Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Deir Yassin massacre

Case Opened on 13:14, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Case Closed on 00:21, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Please do not edit this page directly unless you wish to become a participant in this request. (All participants are subject to Arbitration Committee decisions, and the ArbCom will consider each participant's role in the dispute.) Comments are very welcome on the Talk page, and will be read, in full. Evidence, no matter who can provide it, is very welcome at /Evidence. Evidence is more useful than comments.

Arbitrators will be working on evidence and suggesting proposed decisions at /Workshop and voting on proposed decisions at /Proposed decision.

Statement by KimvdLinde

 * I bring this case because I think Guy Montag has violated his probation with the rewrite of the Deir Yassin massacre article, based on Deir Yassin: History of a Lie, The Zionist Organization of America (copies here and here), copyright violations from various websites and votestacking
 * Unilateral page move from common name to hardly used name, evidence see for example section
 * Total rewrite, disputed Talk:Deir_Yassin_massacre, no response from Guy to the point mentioned, no discussion.
 * Votestacking to prevent move back: opposed, opposed, opposed, opposed, opposed.
 * Extensive copyvio: http://www.kimvdlinde.com/wikipedia/Deir_Yassin_Copyright_violation.doc
 * Possibly whitewash, but at least biased editing. Page goes effectively from page describing massacre (Supported by historians) to page that obscures that fact (supported by IZL). Selective deletion of sourced material unfavourable for the denialist position. Selective quoting. (evidence gathering in progress)


 * I plead guilty of moving a page on which I was myself marginally involved by starting a poll to get the page moved back to the more common name and voted in support for that. The rational for the move was posted at WP:AN/I, Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents and the analysis and conclusion was considered valid  and was moved back accordingly by an uninvolved admin . Uninvoled admins told me that I should have not moved it myself as I was involved.. Is dealt with here Requests_for_arbitration/Israeli_apartheid/Workshop and here Requests_for_arbitration/Israeli_apartheid/Proposed_decision.


 * As for the sequence of events, with the banning and unbanning, let me show this:
 * Banned, ban confirmed by User:Fred Bauder, see User_talk:Guy_Montag, ban undone by User:Briangotts (not neutral: ), banned for copyvio , response from User:SlimVirgin , unbanned . -- Kim van der Linde at venus 13:39, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Statement by Guy Montag
I refuse to participate in any of these procedings, nor am I playing any more of her games. She is an administrator who has sided in an debate and then abused her powers to get her way. She is involved in an Arbcomm case dealing with her abuse of powers and has been asked to not participate in the debate at Deir Yassin by more than one editor. She initiated the vote that turned a discussion about the name that was only beginning into an all out pov fest by initiated a vote. After being notified that some of the information might be copywritten, even though much of it was already available in the previous version of the article (of course, no one cared about that because the article agreed with their pov) ar as raw sources in books, I petitioned the authors to receive authorization to use the information in the article, which is completely disfigured without it. I will recieve approval early next week. She causes disputes wherever she edits.

Even though the information can simply be cited within the notes by attributing to the author, Kim has used this technicality by reverting the article and totally rewriting the article according to her pov, even though I requested numerous times to open a workshop where we can work on the content together to insert both povs. Now she is attempting to ban me to stop me from balancing the article. This is a content dispute and Kim is using every heavy handed tactic she has at her disposal to stop me from editing. She should be sanctioned and her admin powers suspended. I have not been approached for mediation, nor did I feel there to be any need for mediation during my detailed discussion and debate with other editors.

Guy Montag 19:30, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (4/0/0/0)

 * Accept. James F. (talk) 19:11, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Accept. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 04:28, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Accept. Dmcdevit·t 07:32, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Accept Fred Bauder 19:28, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Temporary injunction (none)
=Final decision= All numbering based on /Proposed decision (vote counts and comments are there as well)

Authority of an administrator to ban under Probation
1) A single administrator, whether involved in editing of the article or not, may ban a user under a Probation remedy imposed by the Arbitration Committee, unless more than one is required by the terms of the remedy. The sole recourse for overturning such a ban is a successful request for arbitration alleging abuse of discretion by the administrator. Objections may be made to the banning administrator, but no other administrator may overturn the ban.


 * Pass 5-2 at 00:21, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Resetting of Probation
2) Probation which is limited to a term is not reset by bans imposed under it.


 *  Pass 7-0 at 00:21, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Users on Probation
3) Users who are on Probation remain free to edit in the same manner as other users. Unless they are banned from a specific article or area they may continue to engage in the same give and take as other editors.


 *  Pass 7-0 at 00:21, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Failure of Probation
4) Probation may not be available as a remedy in instances where it fails due to lack of administrative support. In such cases it may be necessary to fall back on the remedies used prior to development of Probation, usually bans.


 *  Pass 7-0 at 00:21, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Communication regarding polls
5) Users may communicate in a reasonable manner with other users regarding active polls which for one reason or another they feel the other users might wish to weigh in on.


