.

Some editors falsify sources
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??).


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Proposed - It doesn't happen often but it should be punishable.

WP:UNDUE is misused
5) UNDUE is used when it is a clear case of WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Proposed remedies
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.

RS should be discussed
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.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

WP:WORDS by biased source should be brought to NPoV
2) Biased sources on all sides use biased language. An editor should choose the most neutral voiced source or just 'tone it down'.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

WP:LABELs harm Neutrality
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.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Repeating NPoV Violations are a legitimate base of a complaint/sanctions
1) Repeating violation of NPov (or POVPUSH) should be punishable.
 * (a) Adding material that is 'one sided' is not POVPUSH if it comply with WP policies (and most of such edits can be viewed as 'neutral' anyway)
 * (b) Using language which violates NPoV is POVPUSH even when based on source if the source is clearly biased (A7, AJ, GL).
 * (c) UNDUEing one narrative is POVPUSH only if it is a clear cut case (there is 99% of gray area on that).

(This will require more involvement from uninvolved admins but at this stage it is necessary).


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
2) {text of proposed enforcement}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
1) {text of Proposed principle}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
2) {text of Proposed principle}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

ARBPIA still toxic
1) ARBPIA topics remain an extremely challenging and disruptive topic area.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Proposed. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:10, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Kingsindian, this was one of the original pre-DS general sanctions topic areas. It was hoped that DS and attention etc would be enough to manage the problem.  Going on record with a finding that it remains extra bad is necessary to justify continued high level response.  Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 07:50, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
 * This interpretation is precisely what I was afraid of. I don't think that the area is extra bad; I think the current tools are more than sufficient for the purpose, though they might need clarification in certain areas I listed in my evidence. Sockpuppetry is a concern, but Wikipedia really had no effective answer to it in general. The measures proposed by for SPI are good as a start. Many other serious issues in this area cannot be legislated in my opinion. Though I am quite far in economic philosophy from Frédéric Bastiat, I find his classic essay What is seen and what is not seen (one famous part is Parable of the broken window) relevant here. Most interventionist cures I have read here or on the evidence page will likely make the problems worse, and have bad side effects. Kingsindian &#9821;&#9818; 09:36, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment by others:
 * Strongly support - per reality. Settleman (talk) 16:08, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't see what this finding is supposed to say. It may or may not be "extremely challenging and disruptive" but why, and what does it actually mean for fixing it? Kingsindian &#9821;&#9818; 01:33, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Template
2) {text of proposed finding of fact}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Proposed remedies
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.

Full-Protect Articles
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.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Proposed. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:10, 15 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Support. WP:NOTHERE editors are less patient than contributors. More, the articles with a disruptive activity are often articles that are linked with the actuality (this settlement because it is talked about; this event that has just occured, ...). They are the target of potential pov-pushing only during short periods. Contributors who are there to develop an encyclopaedia know that it takes weeks and sometimes months to get the right information and crossing sources. They are not in a hurry. I would suggest periods of 6 weeks. Pluto2012 (talk) 19:39, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Support. StevenJ81 (talk) 14:13, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose - an article heating up might mean it goes through a required transition. Having light finger on the full-protection trigger isn't helpful in those cases. I see it used moderately now and I believe it is sufficient. Settleman (talk) 07:02, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Template
2) {text of proposed remedy}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
1) {text of proposed enforcement}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
2) {text of proposed enforcement}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Jurisdiction of the Arbitration Committee
1) The Committee retains jurisdiction over prior cases, in this instance, the Palestine-Israel articles case.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * adapted from American politics 2 --In actu (Guerillero) &#124; My Talk  16:07, 24 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Purpose of Wikipedia
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.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * from American politics 2 --In actu (Guerillero) &#124; My Talk  16:07, 24 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Role of the Arbitration Committee
3) It is not the role of the Arbitration Committee to settle good-faith content disputes among editors.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * from American politics 2 --In actu (Guerillero) &#124; My Talk  16:07, 24 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Neutrality and sources
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.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * from American politics 2 --In actu (Guerillero) &#124; My Talk  16:07, 24 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * I mostly agree with the statement, especially about the sentence starting "merely...". However, one major difference here compared to American politics is that in American politics a lot is written about everything. Here, in many areas, this is true - for instance in historical areas. In such areas, I support the use of highest quality sources in this matter. However, a fair bit of what goes on in this area is "breaking news" stuff, on which you find many many times more reliable Israeli sources (newspapers etc.) as compared to Palestinian sources. About the only ones for the latter is Ma'an News, and (sometimes) Al Jazeera. In many cases, international sources, like The Guardian and the BBC, and sometimes Israeli sources like Ha'aretz fill the gap, but sometimes it is hard to find the highest quality source. For instance, Israeli human rights organizations like B'Tselem are quoted routinely, but Palestinian ones like Al-Haq or Al Mezan Center for Human Rights are not. (of course in Israel, even B'Tselem is considered fringe). I suggest that one add a sentence affirming that per WP:RS, reliability of the source is always in context. Of course the WP:ONUS is on the person adding the source to demonstrate reliability. There should hopefully be corroborating high quality sources for the major points etc. Kingsindian &#9821;&#9818; 22:02, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I disagree with your analysis of available sources. While it is true there are more Israeli sources, those sources aren't focused on the issue. Ma'an reports any rumor of 'settler's violence' (just search for 'report' here) while Arutz 7 which is the Israeli equivalent was left out in the cold. Haaretz, while Israeli, is as anti-settlers as it gets and let's not forget UNRWA and UN reports which are widely used. Voice of NPoV can be maintained with a bit of commonsense.Settleman (talk) 07:26, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment, We are not discussing what sources to use, but the problem of balance, given the vast superiority in numbers of Israeli/diaspora sources we can use, and the almost zero grade use of Palestinian sources. Ma'an News Agency is or was EU-financed, and under stringent obligations to stick to reportage of facts or assumed facts, mainly with attribution. Arutz Sheva is an organ for the settler constituency, which is well reported in all Israeli mainstream newspapers, which don't however, as A7, highlight Muslim Brotherhood infiltration of Obama's White house or conspiracy theories that Palestinians who are murdered by settlers are in fact murdered by pedophiles or local clan vendettas. Kingsindian's point reflects a longstanding issue: can IPs and editors just go about immediately removing sources ( +972 magazine, Mondoweiss etc.etc,) at sight, without reading the articles or evaluating their quality? I think this practice, widespread until now, leads to facile POV pushing deletionism, a violation of WP:NPOV, and an acquiescence in WP:Systemic bias. RS should be strict, but in many cases, contextual considerations should be obligatory on the talk page, when such sources are used (sparsely). The neutral point of view is particularly difficult here, given that sources for an Israeli perspective that we regard as 'mainstream' are numerous while sources for the Palestinian perspective are notoriously exiguous, and we usually try to extract this from Israeli newspapers mostly concerned with their own reading constituencies. Nonetheless it is obviously incumbent to strive for that. Nishidani (talk) 14:27, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
 * The claim A7 reports on what other Israeli media report is only semi-true. The discussion on Duma is an excellent example as some editors jumped and said A7 lied when in fact it was reported on multiple platforms in Hebrew but only A7 translated it to English. The fact is most Haaretz reporters hate settlers and they do not report on minor or even medium attacks. If you use Ma'an for minor incident, the only Israeli media that publishes it is A7. Settleman (talk) 18:25, 3 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Agree - Per NPoV. Settleman (talk) 07:27, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - Per my understanding, this means that each single editor's edits have to comply with NPoV fully. That's a controversial proposal but I think that this is an important proposal to explain and justify why SPA's do not comply with WP:NPoV. This makes me think about this essay wp:writing for the enemy. We could enforce such actions to SPA's. Pluto2012 (talk) 13:33, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Single purpose accounts
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.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * from Transcendental Meditation --In actu (Guerillero) &#124; My Talk  16:07, 24 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Comment - this is actually hard to achieve when you edit old material as it requires digging through the existing sources. When I read through an existing article, the issues that will raise a red flag in my head are usually those I know more about or disagree with which will result in someone looking from the side thinking 'oh, POVPUSHER'. For new material there is no question that cherry-picking, for example, is an absolute violation of NPoV. Settleman (talk) 07:32, 2 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Support - I even think that SPA should not be allowed because they cannot comply with the 1st and 2nd pillars. Pluto2012 (talk) 13:19, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry
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.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * from OccultZone --In actu (Guerillero) &#124; My Talk  16:07, 24 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