 *  Pass 7-0 at 00:21, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Administrative discretion in closing polls
6) Administrators may take into consideration all relevant factors when closing a poll. These may include the degree to which the poll drew a significant number of voters, type and extent of campaigning regarding the poll, whether the poll is for reversal of a unilateral action or any other relevant factor.


 *  Pass 7-0 at 00:21, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Administrative action by involved administrators
7) Administrative action requiring discretion requires knowledge of the history and details of issue in question. It is often much easier for an administrator who is involved in the issue to know such factors, provided they are not strongly biased regarding the matter.


 * Pass 5-2 at 00:21, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Copyright violations
8) Copyright violations forbids use of material copied from published works. The information in sources may be used if credited. Failure to credit a source is plagiarism.


 *  Pass 7-0 at 00:21, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Naming conventions
9) Generally, article naming should give priority to what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature; see Naming conventions.


 *  Pass 7-0 at 00:21, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Choice of article name
10) In addition to the principle that the most common English usage should be used for the title of an article, should conflict arise regarding which title is appropriate "choose a descriptive name for an article that does not carry POV implications", Naming_conflict.


 *  Pass 7-0 at 00:21, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Ban for disruption
11) Users who disrupt an article or set of articles by edit warring or other disruptive behavior may be banned from the affected articles, in extreme cases from the site.


 *  Pass 7-0 at 00:21, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Neutral point of view
12) Neutral point of view requires that all significant points of view be fairly represented in an article regarding the subject.


 *  Pass 7-0 at 00:21, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Verifiability and reliable sources
13) Verifiability and Reliable sources require that information included in an article have been published in a reliable source which is identified and potentially available to the reader.


 *  Pass 7-0 at 00:21, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Locus of dispute
1) The locus of the dispute is editing by of Deir Yassin massacre and administrative actions by.


 *  Pass 7-0 at 00:21, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Guy Montag on Probation
2) On October 9, 2005 Guy Montag was placed on Probation for one year with respect to articles which relate to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict Requests for arbitration/Yuber. A ban was twice imposed with respect to Deir Yassiin massacre, once for POV disruption (the revision and title change), and again for copyright violation, but lifted both times when other administrators objected - Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement/Archive1 Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive123 and Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive123.


 *  Pass 7-0 at 00:21, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Move to Battle of Deir Yassin
3) On June 29, 2006 Guy Montag moved Deir Yassin massacre to Battle of Deir Yassin with the comment, "Title does not cover the entire scope of events and is only a small claim about events that happened during/ and or after battle; hence the name." . This was combined with a "total rewrite" of the article, see Talk:Battle of Deir Yassin and subsequent discussion.


 *  Pass 7-0 at 00:21, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

The poll on moving
4) Following the move there was a poll regarding the move Talk:Deir Yassin massacre. The result was even, but based on "votestalking" (campaigning) by Guy Montag the vote, when closed by KimvdLinde, was declared to support a move back to massacre.


 *  Pass 7-0 at 00:21, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Soliciting of votes by Guy Montag
5) Guy Montag solicited other users regarding the poll on changing the title to the article in a reasonable manner, , , ,.


 *  Pass 7-0 at 00:21, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Abuse of discretion by KimvdLinde in closing poll
6) KimvdLinde did not abuse her discretion as an administrator in taking into consideration the campaigning by Guy Montag with respect to the poll. Neither did she abuse her discretion by closing a poll regarding which she was an involved editor, discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive123 and at Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive123.


 * Pass 5-2 at 00:21, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Copyright violations by Guy Montag
8) Guy Montag copied and pasted substantial sections from various websites for his rewrite of the article, see and Requests for arbitration/Deir Yassin massacre/Evidence.


 *  Pass 7-0 at 00:21, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Original research by Guy Montag
9) Guy Montag supported his move of the article with original reasoning, see also Requests for arbitration/Deir Yassin massacre/Evidence and subsequent sections.


 *  Pass 7-0 at 00:21, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Failure of Probation
10) Guy Montag disrupted Deir Yassin massacre by tendentious editing and copyright violations which would have supported an article ban under the terms of his Probation, however, he was not banned other than temporarily, see Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement/Archive1 Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive123 and Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive123.


 *  Pass 7-0 at 00:21, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

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.

Guy Montag banned
1) Guy Montag is banned from articles which relate to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.


 *  Pass 7-0 at 00:21, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Guy Montag Probation extended
2) Guy Montag's Probation under the terms of Requests_for_arbitration/Yuber is extended to include one year from the final date of this decision.


 * ''Pass 6-0-1 at 00:21, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Administrators encouraged
3) KimvdLinde and other administrators are encouraged to effectively enforce Guy Montag's Probation in appropriate circumstances.


 * ''Pass 6-0-1 at 00:21, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Log of blocks and bans
Log any block, ban or extension under any remedy in this decision here. Minimum information includes name of administrator, date and time, what was done and the basis for doing it.