At wit's end
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.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * from Falun Gong 2 -- Guerillero &#124;  Parlez Moi  01:57, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Certainly this seems appropriate for this area. Doug Weller (talk) 16:00, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * I have no idea what this is supposed to mean, without specifying what draconian measures one is proposing. But, as I said above, I oppose any draconian measures, nor has there been any evidence that those are needed. Kingsindian &#9821;&#9818; 16:08, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - in the current case, severe solutions cannot be bad solutions. I mean: if scientologists were banned from the articles talking about scientology ; Israelis and Palestinians may be banned from the articles talking about their conflict. Why not ? Wikipedia project, first. Pluto2012 (talk) 13:29, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
 * By the same logic you should ban all the Arabs, Muslims, Jews (who have motivation to be involved in the Arab–Israeli conflict) and everyone else who possibly has an opinion on the subject. Basically anyone who would bother to edit articles in the area. &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 16:24, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
 * No. That's not exactly the same logic. People who have an opinion on scientology were not banned from the articles dealing with scientology, only scientologists and because of the problmes they generated. Here, the Evidence proved that that some Israelis and some Palestinians are troublemakers in the articles dealing with their conflict, which is totally normal. We banned scientologists. There is not reason not to ban Israelis and Paelstinians if they generate problems. Pluto2012 (talk) 20:14, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Warkosign: I am not an Arab, or a Muslim, or a Jew; and I have been editing articles in the I/P area for 10 years, now. What I never, ever edit is articles I feel intensely about, say, I have never even looked at the Abortion-article, as I know damn well I could  never edit that article anywhere even close to neutral.... Huldra (talk) 23:58, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I think you are an example why Pluto2012's proposal is wrong. My impression from your edits is that you have a very strong opinion what the articles should and shouldn't say, and some people (including me) consider your opinions very far from neutral. I do not blame or attack you, I believe there is no objective neutrality and every good faith editor has a different opinion on what should be considered NPOV. Best approximation of true NPOV we can achieve is by compromising. The criteria for banning from the subject should be lack of readiness to discuss, that is WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality - and demonstrating it is already a sufficient reason to bad a user (in my opinion not applied enough). Banning all the editors suspected as Israeli and Palestinians from the subject for no reason other than their ethnicity is racism. &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 12:46, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Are Christians banned from the article on Jesus? I don't think the proposal is fair, and more to the point, it cannot work, because nobody is forced to reveal anything about themselves, least of all sockpuppets. Kingsindian &#9821;&#9818; 04:30, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
 * We can make the comparison but we have to go up to the end of the analysis:
 * Are there problems on the articles about "Jesus" ?
 * If there are problems are they due to "Christians" ?
 * Wikipedia topic-banned the members of the Scientology Church because they were generating problems on these articles.
 * Sames causes should lead to same consequences. We should be ready to go that far in the current case.
 * For the practical problem of banning, it is even more easier than for the case of scientology. Pluto2012 (talk) 05:49, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I am not too familiar with the Scientology case, but as far as I am aware, it does not cover all Scientologists, but only IPs belonging to Church of Scientology. Without going into whether the ban was right or wrong, the group of all "Israelis" or "Palestinians" is vastly larger. Anyway, I oppose any such measure, for partly the same reasons I gave for opposing the 30/500 rule: the collateral damage will be huge, while it will not deter socks. Not to mention that it is unfair. Kingsindian &#9821;&#9818; 07:55, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree. Perhaps more important, it's simply unfeasible - not every Israeli and Palestinian editor openly declares themselves as such. Do you go by IP ranges ? How about editors who live elsewhere ? Attempts to implement such measures might motivate otherwise law-abiding editors to consider using a sock account to overcome such unfair limitation. &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 12:46, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Template
1) {text of proposed finding of fact}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
2) {text of proposed finding of fact}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Proposed remedies
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.

Template
1) {text of proposed remedy}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
2) {text of proposed remedy}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Before anything else, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia first.
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.
 * This is similar to Principle 2 by Guerillero.
 * One may add: the Wikibooks project allows one to create content, use original research, and essentially say nearly anything one wants to say, short of being defamatory or inciting to violence. People that are determined to push a point of view can write (more) freely there. StevenJ81 (talk) 13:37, 25 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Support - it is important to have in mind what Wikipedia project is about. Pluto2012 (talk) 12:52, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

An encyclopedia has a neutral point of view by definition
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.
 * WP:NOTPAPER refers to (a) depth of coverage within articles and (b) range of allowable topics, far greater than possible in a paper encyclopedia of limited size. But for neutrality of content, paper encyclopedias are a good benchmark. StevenJ81 (talk) 14:27, 25 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Support Pluto2012 (talk) 12:52, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Everything else is subsidiary to pillars 1 and 2.
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)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Support - If I wanted to read propaganda, there is enough of it out there. Settleman (talk) 07:40, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Where other pillars are already broken, pillars 1 and 2 take priority.
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)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Support - That proposal may be controversial. Why should some pillar be more important than others ? Many people consider that they must be seen as a whole. Nevertheless, I support this proposal in the context of ARBPIA because we face polite contributors, sometimes with good faiths but with strong bias and who are WP:NOTHERE, which prevent the system to work. Pluto2012 (talk) 12:52, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

In this topic area, "anyone can edit" is already dead.
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)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Support - unfortunately. Pluto2012 (talk) 13:02, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Question - Who killed 'it'? Some long standing editors should look in the mirror. Simple edits are being face with nonsense responses which do not fool anyone and are not driven by policy but by PPOV. Settleman (talk) 18:32, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Rules intended to ensure neutral, encyclopedic content are routinely ignored in this topic area.
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)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Support - Again, unfortunately. This area is "poisoned". Pluto2012 (talk) 13:02, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - many articles are out of WP:BALANCE. Editors keep on using them as WP:COATRACK for more information usually to present the article subject in a certain light. Settleman (talk) 18:35, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Parties attempting to be honest, neutral brokers are ignored, treated disrespectfully or threatened.
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.
 * Sometimes such "honest brokers" do have personal points of view. This does not mean that honest efforts at compromise do not deserve respect and attention. StevenJ81 (talk) 14:09, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Because of this fact, this subject area is one where many administrators are reluctant to intervene, especially when something other than a frank, straightforward rules violation is concerned. StevenJ81 (talk) 15:13, 1 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

This process may require two rounds to complete.
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)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Support - I think the mess is so huge in the area that even some "good" contributors doesn't behave in compliance with our rules. It is 'unfair' to blame them because of the current situation. It is 'unfair' not to blame them in comparison with others who are blamed for the same actions but performed in other contexts. I think our responsibility is 1st to solve the issue of socks and SPAs but then everybody will have to come back to the standards of wikipedia. This may require a second round. Pluto2012 (talk) 13:02, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment - I see a lot of talking about socks but I don't see the extend of the problem, probably b/c I don't follow many articles as a new editor. I think the 2nd phase should be about DUE&UNDUE and RS. While some editors are sticking to the rules, others are extremely free spirited. Settleman (talk) 18:41, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Proposed remedies
I have endorsed some ideas on other parts of this page. StevenJ81 (talk) 20:39, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Articles in this topic area can only be edited by contributors who are HERE and have demonstrated a commitment to the principles of the project.
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.
 * As part of this remedy, I would include the possibility of aggressive investigation of sock/sleeper accounts. I would also include the possibility of a reset penalty and a "death penalty". See "enforcement" below. StevenJ81 (talk) 19:52, 1 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * I quite like it, but it might be too strong. Newbies sometimes makes quite constructive edits. A better version, I think, is that "established" editors can revert such new editors without it counting as a 1RR. This way you can keep a newbies good, constructive edits, and not worry about reverting POV-pushers, Huldra (talk) 21:55, 1 October 2015 (UTC)


 * As I have mentioned elsewhere, I do not support a 500 edits rule or something like this, which is even stricter. Gamergate is an extremely narrow topic, and a 30/500 edit rule may make sense. This is a very broad topic, and many people are interested in a small part of it. The collateral damage would be huge, while not preventing determined socks. In particular, this rule would have excluded me from editing when I first started. I have been on Wikipedia for years, but was very sporadic and casual in editing before I started editing in this area in earnest. I find it very strange that the complaint that not "everyone can edit" is being addressed by a draconian measure further increasing barriers to editing. I like Huldra's proposal better. Kingsindian &#9821;&#9818; 03:29, 2 October 2015 (UTC)


 * I support this. Can be used on specific individual articles for a specific period. --Qualitatis (talk) 09:52, 3 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Support - contributors who arrive on wikipedia, without any experience of our principles of work, which are complex and nuanced, should not start by this arena. More, if a contributors arrives here, it is highly probable that he comes with a strong point of view on the topic and that he comes to re-establish the Truth. That cannot work. I think 500 edits in the main, on other topics and 3 months is a minimum to be able to contribute constructively to the topic. Pluto2012 (talk) 13:07, 3 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Support + Comment - HERE does not mean you don't have an opinion or you are not focus on one area that interest you or that you have knowledge about. Editors have accused me for HOTHERE b/c of my focus while I have added quite a lot. The imbalance in editors amount (and aggressiveness) between the sides is clear and when people drag you into endless discussions on some edits you stay 'THERE'. Settleman (talk) 18:50, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Each and every edit done in this topic area must adhere to the strictest standards.
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)
 * Every edit must have an edit summary. Period. No exceptions.
 * Every edit must either include a reference or explain why it is an edit that does not require a reference. (It is a grammar correction, it is WP:BLUE, although BLUE must be construed very narrowly in this area.) The question of "what constitutes a reference" for this purpose is, I admit, not trivial. However, I would be satisfied that a source that an editor includes, believing it in good faith to be reliable, is sufficient to meet this first-level requirement.
 * Own comment: I fully appreciate that this may make things more difficult at first, before improving things. But in theory, such rules apply to every single edit made on every single article in mainspace without exception. We frequently bend that rule in order to try to encourage the creation of more content. And most of the time that's ok. But in this area I see no choice but to be strict about it. StevenJ81 (talk) 20:22, 1 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * I support the ideas behind this proposal, but I'm not sure about the implementation. It is necessary to allow a sequence of consecutive edits that in total satisfy the requirements. It is also necessary to exempt vandalism rollbacks.  Also, will forcing editors to use edit summaries just mean they write "improving article" or something equally useless?  An edit summary should be something specific for that edit, not something generic, but how can that be defined without just adding one more excuse that warriors can use to undo someone else's work? Zerotalk 02:39, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I neither support the idea behind the proposal nor the implementation. There are often obvious socks in this area who should be (and are) reverted on sight. Squabbling with them over edit summaries would only increase the burden, with no gain at all. Secondly, I do not see what these rules are supposed to accomplish. Is there some evidence that people adding unsourced information (which is not summarily reverted soon) is a problem in this area? I oppose any extra rules which don't serve any purpose. Lastly, many of the problems in this area are not due to adding unsourced information, but POV pushing using selective sources etc. In this area, so much is written, that almost every viewpoint, no matter how marginal, is espoused by some plausible figure. This rule does not address such things. Kingsindian &#9821;&#9818; 03:22, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
 * why not ? - but this would rather be part of the 2nd round. Pluto2012 (talk) 13:09, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Any editor can freeze the inclusion of any material change to an article by demanding a consensus discussion on the talk page.
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.
 * There is no guarantee that the editor will win such a consensus discussion. This does not mean the discussion shouldn't happen.
 * There should probably be some minimum period of time before such a consensus discussion in this area can be reopened.
 * Similarly, while I hope this remedy would not be abused, we should watch to see if editors abuse it, and consider how to sanction people abusing the remedy. StevenJ81 (talk) 20:38, 1 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Oppose. I have found this to be a typical instrument used by socks and POVPUSHERS to prevent material they don't like. --Qualitatis (talk) 09:58, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Ambiguous formulation. I (probably wrong) red it as preventing inclusion, much like the strong edit summary "reverse to longstanding version". Anyway a double-edged sword. It can be used to freeze POV inclusions, backed by non-discussions like and . You cannot enforce a discussion. --Qualitatis (talk) 14:17, 4 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Support - I disagree with Qualitatis. Socks or SPA come to re-establish the Truth. Often they will delete or add something new. They don't prevent other contributors to add or remove things. The charge of the good work, bringing soures, nuances and complete NPoV, should be to the ones who wants to change things. That will "freeze" the topics, slow everything, prevent the fast evolution of wp but that will also slow down the bad influence of SPA's. Pluto2012 (talk) 13:12, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Support under condition they explain themselves clearly. Not just put their foot down (which I've seen). Settleman (talk) 18:58, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Support. This in essence is the same as WP:BRD. Currently BRD clashes with 1RR, because when there are only two editors, the one pushing the change can re-instate the same edit repeatedly without ever discussing the reverted edit. In case of multiple editors for each side, it's simply a matter of numbers - until (and often after) someone bothers to open an RfC, the two opposing groups of editors push the same edit in and out of the article repeatedly while (or instead of) discussing. If an edit is reverted and the reason for the revert is made clear, the edit must not be retried by anyone for a while unless there seems to be a talk page consensus. On the other hand, there should be a way to deal with editors who repeatedly revert without explaining the reasons or for reasons that are quickly dismissed by the consensus - these counter-productive behaviours might be used as stalling techniques against edits one does not like. To promote progress, an easily fixable mistake (such as not-completely-neutral wording, or a missing but easily found reference) should be fixed or tagged rather than the whole edit reverted.

Reset penalty and death penalty
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)
 * Routine failure to use edit summaries
 * Routine misleading edit summaries
 * Routine failure to include references when making material edits
 * Multiple violations of 1RR (or successor rules) in a short period of time
 * Editing in direct opposition to established consensus, or editing notwithstanding a request for a consensus discussion
 * Grossly uncivil behavior
 * First offense: Reset penalty. User is banned from topic area until an additional 500 mainspace edits and 90 days are accumulated.
 * Second offsense: Death penalty. User is banned from topic area "for life." (Maybe forever really. Maybe five years. I don't know. A long time.)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Comment - I would add - repetitive failures of NPoV or UNDUE. Settleman (talk) 19:00, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Individual edits in violation of policy may be reverted for that reason alone, without regard to 1RR (or successor).
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)
 * All edits must have summaries that are material and accurate.
 * Each edit making material changes to an article must be supported by a source that the editor believes in good faith to be reliable.
 * Edits may not violate consensus identified on the article talk page, nor may they violate a request for a consensus discussion.
 * Particularly with respect to edits in violation of consensus, user should be notified on his/her user talk page. StevenJ81 (talk) 21:40, 1 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Sorry, this is a terrible idea. The warriors in this area always claim that their edits conform to policy or consensus and their opponents' edits violate policy or consensus. In practice this rule will be used as an excuse for unlimited reverting. Zerotalk 10:41, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Per Zero. Settleman (talk) 19:01, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

1RR rule
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. Zerotalk 02:03, 27 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Support - That is the same proposal as another one here above. The charge of the "good work" to bring sources, comply with WP:V, WP:NPoV and WP:Due weight should be for the new version or the changes. Pluto2012 (talk) 13:17, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Sock detection
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. Zerotalk 02:03, 27 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * In this respect, see the investigation here. It was patently obvious that the user was a sock, but due to issues with stale accounts and unclear sockmaster, the investigation was at an impasse. It was by chance that I happened upon this case, and noticed the similarity of this editor with another editor I had invested a lot of time in investigating for a different case. (Note that only Zeremony was initially listed; LoveFerguson/EscEscEsc were added after my intervention). I still believe that the editor is one of the long-term socks operating in this area (perhaps ), but the existing CU process is somewhat cumbersome and time-consuming. Kingsindian &#9821;&#9818; 08:29, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with Zero's statement. StevenJ81 (talk) 14:07, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment - I'm new here but at least when it comes to IP editors, I can't see a solution. All one need to do to get a new IP is restart his/her router. Settleman (talk) 19:12, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Even without that remark I had my suspicions. Enjoy. --Qualitatis (talk) 14:44, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
 * To eliminate a misunderstanding, the "I/P" refers to "Israel/Palestine", not "IP" (Internet Protocol). Kingsindian &#9821;&#9818; 19:48, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Proposed remedies
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.

1RR rule
1) The 1RR rule should be replaced by a rule based on this concept:
 * An editor may not insert the same material twice, or delete the same material twice, in any 24-hour period.

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. Zerotalk 02:03, 27 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * I suggest to extend the rule to cover tag-teaming and multi-party edit warring as well:
 * An editor may not re-instate an edit (including with minor variations) that was reverted (with an explained reason) in a 24-hour period without achieving consensus on the talk page. &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 06:23, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Agreed that minor variations count as the same. I'm not so sure about "explained reason" and "achieving consensus" as they invite wikilawyering. The basic rule, before the fine print, should be a clear bright line. Also if consensus can be obtained within a day, it means there is another editor who can repeat the edit. Zerotalk 13:53, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I generally agree with the comments here. With respect to "explained reason", I'm not sure if WarKosign really meant that as something for wikilawyering as much as simply that (a) there needs to be an actual edit summary and (b) it has to say something more material than "reverted". StevenJ81 (talk) 14:11, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not particularly happy with my phrasing. The idea is: an edit that is reverted because of expressed concerns can't go back without these concerns being addressed or dismissed by the consensus. Consensus could be another editor or two responding, or the reverter not bothering to reply to the original editor's explanation of the edit. &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 14:17, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Support the idea but in taking into account that the interdiction doesn't concern 1 editor but the idea or the material itself. A was reverted by B. C should not be offered the opportunity to support A in an editwar. All 3 must find a consensus in the talk page. As long as there is no consensus, the version is the "old one". Pluto2012 (talk) 13:26, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - Right now, even if one move to another part of the article, the 1RR still apply though it has nothing to do with war-editing, just improving other parts of the article. Settleman (talk) 19:15, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Sock detection
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. Zerotalk 02:03, 27 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Support StevenJ81 (talk) 14:11, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Support both (a) and (b). In addition I would suggest a (c) in any voting, say AfD, "new" voters, say with less than 100, or 500 edits can be CU. (Each and every vote I have participated in the I/P area has been plagued by socks) Huldra (talk) 21:50, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Pluto2012; no, it would not stop socking completely. But, as an example: virtually each and every AfD I have seen in the I/P area have attracted those strangely knowledgable editors with only, say,  20-30 edits. If any established editor had the right to  demand a CU of such jokers voters: I´m sure just the *knowledge* of that would keep most of them away. Huldra (talk) 23:17, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Nothing against. I just wonder if it will help and if it is enough. Pluto2012 (talk) 13:21, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Template
1)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
2)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
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.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
2) Nearly all users in this field are engaging in a gigantic WP:battleground, and neutral editors are rare.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Proposed remedies
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.

Template
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.
 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
2) {text of proposed remedy}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
1)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
2) {text of proposed enforcement}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
1)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
2)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
1)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
2)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Proposed remedies
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.

Template
1) {text of proposed remedy}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
2) {text of proposed remedy}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
1) {text of proposed enforcement}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
2) {text of proposed enforcement}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Analysis of evidence
Place here items of evidence (with diffs) and detailed analysis

Template

 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template

 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template

 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template

 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template

 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template

 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template

 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

General discussion

 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others: