Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles/Evidence

Anyone, whether directly involved or not, may add evidence to this page. Create your own section and do not edit in anybody else's section. Please limit your main evidence to a maximum 1000 words and 100 diffs and keep responses to other evidence as short as possible. A short, concise presentation will be more effective; posting evidence longer than 1000 words will not help you make your point. Over-long evidence that is not exceptionally easy to understand (like tables) will be trimmed to size or, in extreme cases, simply removed by the Clerks without warning - this could result in your important points being lost, so don't let it happen. Stay focused on the issues raised in the initial statements and on diffs which illustrate relevant behavior.

It is extremely important that you use the prescribed format. Submitted evidence should include a link to the actual page diff in question, or to a short page section; links to the page itself are insufficient. Never link to a page history, an editor's contributions, or a log for all actions of an editor (as those will have changed by the time people click on your links), although a link to a log for a specific article or a specific block log can be useful. Please make sure any page section links are permanent. See simple diff and link guide.

This page is not for general discussion - for that, see the talk page. If you think another editor's evidence is a misrepresentation of the facts, cite the evidence and explain how it is incorrect within your own section. Please do not try to re-factor the page or remove evidence presented by others. If something is put in the wrong place, leave it for the Arbitrators or Clerks to move.

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

Jaakobou's sock-puppeting, the evidence
I became convinced that User:Jaakobou was operating User:MouseWarrior and User:Paul_T._Evans, and I posted the evidence here. I've been assured this is not the case, so I'm naturally withdrawing the allegation.

Fortunately, this mistake on my part doesn't affect the substance of this case, which was originally raised by others without my participation. PRtalk 17:22, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Jaakobou has misled us over his mentor
Jaakobou knows the purpose of a mentor (see his comments here, where he has bullied mine into resignation). In Jaakobou's world the mentor is there to find fault with the mentee and (presumably) encourage the community to take action against breaches. Jaakobou tells us he has a mentor - this claim is wholly and deliberately deceptive, since he clearly has some quite different relationship with her/him. Please see my polite interaction with User:Durova, re-presenting my question over the sock-puppets. (and two other questions, see next).

Jaakobou appears to have lied to the community
Separately, I have presented evidence to Jaakobous "new mentor" suggesting that he has cynically misled the community by lying over at least two other incidents (they're in the "polite interaction" link above). Failure to clarify, address/acknowledge these questions/incidents could make it appear that he may indeed have lied to the community in these cases. Even more disturbingly, he may think he can brazen out this ArbCom and continue these practices.

Jaakobou in action, just one example
This tabulation is a good demonstration of the astonishing way that Jaakobou has abused the consensual nature of other editors (including an admin) to bully and over-rule 8 other editors over a trivial (and BLP breaching) addition he has insisted on. The TalkPage on this article has been open 16 months - it is completely full of just this one incident, dramatically illustrating the way his tactics frustrate other editors and damage articles.

Jaakobou has abused process to silence good editors
There is a mass of evidence of Jaakobou abusing processes to get others sanctioned. Unfortunately, detailing this involves further identifying "his enemies" exposing them to still more unpleasantness. As best I can tell, each of his targets has been a good, productive editor having good consensual relationships with most of the rest of the community.

To call Jaakobou "tendentious" barely scratches the surface
User:Jaakobou's conduct in articles and TalkPages has long been a source of astonishment. The damage he has done to articles is incalculable - leading others to claim that he's never done any good, ever, to any article. Worse than that, Jaakobou has hounded good editors, in many/all cases causing them to leave the project in frustration. Jaakobou even encourages other editors to act disruptively (one example in my questions to him above, others available).

Jaakobou was unfit as an editor all along
See this, a diff from January 2007, when Jaakobou's been an editor 5 months. In that edit, he displays attitudes which should surely render him unsuitable as an editor (at least on topics as contentious and charged as this one).

Perhaps worse, in the same diff, he has apparently attempted gross historical fabrication. Explanation available, regular RSes spoke of trucks and moving bodies. This is not an innocent error, since Jaakobou displays an almost obsessive interest in this incident - see previously mentioned Saeb Erekat, where Jaakobou demands the article be filled with accusations that Erekat lied over it. There is a close connection between hate-sources and fabricating historical evidence, especially in the field of denial. We have the result of a famous court case to remind us of this effect.

This one diff (evidence of both behaviors), was likely an indef-blocking offence when Jaakobou wrote it, before we start examining his editing record. PRtalk 14:03, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Response to HG, explain mentorship
User:HG has failed to note that my mentorship has worked either "quite well" or "brilliantly". It is difficult to recognise almost any part of his commentary, starting with "an involuntary arrangement due to a prior ArbCom". My mentorship was pretty much a throw-away suggestion made to close a CSN (the shortly abandoned, likely discredited "Community Sanction Noticeboard"). Not only was there no discussion about my mentorship at the time, everyone except the massively problematical Jaakobou forgot about it, and for weeks nothing was done. It was only Jaakobou who demanded I find a mentor. When I found a mentor, User:Geni, he hounded her, nastily, in private and in public, into resignation.

However, Jaakobou did do us all a service, the important part of mentorship is exactly what he thinks it is - to provide a conduit/filter for complaints. What Jaakobou had not counted on is that I was thriving under this regime. I don't lie and I don't cheat and I don't get angry - so I have very little to be afraid of.

The harassment of my mentors is easy to see - and there are numerous other cases of editors suffering serious pile-ons because they've appeared to cooperate with me. On one occasion User:Kyaa the Catlord told us HG (of all people!) was "much too buddy-buddy" with me, and torpedoed a mediation he was trying to organise. The poison of what Jaakobou has been doing is spreading.

The trickle of volunteers to mentor me didn't completely dry up even after weeks of this outrageous abuse of honest people - but I mustn't claim any credit, that was down to the courage of those individuals, and not directly related to the fact that all the evidence of my "problematic behavior" is a huge secret, that cannot be shared with anyone.

Response to Jaakobou's allegations against my editing
Careful examination of Jaakobou's "evidence" will probably convince you there is no meat there whatsoever. Note the difference between his evidence and my evidence - I bring one very serious allegation the reader can evaluate, and offer to prove it's part of a pattern. Having nothing of quality Jaakobou has again set out to confuse, this time with quantity (and very impressive, near professional presentation!).

But I'll go through bits of it:

Mentoring - intentionally deceptive - Jaakobou claims there are two incidents since the beginning of my mentoring (September?) which suggest serious mal-practise. One is a trivial incident in which my mentor was doing what was wanted of him/them, the other is (again) a case where I've been heavily criticised and then turned out to be correct all along.

Jaakobou's Sample One: User:Dlabtot should have been an "ally" of mine. Unfortunately, his conduct looked like that of a re-named account, a potential sock-puppet. On being met with bluster, I put the point more aggressively. I'm clumsily trying to keep the project clean, using public space, where it belongs (unlike the real skull-duggery we know goes on in private). I don't want him sanctioned.

Jaakobou's Sample Two: This is Jaakobou bluster - this is the very breach of UNDUE he's fought to include at Saeb Erekat against 8 other editors throughout the entire 16 month existence of the TalkPage. Not all 8 editors agreed with me that it was also a breach of BLP, biographies of living people - but admin User:Ryan_Postlethwaite has now effectively said the same thing, we don't write Erekat's biography as if he's a liar.

Source Usage - the deception here is horrendous - it's me who constantly struggles to work to standards and reject fringe sources. I accept the general consensus on non-Western source and never use them. I spend much of my time attempting to exclude far worse Western sources. Jaakobou's examples are each (I think) me working to policy and trying to improve articles - eg I object to the quoting of a fringe theory from Hizb ut Tahrir once aired on the BBC. I seek to exclude a breath-takingly "surprising" claim by a worrying journalist in the Washington Times (owned by a cult), never picked up by any RS. I'm quite prepared to go through every one of these diffs - there may be one or two I've simply been wrong, but overwhelmingly I'll have been trying to use good sources properly - overwhelmingly, it's been Jaakobou and "allies" who have been distorting the sources.

Battle of Jenin - Jaakobou is scraping the bottom of the barrel with this "content dispute". Elsewhere I've listed 10 highly significant and well-attested portions of this story (all from excellent RSes) that (I would argue) very much need including in the article. But the ArbCom won't look at it, let alone decide it. Ditto "Hated Google Test", I created an article that I thought was needed (perhaps it should have been an essay?). It was speedily deleted - so? Inclusion of these two items underline how very, very weak is Jaakobou's case.

Harassment - Jaakobou has been harassing people (often newbies) on their TalkPages. I've informed such people that Jaakobou already has a WP "conviction" for such harassment. Jaakobou eventually stopped doing this, but only months after he'd promised to do so, and only because I carried on making a fuss.

Repetition of other accusations - if Jaakobou fails to clear himself of what reasonable people (3 editors we know of) find worrying, then suspicions won't go away. The solution is in his hands, nobody else's. Same thing with the sock-puppeting - he failed to clear himself and behaved in a deeply guilty fashion. This leads to the next and final point re my editing:

Trampling on the toes of the Foundation - Jaakobou hints at one accusation that is real, and perhaps meaningful. It has sometimes been my habit to speak of "the integrity of the project". At other times (latest to User:jpgordon yesterday) I've made it clear that this is actually above my pay-grade. I will remain convinced that challenging apparent cheating (of all kinds) is the business of individual editors - however, I am becoming more aware that there are procedures for checking out Conflict of Interest, Sock-puppeting etc. I'm sorry that my experience of RfC and other procedures is that these things are simply swarmed by involved editors poisoning the ambience. Even when there is a conclusion, Jaakobou will ignore it and encourage others to ignore it (see above).

Comment on the presentation of Jaakobou's 'evidence' Jaakobou is notorious for having poor English and a confusing style. He has clearly had an enormous amount of help to produce this evidence, since he has made previous attempts (eg "Losing it notes") which are far less impressive. Indeed, his previous attempts contain no dirt whatsoever that I can tell. Why is it important that Jaakobou has had near-professional help? Because I requested "an advocate" at the beginning of this ArbCom and was told I didn't need one. While I've struggled on my own, Jaakobou has blustered and allowed the atmosphere to be poisoned by highly suspicious behavior, refusing to be drawn on whether he's a cheat or not. He can't blame others for what's happened, nor can he expect a polished (but largely empty) presentation to save him now.

So, does the new list below provide anything very damaging? Each person reading it will have to make up their own mind. However, I suspect you'll find that Jaakobou is exaggerating wildly. I don't lie, I don't cheat - and I don't get angry. Jaakobou has trawled everything I've ever done and set out to deceive by his presentation of it. Some that might be dubious is either extremely old or already sorted by CSN, ArbCom or other. None of it comes anywhere near the solid evidence of cheating against him, on which this ArbCom is based, and to which I've now, finally, added. PRtalk 13:19, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

PalestineRemembered - what's this about harassment?
Passing readers of this page might suppose that my behavior is unusually boisterous and aggressive, even if fundamentally honest and good for articles. I'm sorry about that - but anyone daring to post material critical of Israel finds themselves plunged into a maelstrom of nasty personal attacks. (Details if you need them). Please note that admins (particularily User:Jayjg) set the tone, Jaakobou is actually copying this practice. Again, details if you need them. PRtalk 13:52, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Reply to Palestine Remembered
PR, i don't know whether I necessarily agree or disagree with your valid points above, but this is one reason why I gently suggested (to all, not just you) an individual case-by-case approach to all matters here. It would be a relatively simple matter to institute indivdual proceedings against the editors whom you mention. I don't personally have a single thing against either one of them, but in the long run an individual case might be healthier in either clearing their names, or addressing any problems, than the massive quagmire which we might potentially open here. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 15:23, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Jaakobou is a tendentious editor
Jaakobou displays many of the characteristics of problem editors as defined at WP:TE:
 * He Has been blocked more than once for violating the three revert rule
 * Blocked four times:


 * He repeatedly undoes the "vandalism" of others
 * 
 * and was recently de-Twinkled for using it in edit wars.
 * 


 * He regularly accusese other editors of "suppressing information", "censorship" or "denying facts"
 * 


 * He often breaks inserts sections of WP:UNDUE undue weight into articles.
 * Repeated reinsertion of huge criticism section to article on left-wing journalist Gideon Levy:

Jaakobou is a revert warrior
Jaakobou constantly reverts the input of other editors. Aside from the evidence presented above under "reverting vandalism of others" and being detwinkled, his contributions list is quite clear.

Jaakobou is deceitful
Despite constantly labelling me as a POV pusher or someone with "POV issues", once Jaakobou realised that he is in trouble, he changed tact and sent e-mails describing me as "sensible" "reasonable" and "neutral" (I can forward them to anyone who wants proof). Whether this makes him a liar or just two-faced I shall leave you to decide.

The fact that Jaakobou requests discussing his problematic behaviour off-wiki (in the e-mails he sent he said that he "can probably explain my overall position to you by instant messaging") suggests that he is attempting to sweet-talk editors into overlooking his misdemeanours instead of facing up to his actions.

Reply to Jaakobou's evidence
I don't see what the point is of Jaakobou's evidence regarding my edits beyond attempting to discredit me, as I am not an involved party in this RfAr. I am not proud of it, but unfortunately as I am one of the few non-partisan editors who is willing to deal with dedicated POV-pushers on Israel-related articles, on occasion this kind of thing will happen. I hope that this RfAr will actually lead to either blocks or behavioural directives for the problematic editors so that I have a basis for dealing with them in a more direct manner in future.

"Hated Google Test"
PalestineRemembered insisted for several months that the only proper name for the "Battle of Jenin" article was "Jenin Massacre", despite the fact that human rights groups and a U.N. investigation had proved that no massacre had taken place there. He also kept insisting that "Jenin Massacre" was also a much more popular term based on a Google search. When others pointed out that his Google results were inaccurate and misleading, he started repeating the phrase "Hated Google Test" in multiple comments, (e.g., ,   ), and even using it in edit summaries (e.g.       ) He eventually decided to create a Hated Google Test article, which was speedily deleted on the same day. After it was speedily deleted, he still threated to recreate it as a "significant part of WP:POLICY". This kind of soapboxing and disruptive editing is typical of PalestineRemembered's editing pattern.

Forced Mentorship

 * PalestineRemembered's early perspectives/statements: (+ 3 samples of edit wars):* Sample: "when are your Zionist buddies going to put down their guns and allow the people back to their homes?" - 23:17, 11 November 2006

On 13 August 2007, PalestineRemembered was summoned to CSN with a suggestion for indef-block, due to problematic history, gross BLP violations (Allegation that Jaakobou is a war criminal: Summary/Full) and edit-warring plagiarized text.


 * His response/reasoning for the charges:
 * "in the interests of the project" ,
 * "someone must boldly go where no man or woman has been before"
 * (copyright:) "was never more than a WP guide-line"
 * "must be clear that my actual behaviour is not the issue."


 * Avi suggested mentorship prior to ban, which was accepted.

Mentoring

 * At November 6 Avi believed the mentorship was not working noting that, "In the face of evidence that the editor has no intention of abiding by the policies and guidelines, mentorship is useless."


 * At November 7, Ryan Postlethwaite reminded that "this is a last chance for PR" -

-
 * At November 19, Nikola Smolenski noted that, "your mentor is here to help you...He can't do a good job when you are misleading him."

Source usage
After so much time on wikipedia - and under mentorship, he still rejects sources based on the content within rather than source reliability; Rejecting reliable sources such as Washington Times,, , , , , , ,  nation.com.pk , ,  TIME mag , , (+others, while adding this template)  , , the BBC at times , ,  and even Benny Morris 's new and less pro-palestinan works (based on the theory that he's threatened by the Israeli gov.) , , , ,  (here's promotion of Morris earlier works , , ), while promoting far less reliable sources such as "balagan.org.uk" , "jewsagainstzionism.com" , , , ,  ICAHD , , "jfjfp.org" ,  and "jenininquiry.org" , , "pptpalooza.net"  and CounterPunch.

And lately he's been just blanking out sources and paragraphs... ,, ,.

PalestineRemembered violation of WP:HAR on User:Jaakobou

 * Repetition of, "Jaakobou has harassed other users and admins on talk and even been blocked for it"
 * Diffs (11:34, 13 August 2007 to 15:54, 16 December 2007):, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,.

Very recent repetition of The War Crimes Insinuation:
 * "actual or potential war-crimes. Serving or ex-serving members of armed forces...the challenger is accused of libel and silenced...potential defendants in criminal trials... are given free reign in articles that describe the incidents in which they took part (or are suspected of having taken part). The encyclopedia should demand that such people prove they were somewhere else, not give them the benefit of the doubt." - 20:39, 29 December 2007 - ]
 * "We never discovered whether Jaakobou took part in the April 2002 killings in Jenin (generally thought to include "war-crimes")...Mentorship has not failed in my case - it's been a great success." - 12:27, 8 January 2008 -

Comment regarding Number 57 statement

 * On Shlomo Ben-Ami, Number 57 violated 3RR (removing: "Israeli died of...") but admitted that the information has a place on the article after edit warring to keep it out.
 * 2007-12-27 14:16
 * 2007-12-28 09:50
 * 2007-12-28 10:51 <- admin rollback tool in a content dispute.
 * 2007-12-28 10:55 <- and again.
 * 2007-12-28 11:37 <- adding the information on the article. ("death of a Jewish Israeli.")


 * My edit history had problems, as most of the people involved. Following two deserving blocks (above 3 hours) I've obtained mentorship and pledge to improve my conduct.  Jaakobou Chalk Talk  19:30, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment regarding Tariqabjotu statement
--  Jaakobou Chalk Talk  00:00, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Singling me out (excluding others) with my talk page articles, assumes conflicts with fellow editors (some POV warriors) are my fault.
 * My statement, "admit... together with User:Eleland" was not meant as "not edit-warring at all" and I haven't issued an unblock request.
 * Diffs Tariqabjotu been notified about (such as: -3RR:P), regarding the Eleland issue, are missing from his statement.
 * Following the block by Tariqabjotu, I've obtained mentorship and taken upon myself to improve my conduct.

Comment regarding PalestineRemembered statement
I believe that the partial presenting of diffs is misleading (I think that's what PalestineRemembered/RolandR have done):


 * "I have asked him, and it seems probable from his refusal to respond as well as the nature of that edit that they are the same users. Ramallite" - - 16:18, 31 January 2007


 * "i am not mousewarrior, i thought my previous reply was clear enough, but here it is stated bluntly for the record... btw.. i request you remove the accusation from abu ali's page since that is defamation. (i'm also not humus sapians and whatever the other name was of a different person who reverted.. i only have one wikipedia editor account)" - - 07:49, 1 February 2007


 * "He has responded on his page that he is not MouseWarrior." - - 04:18, 2 February 2007

--  Jaakobou Chalk Talk  09:27, 18 January 2008 (UTC) :p.s. change of testimony is also misleading.  Jaakobou Chalk Talk  10:41, 18 January 2008 (UTC)



Evidence presented by Tariqabjotu
Caveat: The following evidence is not intended to be exhaustive; I don't have the time or the energy to put forth evidence regarding each editor. I'm simply going to stick with the most blatant violations for now, and leave things to others (especially those who added extra names) to fill in the gaps.

Jaakobou edit wars often
At the top of User talk:Jaakobou, Jaakobou notes that during this RfArb case, he will refrain from participating in controversies on nineteen articles. Perhaps unsurprisingly, he has been disruptive on many of the those articles. Most notably (refer to the histories of the respective articles):

And, also: Take note that the above instances of edit-warring come primarily from November, December, and January, as that's where I limited my investigation. However, given prior blocks for edit-warring, I would not be surprised if edit-warring was an issue even prior to October.
 * edit waring in mid-October 2007, mid-November 2007, and early-December 2007
 * edit warring in mid-December 2007
 * late-November 2007
 * early-December 2007
 * early-January 2008
 * late-November 2007
 * late-December 2007
 * late-December 2007, early-January 2008
 * mid-November 2007, late-November 2007, late-December 2007
 * late-December 2007, early-January 2008
 * early-December 2007
 * late-December 2007

Jaakobou believes his edit warring can be justified
After I blocked Jaakobou at the end of December for his continuous edit warring, he posted a response in which he said his recent reverting on Definitions of Palestine and Palestinian, Second Intifada, and Islam: What the West Needs to Know was justified, and not edit-warring at all.

Evidence presented by Gatoclass
I don't want to get into accusations about specific editors. The only thing I want to say is that it's become abundantly clear to me, and surely to many others, that Wikipedia simply doesn't have policies that are adequate to dealing with the problem of editors promoting a particular national or ethnic viewpoint. The result is that pages involving national or ethnic disputes are in many cases woefully and chronically substandard, and bring the whole of Wikipedia into disrepute. No-one is ever going to take Wiki seriously until these problems are addressed.

It's also clear that just banning one disruptive editor here and there is not nearly enough to fix the problem. What this project desperately needs are tighter policies for dealing with contentious topic areas. The community needs to think hard about what steps can be taken to clean up the pages in question. While it's obviously not arbcom's brief to propose new policies for the project, perhaps it would be a start if arbcom were to recommend that the community set its collective mind to seriously addressing this hitherto intractable problem. I really don't think we can kid ourselves any longer that the current policy framework is adequate. Thanks, Gatoclass (talk) 10:35, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

{assertion one: I have no clue why I'm here.}
My first source is my brain. I woke up, and realized, nope, still no clue why I was named. I previously experienced this in prior diffs on friday morning, thursday morning, and on back to monday or so. I can't provide URLs, nor can I provide lobotomy samples, so I realize this make be an argument from special knowledge, and I apologize, but I assure you, my brain's mixed up.

{assertion two: Tell me why I'm here, or i'll stay confused.}
IF no one tells me what my percieved involvement is, beyond the AN/I thread and a couple edits made by travelling from there, I will stay confused. I made some basic statements both at An/I and on the RfAr page about what I'd seen, but beyond general opinions, I'm genuinely not sure why I'm here. This is humor, but really, please tell me why I was named, and what's expcted of me in this case? Thank you. ThuranX (talk) 22:41, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Armon and Tewfik uncivilly and disingenuously push POV against consensus

 * 1) Around 1 October an edit war flared up on List of massacres committed during the Second Intifada. One group favoured a list of all mass killings, including Israeli killings of Palestinians by military action. The other group favoured a list showing only those attacks carried out with an utterly undeniable intent on maximum innocent death. (e.g. d1 d2 d3 d4, last revert is mine, and I'm equally culpable.) No discussion took place on talk. On 13 October I requested protection (d5) and pasted the entire edit-summary-debate into talk, asking to start proper discussion. (d6)
 * 2) Support quickly formed for a compromise (d7), retitling the list to "List of attacks on Israeli noncombatants" and keeping the content as it was. This exchange sums up the reasoning: (d9)
 * 3) Armon (d10) dissented, vaguely. I asked for clarification, he responded with insinuations about my motives and flat incivility. (d11) I tried to engage him substantively on the topical point but it was not fruitful. (d12) I would urge the ArbCom to ask whether responding to an on-topic, 3,000+ byte comment (d13) in this (d14) manner is in any way conductive to dispute resolution.
 * 4) Armon continued to block consensus. On 22 October, he proclaimed  that the editors who disagreed with him (Burgas00, G-Dett, IP198, PalestineRemembered, TheFearGod and arguably Okedem, with DBWikis on the fence) were only "repeating failed arguments", being "disruptive", and acting "against consensus" (him and Tewfik) and invited us to instead "discuss the options". (d15) His "option 1" was basically the same one we were arguing against and was ignored; Burgas added an "option 2", "List of suicide bombings..." which obtained qualified support from myself, DB, and G-Dett. (d16) Armon dismissed option 2 and added an "option 3" which only changed "massacre" to "mass murder," (d17) which G-Dett called simply, "Ridiculous," since it openly ignored the objections raised to the last title. (d18)
 * 5) Thus, by 23 October, Armon concluded that "we should stick to the consensus version", meaning the version favoured by him and Tewfik alone against almost everybody else. (d19) Burgas gave up and just moved the article to the "suicide bombings" version (d20) which was reverted by Tewfik (d21), rinse, repeat.  This touched off another sterile move-war, with the now-familiar pattern of sincere, if heated, argumentation from everyone else being met with unsupported personal accusations from both Armon (d22, d23, d24, d25, d26,) and Tewfik (d27, d28).
 * 6) Finally the page was move-protected. I posted a "Neutrality of title disputed" template; Armon removed it accusing WP:POINT disruption. (d29)
 * 7) On 9 November I filed an RFC. (d30) previously uninvolved editors arrived:
 * 8) *Terraxos: "The best solution here might be to create two lists [Palestinian & Israeli]" (d31)
 * 9) *CasualObserver'48: "The current list is absolutely one-sided", favours a combined list but will accept two (d32)
 * 10) *Rjecina: "I support Eleland's proposal [to title list as Israeli-only and create parallel Palestinian list]" (d33)
 * 11) *Bless sins: "I support Eleland in the proposition" (d34)
 * 12) *Beit Or: Don't know, seemed to lean towards Armon & Tewfik; he had previously commented (d35) but never expressed an opinion on the core dispute (d36)
 * 13) *Number 57: List should include terror attacks by Israeli settlers (d37)
 * 14) *Agamemmon2: Word "massacre" is divisive; (d38)
 * 15) *Kyaa the catlord: ibid (d39)
 * 16) *Xoloz: "I support eleland's proposal" (d40)
 * 17) **Note: this comment is especially interesting, because Xoloz had previously closed an AfD on the case, and Armon had been continually asserting that this AfD represented a strong consensus for his preferred version, ignoring refutations of this claim - see my d24 and d26 above.
 * 18) *Carlossuarez: "I think that Eleland's and Xoloz's title has merit" (d41)
 * 19) *DGG: Basically abstained (d42, d43)
 * 20) *The Evil Spartan: "Overly-POV name", a pox on both your houses (d44)
 * 21) This takes us up to 19 November, about a week after move protection expired. Burgas00 moved the page to the "Attacks on Israeli non-combatants" title; Armon reverted him within twelve minutes. (d55) Within one hour he broke 3rr enforcing this title. (d56) Others picked up the slack, effectively ending productive discussion. Tiamut took to adding IDF attacks described by human rights sources as targeting civilians. Tewfik summarily reverted. (d59). This shifted the move war back into an edit war, where both !sides fought over whether events like October 2000 events and what Human Rights Watch called "Israeli forces ... causing civilian deaths by firing indiscriminately into Hebron's Palestinian neighborhoods." Suffice it to say that affairs devolved into mutual incivility (d57, d58, sorry, et al.) and edit-warring.
 * 22) The Hebron question really deserves close analysis. Tewfik and Armon insisted that HRW's report didn't describe attacks on civilians. To my eyes, no literate person could read this source and conclude that. At the least, they showed extreme partisanship to the point of Orwellian doublethink. ArbCom should sanction editors who show long-term inability to represent their sources accurately.
 * 23) Finally, by 29 November, the article was protected (d59) as was List of Israeli civilian casualties in the Second Intifada, the sister article which another editor had taken to vindictively blanking.

Summary
A problematic article title caused a move war. After protection, the debate resolved to 5 editors favouring a new title with Armon & Tewfik favouring the old title. After a heated discussion, Armon essentially declared that he would block the majority solution from being implemented, no matter what. (See my section 4.) He continued, for thirty-eight days, to do so, even as an influx of un-involved parties eroded his side from a minority to a tiny minority. Tewfik reverted constantly, with only desultory and often disruptive comments on talk. Three hundred thousand bytes of discussion accomplished nothing. Only full-protection resolved the situation.

I believe that I could document how Armon and Tewfik deploy almost identical tactics to other pages, for similar reasons, but this evidence is over-long as is.

A note on moral equivalence
I am quite sure that this evidence will be met with the response that "the other side" also edit-warred and acted incivil. I admit that I did both - and I have even shown diffs of this. But the context matters. Assuming WP:OWNership of articles will lead to uncivil responses. Pushing POV with disingenuous arguments will cause edit wars. ArbCom will not take sides in a content dispute; ArbCom can and must take sides against complex forms of abuse and disruption, including those forms detailed above.

&lt;eleland/talkedits&gt; 23:28, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Bad faith participation
Although much evidence is being presented here on bad faith editing by the parties involved, this conflict has also extended outside of article space. In Number 57's RfA, it appeared that some of the pro-Israel POV group attempted to use canvassing to rally oppose votes to torpedo Number 57's bid for adminship, apparently in retaliation for his not being on their side in content disputes. A couple of the parties' names mentioned in this case are present in that RfA, including GHcool and Tewfik in which evidence of on-wiki canvassing was presented. Off-wiki canvassing may have also been used, supporting evidence being Jayjg's now infamous email he mistakenly posted to the Wikien message board calling on several other editors to "watch his back" as he attempted to fix an Israel-related article. Cla68 (talk) 00:22, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Jayjg's email and the implications for this case
Jayjg's email (acknowledged by Jayjg here: ) is evidence of a deep-rooted problem affecting not only the Israel-Palestine conflict related articles, but any article dealing with Judaism. Only casual inspections reveals that the intended recipients of that email: Avi, PinchasC, and User:Humus sapiens are heavily engaged in editing Judaism related articles, of which the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is but one area. Perhaps former arbitrator Kelly Martin said it best when she stated, with regard to this evidence, "Anyone with any doubt that Jay is one of a "cabal" of editors who seek to control the content and tone of articles about Judaism needs to put that doubt to rest, now. Wikipedia's articles about Judaism are embarrassingly biased, and Jay's convenient little slip-up is just the smoking gun that proves it." .

Tag team editing
For evidence to support Malik's tag- team editing principle, here are two incidents I reported:

A tag team reverting incident at Battle of Jenin, involved Armon, Eleland, G-Dett, Tewfik on Oct 17-18th. The page was protected. While we subsequently worked out a compromise over the disputed sentence with the four parties, the disputatious edit was disruptive.

In an edit dispute at Arab citizens of Israel (10-19), Zeq made what Roland considered a disruptive edit, so Roland and Tiamut made tag team reverts. (Zeq was on probation and did not violate 3RR.) Here's the AN/3RR page with the diffs.

You'll see also that the noticeboard that day (10/19/07) has 3RR reports on 1929 Hebron massacre, Second intifada, Causes of the 1948 Palestinian exodus.

This kind of tag team editing/reverting has occurred before and after these cases. However, I found that reporting such cases is an unpleasant drain on my time, as is this battleground for many other less involved or less combative editors. Thanks. HG | Talk 12:49, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Tiamut has explained, below, the context of the Arab citizens of Israel incident. My aim here is not to find fault with the individuals involved (the incident was handled satisfactorily), but rather to show how multiple editors sometimes engage in reverts -- rather than reach consensus via Talk -- and yet not trigger an individual 3RR. This kind of situation is problematic with Israeli-Palestinian topics, where there are often multiple folks on each "side" of such disputes. HG | Talk 20:47, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Mentorship arrangements need improvement
Currently, two of the more controversial involved parties are in mentorship, PR and Jaakobou. PR (PalestineRemembered) is in an involuntary arrangement due to a prior ArbCom case. Jaakobou is in a voluntary arrangement, which he has emphasized in light of this case. In order to assess the value of such mentorship to the overall need to reduce the I-P battle, I'd recommend that we briefly look at the evidence of such mentoring. How has it worked? (And, in /Workshop: What would it take to make it work better?) Specifically, what has the WP community done to make it work?

The arrangement with PR has had a troubled history. I think there have been three former mentors, currently there are a pair of mentors.


 * 1) The community has never clarified any specific objectives for mentorship. Does mentorship cover the editor's use of sources, Talk page conduct, understanding of policy, adherence to neutrality, resort to dispute resolution processes, all of the above?
 * 2) No specific timeline seems to have been established.
 * 3) The process for selecting the mentors strikes me as fairly ad hoc. A few admins have played a helpful leadership role in ensuring that the mentorship arrangement is established (and re-established multiple times).  Then, the mentors step forward and volunteer. Sometimes they solicited responses from parties who have been in conflict with PR. The current mentors volunteered and were casually accepted during an AN/I. From what I can tell, there are no guidelines to shape the choice of mentor or their role. For instance, AFAIK, mentors need not be uninvolved in editing the topic area and their enforcement responsibility (for PR) is unclear. (These facts concern the procedure; not intended as any criticism whatsoever of the mentors themselves.)
 * 4) The arrangement does not seem to provide any evaluation mechanism. (Well, there have been AN/I's and requests to ArbCom are plausible.)
 * 5) Without the aforementioned objectives and evaluation process, it's been difficult for the community to decide how to respond to various complaints about PR's conduct. (I believe PR has requested that his ArbCom case be re-opened so as to revisit the arrangement and complaints.)

The mentoring arrangement with Jaakobou has apparently functioned at some level since September. (See Durova's evidence, below.) Again, without suggesting any impropriety on either parties role -- esp. since it's a voluntary arrangement -- it would be difficult for the community to evaluate the mentorship per se. Understandably, the parties have not articulated specific objectives, a timeline, or the parameters of training, etc. To be sure, the parties have not made strong claims regarding the potential efficacy of their arrangement. (Well, I think some statements suggest that mentorship might be grounds to avoid or postpone more serious sanctions, such as a topic ban.)

I invite other parties to politely correct any mistakes I have made in recounting and characterizing the mentorship process. Hope this is useful. Thanks, HG | Talk 01:04, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Battleground statistics
Let's not lose the forest for the trees. As evidence piles up against individuals, let's also compile the evidence of the overall battleground in the I-P topic area. How many articles have been protected in the past year? How many have had AfD or Move disputes? 3RR incidents, etc?

I'd like to invite all people, involved parties or not, to help put together the Official Israel-Palestine editing battleground statistics for Israeli-Palestinian articles. Thanks for your cooperation and input. HG | Talk 03:18, 17 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, I realize the case is closed. The WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration has worked on I-P editing battleground statistics. So far, we found 54 instances of page protection in 24 out of 33 articles examined, over a 12 month period. Thank you. HG | Talk 10:55, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Evidence presented by Tiamut
I am still compiling Evidence at User:Tiamut/Evidence and this is not my submission. If this does count towards the word and diff limitations, let me know and I will remove it.

Response to HG
HG cites me as a party in "tag-team editing" due to my reverts of material added by Zeq to Arab citizens of Israel. With all due respect to HG, I think that's an unfair and inaccurate characterization. On September 9, I removed a large section of material that duplicated another section in the article. I placed the material on the talk and asked that it not be readded, since it replicated material in another section of the article. One month later, Zeq readded the material, without responding to the comment on the talk. I reverted this addition with an edit summary asking him to respond to the comment. Zeq did respond and readded the material. I responded to him and reverted the reinsertion. Zeq did not reinsert the same material.

Three days later, Zeq added two paragraphs to the section that already had much of the information he had been trying to add. This edit was reverted by RolandR and after Zeq added it again, RolandR again reverted. I then reverted a third similar edit by Zeq adding similar material and deleting other sourced material.

I don't think this constitutes "tag-team editing". RolandR and I were not coordinating our actions, there are three days of quiet between my initial reverts of Zeq's edits (two) and RolandR's reverts of different material added by Zeq (two), followed by my one similar revert. I have asked HG to modify his comments to take some of these facts into account.

Evidence presented by User:Carolmooredc
My apologies if I don’t do this perfectly, but even though this is a side issue with me, it is very frustrating that even making a simple edit on one of these pages can drag you into a big edit war and even insinuations of bigotry.

Tewfik repeatedly deleted sourced material from article he was trying to delete/merge
Please note that this evidence is in regards to the first article where I had an edit war (or perhaps should say witnessed editing abuses) - Samson Option - so I did lose my temper a few times. It didn’t help that before I even edited the actual article User:AnonMoos was charging me with “hysteria” and using “anti-semitic” sources. Obviously I was not a sufficiently experienced editor to argue Wikipedia policy effectively against questionable edit excuses.

User:Tewfik, who edits almost exclusively on Israel-Palestine and related issues, repeatedly engaged in mass deletions at the same time he put up a template to try to have the article Samson Option merged into Israel and nuclear weapons. [See merge tag here]. Mass Removals are here:  and , plus 8 Edits on Nov. 15 which cut the article by more than half. Next he requested a full quote at Talk:Samson_Option put when I put it up he deleted it anyway. (Note: most editors on two relevant pages did not want to delete/merge so it did stay.)

I tried to improve my contributions according to criticisms, but there always were new excuses to delete, by Tewfik or a couple people who may or may not have been a loose "tag team." In Talk I said I thought some of these later deletions were violations of Resolving_disputes making it impossible to build together an improved and balanced article. See My Comment on Mass Deletions and Wiki Policies. I later opined Talk:Samson_Option about exclusion of information that might embarrass the state of Israel and its supporters.

Jaakobou edit wars harming article
Just to ditto what other editors have said about User:Jaakobou who edits mostly on Isarel-Palestine and related issues. Even a novice like me can see Jaakobou seems to engage in WP:POV trashing of the Carlos Latuff article. The article would be libelous and extremely biased if there weren’t one or two editors willing to fight it out with Jaakobou month after month.

Jayjg and "Tag Team" Insisted on POV Definition versus Majority of Other Editors
User:Jayjg, who edits almost exclusively on Israel/Palestine and related issues, has for more than a year frustrated almost a dozen editors’ desires to make the article Jewish Lobby less WP:POV.,, , ,. He insists that the only use of the phrase allowed on Wikipedia is as an anti-Semitic slur. He uses WP:NOR and WP:NEO as an excuse to constantly revert edits and ignores repeated claims of WP:POV by almost a dozen editors with mostly miscellaneous interests.

He has been aided in this by several other editors who also edit heavily on Israe/Palestine/etc., especially lately User:Armon, ,. It sure looks like “tag team editing” to me.

Other editors repeatedly have stated that “Jewish lobby” is used frequently in a neutral way by both Jewish groups and mainstream media to describe Jews lobbying for various causes, including Israel. Examples of editors POV concerns include: Talk:Jewish_lobby; Talk:Jewish_lobby; Talk:Jewish_lobby; Talk:Jewish_lobby, Talk:Jewish_lobby. My first two comments were: Talk:Jewish_lobby and Talk:Jewish_lobby. Templates complaining about “POV” and “Too few opinions” have been up before, like here.

In the last few days editors sharing Jayjg’s POV view of the article repeatedly have deleted my “Limited” template on the article even though I have referred to and explicitly quoted NPOV_tutorial reading: “When all NPOV-related issues detailed on the talk page have been handled, the template should be removed...” Needless to say such clear violations discourage one making sourced, NPOV contributions which one knows will be deleted repeatedly by an aggressive “tag team.” - - '''In Conclusion: If some systematic way of dealing with this partisanship problem is not created, it will keep angering and driving away good editors and hurting the credibility of Wikipedia. ''' Carol Moore 20:39, 13 January 2008 (UTC)CarolMooreDC talk

Itzse makes personal attacks for suprisingly Itsy-Bitsy reasons
In any case, it is not supposed to happen. I might be new to Wikipedia, but am reasonable and reasonably knowledgable about the I-P and the more general MidEast conflicts. When I joined the Talk:Palestinian people discussion on 17Dec, the lines of debate were already pretty well drawn between other, experienced editors. Many and varied RSs had been provided to validate the (several different) legitimate uses of the word ‘nation’ to describe the Palestinian people collectively in the lead sentence, but there were still several editors holding out for the recently-protected version. Their arguments over this word’s non-use seemed (to me also) just argumentative and non-RS’d, so a ‘reliable denial’ RS had been requested (and has yet to be provided). I was truly shocked and disheartened by what transpired. If Wikipedia wants involvement from new and/or reasonable editors, then this sort of personal attack, in particular, should not be allowed to happen. I did take it personally, but more than that I believe it quite clearly indicates Itzse’s opinion of any number of other editors who might disagree with his POV. My skin will surely thicken, but I believe that Wikipedia should enforce what it says is not allowed, so it doesn't continue to occur. I believe that admin action is the only route toward that end. CasualObserver&#39;48 (talk) 03:56, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * My first contribution was.
 * The following day, I read through the 17 new posts (10 by Itzse), including a rather sarcastic synopsis of various opinions as interpreted by him.
 * I (probably wrongly) used sarcasm in reply.
 * I had no idea, nor did I even consider what that might bring, but was his reply.
 * After considerable soul searching, I replied with (intended for G-Dett) and left the talkpage until 3Jan.
 * Itzse, thinking my comment was for himself, or being sarcastic, replied . In all fairness, he also stayed off the talk page for much of the same time and came back when I did.
 * In the interim, however, I was considerably disturbed and posted on G-Dett’s talk page.


 * Just for the record. I asked CasualObserver to retract his accusation here and here. I ask anybody to read his links and see for themselves that his accusation is baseless, and I did not call him an anti-Semite. He might be ultra sensitive; but I did not imply what he inferred. Itzse (talk) 18:59, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Bad faith assumptions
I am disappointed to see PalestineRemembered cast aspersions upon my limited involvement for the second time in his evidence. The first time he did so I objected at his talk page and his mentor agreed his insinuations were problematic, and at that point PalestineRemembered extended the apology cited in his diff above. I replied by offering to collaborate on an uncontroversial topic. Unfortunately, PalestineRemembered continues to claim something Machiavellian is afoot, both here and at another editor’s user talk.  I can’t see why he assumes such bad faith: shortly before this RFAR opened I helped a Palestinian editor with an image edit request User_talk:Durova and I put a lot of work into restoring a historical Palestinian-related image currently on FPC FPC. Particular details of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict are far beyond my depth; I just want to be humane and respectful toward both sides.

Mentorship of Jaakobou
Jaakobou first contacted me in mid-September to seek an uninvolved opinion about how to resolve the conflict at the Battle of Jenin article. I’m really not qualified to comment on the substance of the disagreement, but I encouraged him to open an RFC Talk:Battle_of_Jenin and pursue normal dispute resolution. He touched bases with me from time to time after that because he wanted to proceed in accordance to site policies and conduct standards. He hasn’t always been perfect about that, yet I believe he’s making an honest effort. So when RFAR opened I suggested we formalize this mentorship. Basically I’ve just been a sounding board and done my best to steer him in the right direction regarding policies. Jaakobou tells me he’s never used any sockpuppets. The question only came to my attention a few days ago, and since it was directed at him rather than me I saw no need to do more than alert him to the query. I received no evidence from which to begin an investigation, and quite a few people dislike me doing that work anymore. So per WP:AGF I’ll assume the best unless evidence proves otherwise. Durova Charge! 09:03, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

More PalestineRemembered
Despite my offer to withdraw my entire evidence statement if PalestineRemembered retracts spurious allegations against me, PR has withdrawn nothing and has compounded the problem by attempting to speak on my behalf both in new statements here and his mentor defends his position and at his user page as Jaakobou's mentor Durova would tell us As I objected here, PalestineRemembered has no authority to speak on my behalf.

PalestineRemembered provided me no information upon which to begin an investigation, nor did he notify me when he posted his own research. As soon as I found it myself I queried Jaakobou, who appears to be afk. I also contacted an arbitrator to request a checkuser.

During the time since my last evidence post I've helped the Palestinian costumes make dramatic improvements in a GA drive, joined the newly formed WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration, and am pleased to report that an image I restored and nominated, Image:Coffeepalestine1.jpg, has passed FPC on Commons. It would hardly be possible to demonstrate better tokens of my actual good faith.

I regard PalestineRemembered's behavior as a series of unwarranted smears upon my reputation and - unless he withdraws them all promptly - I urge the Committee to handle these as personal attacks. Durova Charge! 02:56, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Evidence presented by WLRoss
I had a problem with the Khazars article. Although it was reliably sourced material, I believed a section to be irrelevant to the article as it had almost nothing to do with Khazars which I explained in Talk. I had agreement from several editors with one of them deleting the section. It then became a very short minor edit war reverting the sections deletion without comment. Instead of continuing the revert war I added a cited qualifier sentence to the section which started another revert war to get rid of that. I again gave up and took it to Talk which was suddenly flooded by editors supporting the revert, however none of these editors would explain relevance instead arguing the section had to stay for NPOV without any explanation of why it was relevant despite my asking for a reason.

Personal attack by User:Jayjg
User:Jayjg, who had not taken part in this page before, then posted and in effect accused me of anti-Semitism despite the “debate” being up to this point relatively civil. I asked for an apology but instead Jayjg replied and told me to accept the consensus that the section was relevant. No reason was required for relevance as "they" decided it just was.

I then started a WP:ANI here to get an apology for the accusation but was told this was already being worked out in this Arbcom and admins have put my request on hold pending a resolution here. I notice that Jayjg is not named in this Arbitration but I see the problem I faced is indicative of what this Arbcom is about so have decided to include my experience with a topic only marginally related to Israel/Palestine. I can only imagine how bad it must be for more controversial topics. Attacks like this against a reasonably NPOV (my OR) editor with no history of edits to controversial Israel/Palestine pages for an edit not even controversial I feel will drive editors away and leave these POV? editors to edit unhindered which is not in WP’s best interests. Wayne (talk) 19:00, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

User:CJCurrie
User:CJCurrie has been edit-warring on a series of articles for some time, and has had this brought up with him by a number of different editors on his Talk page (note, examples brought only go back to late October, which is all that is really relevant to this case):     

As a specific example, there has been a dispute on the Media Coverage of the Arab-Israeli Conflict article regarding the description of a specific cartoon: Talk:Media coverage of the Arab-Israeli conflict, Talk:Media coverage of the Arab-Israeli conflict. CJCurrie's last comment on this topic on the Talk page was on 5 November, 2007:

Yet he has reverted this description to his preferred version at least 14 times since then without Talk page comment on the subject:              

He also regularly abuses his admin rollback tool while involved in content disputes, (note, the examples provided only go back to November 8, for the purpose of this case. Most though not all, are to Israel-Palestine related articles, or are reverts of parties named in the Arbitration):                              

On December 24, he violated 3RR on the New antisemitism page, and was reported. Rather than him being blocked, instead the page was protected. His comment did not express remorse at having edit warred, but instead blamed others for not informing him, and stated that he was "within [his] rights" to do that last revert, but had apparently "forgot the time" - a clear indication that he was merely gaming the 3RR rule: 

User:G-Dett
User:G-Dett chronically violates Wikipedia's WP:CIVIL policy, by continually and needlessly using the Talk: page to made derogatory comments about (or to) other editors. This incessant personalization of debate contributes considerably to the deterioration of discussions on Talk pages related to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. A few recent examples (note, for the purposes of relevance to this arbitration these examples go back only to October, and are restricted to four relevant articles):


 * Well done, old boy. Y'all finished reading the internet? Thanks for the truckload of BS.
 * This leads us to Armon and 6SJ7's ongoing confusion, which is of a very different order from Ironduke's casual and colloquial conflation of nation and nation-state.
 * Done, and as usual there's nothing there. Except your stupid and as yet unretracted COI accusation.
 * As for personal attacks, the relevant one here is your stupid and as yet unretracted COI accusation. If and when you stop trolling, bluffing, and posting gibberish, I'll re-engage you without prejudice, but for now we're done.
 * Armon is apparently so impressed with the findings of his own one-man ad hoc amateur academic peer-review board...
 * That's interesting; I question the good faith – and frankly, the literacy – of editors who claim that other editors have claimed that "Israel is an apartheid state" when they haven't. Stay on topic, Viriditas, and don't deviate into polemical discussions and accusations...
 * You've covered very little ground in a great many words...
 * Your questions have been answered, a great many times. Read. If you're still befuddled, I will answer any question (no matter how redundant) on my talk page.
 * This sort of filibuster and wilful obstructionism on talk pages is in some ways a more serious problem than out-and-out edit-warring in article space; again, if you've read my posts and truly can't find the parts where I answer your very basic queries, take it to my talk page.
 * Your wikilawyering about "indiscriminate" is likewise dead in the water, Tewfik, and has seriously eroded my belief in your good faith. - after being admonished by another editor, G-Dett did strike through parts of this comment.
 * Tewfik's equivocations about "indiscriminate" and "disproportionate" (and his disruptive editing of same) are not examples of this. Equally absurd is his argument that it is appropriate to sift through the findings of HR organizations, and present some of them as definitive facts and others as allegations. Sophistries like this are an insult to the intelligence, and deserve to be ignored or flatly rebuked by any editor of good faith. - after being admonished by another editor, G-Dett did strike through parts of this comment.
 * Find a decent dictionary, and look up "willful" and "deliberate."
 * Or you want to throw up a new and equally ad hoc definition of "massacre," one you hope will more successfully gerrymander Palestinian atrocities from Israeli ones?
 * When you're done licking your wounds see options 1 and 2 above.
 * DBWikis and I were getting somewhere when you rather boorishly interrupted. Repeating that the discussion is "failed," "ad nauseum" etc. is either satisfying smackdown-rhetoric or very weakminded name-calling, depending on one's intellectual temperament, but either way it is argumentatively nil; and your suggestion of substituting "mass murder" for "massacre" is decisive evidence that either (a) the conceptual terms of the discussion you're dismissing have gone over your head; or (b) you are a troll. Take a time-out, and come back when you're ready to discuss.
 * You're alternately ignoring and misrepresenting what's been stated here, same as you've misrepresented the AfDs, and even misrepresented the position of your ally Tewfik. As for the high-minded boilerplate, it all sounds well and good but there's just no evidence that you sincerely subscribe to any of it.
 * Troll's veto will only take you so far, Armon. Opting out of the discussion is your prerogative, but it isn't imcumbent upon any editor here – as Burgas has pointed out – to keep reiterating elementary points for the benefit of a troll who doesn't read or understand them.
 * Two or three feet up this page DBWikis and I were engaged in one such serious discussion, one that was getting somewhere, when Armon interrupted with a series of inane insults. He has been trolling ever since, with post after post engaging in faked strawman arguments, obnoxious pseudo-suggestions ("list of mass murders" etc.), condescending non sequiturs, and misrepresentations of past decisions and present positions the collective point of which is to shove his middle finger incessantly in the eye of his interlocutors. If you are genuinely concerned with the "incivility hurled at anyone who dares disagree," take it up with Armon. We have been begging him to stop trolling to no avail; you might find you have greater influence with him. In the meantime there are decisions to be made about this page, and troll's veto has run its course.
 * Tewfik, Armon has been egregiously trolling this page. I do not owe him any apology for saying as much. On the contrary, he owes me thanks for my patience, and he owes everyone here an apology for wasting our time, misrepresenting our positions and insulting our intelligence.
 * Armon isn't aware of it because he doesn't/can't read and is here to troll, endlessly.
 * Ah yes, Armon the sober analyst, whose preferred titles are List of massacres committed during the Second Intifada and List of mass murders committed during the Second Intifada. Nice to see you're up and trolling again. If you feel like taking a brief break from your endless bullshit...
 * This sort of thing goes a long way toward explaining why editors have begun to regard your posts with a measure of disdain.
 * What Tewfik is pretending not to understand...
 * There's no need for this wretched casuistry, Tewfik.
 * Give it up, Tewfik. Many Wikipedians can read, and will make short work of your ridiculous deceptions.
 * When you say you think they don't say this, you are lying; the widespread disdain you are encountering on this page is a direct result of your dishonesty. - this was subsequently "softened" to When you say you think they don't say this, it just isn't plausible; if your command of English were uncertain, that would be one thing, but you're fluent. Hence the widespread disdain you are encountering on this page; editors here can read the HRW report, and they know your misrepresentation of it is over-the-top. Personally, I would find it degrading to "debate" this with you.

G-Dett is also soapboxing on Talk: pages. Here is a classic example:
 * 

User:ChrisO
User:ChrisO has frequently adopted the pretense that he is not involved in Palestine-Israel related articles, but rather is an impartial admin, merely observing and applying policy. This, however, is not the case. For example (including Talk: pages), he has made 31 edits to Muhammad al-Durrah, 226 edits to Pallywood, 24 to Image talk:Israel and occupied territories map.png, 10 to New antisemitism, 51 to Israel-United States military relations, 58 to House demolition and 23 House demolition in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, 13 to Articles for deletion/House demolition in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict‎, 81 to Zombietime, 8 to Media coverage of the Arab-Israeli conflict, 8 to One-state solution etc.

And, of course, there is his heavy involvement in the whole "apartheid" set of articles, including his initial abuse of admin tools that precipitated the first case, Requests_for_arbitration/Israeli_apartheid, and led to him being admonished, his edits to related articles, talk pages and/or deletion discussions (e.g. 41 to Allegations of Israeli apartheid, 23 to Centralized discussion/Apartheid, 16 to Articles for deletion/Allegations of French apartheid). ChrisO also abused his admin tools in this topic area in other ways; for example, he renamed Allegations of Northern Irish apartheid, then protected it on his preferred name. He also abused his admin tools by closing the AfD on Allegations of American apartheid and deleting it. It is this last action that is of particular concern; whether or not the final decision might be reasonable, the more important point is ChrisO feigns non-involvement in these issues so that he can use his admin tools, when, in fact, he is deeply involved, and his POV is well-known. ChrisO should know better, and should allow truly uninvolved admins to act instead.

While it is too late to remedy his past abuses of his admin tools, it is important to note his on-going involvement in this topic area, so that he does again not make the error of using his admin tools should issues or conflicts arise.

Response to Armon
First, a general comment: I'm aware that I've made mistakes, and I'm prepared to answer for my actions. I also believe this ArbComm gives Wikipedia a unique opportunity to improve the tone of discussion on I-P pages. To encourage such an outcome, I've refrained from criticizing persons with whom I've had serious disagreements in the past.

This is why reading Armon's "evidence" was disappointing for me. I believe his findings are both sensationalized and inflammatory, and assume bad faith without cause. I'm aware the end result portrays me in a bad light, which I do not believe to be warranted.

Let's take his points one by one:

(i)

Armon has listed five occasions where I've been cautioned for edit-warring. Four such warnings were from other participants in the same content dispute: three from Jaakobou, one from Amoroso. The fifth warning was, I grant, of a different character (and in retrospect should have been followed).

I've already acknowledged my responsibility for edit-warring on I-P articles, and apologized. I don't think my activities should be overstated.

(ii)

Regarding the Media Coverage of the Arab-Israeli Conflict cartoon, I will say the following:


 * (a) I should not have entered into a revert war with Jaakobou, and I offer an unconditional apology for so doing. I lost my temper, and behaved in an inappropriate manner.
 * (b) I believe there are mitigating circumstances.  First, I had previously raised my concerns on the talk page . When the same disputes continued, I reacted poorly and (as I said) lost my temper, for which I apologize.  Second, there was a widespread view that Jaakobou was not responsive to concerns raised by other editors.  Third, other editors also gave reasons for opposing Jaakobou's edits.  I was largely in agreement, but didn't want to intervene on talk simply to repeat points I had made earlier.

(iii)

My explanation for the admin reverts is a bit different.

I was named an administrator in 2004. At the time, there were no limitations on the admin revert -- it was just a shortcut for carrying out a common WP activity. I assumed I could to use it for standard reverts, and did not imagine that it would cause controversy.

The function of this tool has changed since then. Looking over the Administrators page, I can see that its recommended usage is more circumscribed. Unfortunately, I had not kept up with this change. I was not aware that anyone considered the admin revert to be bad form until I received this post late last year. Even then, I wasn't aware there was general consensus against its usage. Apart from Nihiltres and Armon, I cannot recall ever receiving a complaint on this front.

I apologize for (i) not keeping up with changed circumstances, and (ii) having in all probability antagonized other parties. I did not know I was acting inappropriately, and will not repeat this mistake in the future. However, I must disagree with Armon's description of my actions as "admin abuse". The admin revert does not confer any particular ability: it's merely a shortcut. I do not believe this was an abuse of trust, and will note that Armon did not raise this concern before now.

I believe in avoiding both the reality and appearance of unfairness: I have not blocked editors with whom I've had content disputes, nor have I protected pages where I've been a participant (except in cases of clear vandalism). I've even followed a personal policy of warning editors they've broken the 3RR, and allowing them to self-revert before listing them on the notice board (examples:, ). I hope arbitrators will realize I would not knowingly misuse an official tool.

(iv)

Armon's assessment of the NAS/3RR case is inaccurate. I won't deny that I was careful to observe the letter of the 3RR, but I wasn't "merely gaming" it.

When this situation unfolded, I believed I had consensus to make my changes at New antisemitism. Two editors with whom I'd previously quarreled on I-P articles gave notice that they could accept a key aspect of my proposal (ie. that the lede image be moved but not deleted). I interpreted this as indicating general support for my position, per my comments here. I also believed only a small minority were opposing the change. In retrospect, this was a good-faith error.

I should note that I've abandoned attempts to resolve this matter through edit-warring (apart from a brief, mostly symbolic statement of purpose in early January), and have taken my comments to the talk page.

Please note that I am not inclined to bring forward counter-evidence against Armon or anyone else with whom I've quarreled on these pages. I still believe that this ArbComm case should look to the future, and take proactive measures to improve the atmosphere on I-P pages. CJCurrie (talk) 06:58, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Jaakobou is a disruptive editor
User:Jaakobou has shown more than once that he is willing to disrupt Wikipedia to make a WP:POINT. The most prominent example of this behaviour, over which I had filed an WP:AN/I (here), is the recent discussion on Talk:Israeli-Palestinian conflict regarding the use of the terms "occupied" when referring to the Israeli-occupied territories and the use of the word "hostage" when referring to Gilad Shalit.


 * 1) Following a long discussion regarding the use of the word "occupied" (here and here), I point out that an article, which User:Jaakobou himself cites, Occupation of the Gaza Strip by Egypt also uses the word "occupied" and hence, for consistency, we should also use that term when referring to the West Bank and Gaza Strip. User:Jaakobou's reaction was to move the article Occupation of the Gaza Strip by Egypt to Rule of the Gaza Strip by Egypt (see here), without even bothering to change the first sentence of the article which reads, in bold letters, "Occupation of the Gaza Strip by Egypt".
 * 2) Following a discussion on whether to use the term "hostage" when referring to Gilad Shalit (here), I point out to User:Jaakobou that the main article on Gilad Shalit does not use that expression. User:Jaakobou then changes the article Gilad Shalit such that it includes the term, using a bogus quote as justification (see arguments here).

In both cases, User:Jaakobou, for the sake of winning an argument on one page, went and modified another page. This is a clear violation of WP:POINT. These modifications were not good-faith edits: in the first case, he changed the title but completely ignored the lead of the article and in the second case, he mis-read his source, making it quite clear that these were drive-by edits to push his point in the discussion on Talk:Israeli-Palestinian conflict.  pedro gonnet  -  talk  - 16.01.2008 10:31

User:Jaakobou abuses WP:DR
There are several cases in which User:Jaakobou abuses the dispute resolution process to block an article or to force the insertion/deletion of material.


 * 1) Following a lengthy discussion on whether the Occupied Territories should indeed be called the "occupied territories" (here), which was not going especially well for him, User:Jaakobou backed out. The last edit in the thread is dated 14.11.2007. User:Jaakobou then returns two weeks later to re-remove the term "occupied" (here), is almost instantly backed-up by three editors (all three well known for their pro-Israeli/anti-Palestinian editing -- canvassing?). When reminded of the discussion two weeks prior (here), User:Jaakobou responds by stating victory by 4-to-1 consensus (here).
 * 2) Following the ensuing discussion on "occupied" vs. "captured", two WP:RfCs were started (User:Jaakobou did not like the formatting of the first one). User:Jaakobou then left the discussion, which he himself had started, long before a compromise was suggested and finally accepted.
 * 3) After a long WP:RfC on Gilad Shalit regarding the use of the term "hostage" here, a compromise was suggested by User:Dbratton and accepted by most editors, User:Jaakobou re-inserted the term anyway, claiming that he had "won" the RfC by +5 votes (as WP:RfC states, RfCs are not votes, here). He alludes to further steps in WP:DR, as he has done in other disputes, but fails to follow through.
 * 4) In the discussion following the move-war over Occupation of the Gaza Strip by Egypt (discussion here), User:Jaakobou runs out of arguments and quietly backs out, leaving the dispute unresolved. I suspect that if not blocked, he'll be back to move it in a few weeks.
 * 5) In all disputes in the articles in which User:Jaakobou has been involved, there is not one single case of User:Jaakobou suggesting, reaching, accepting or abiding to a compromise. Not one.

User:Jaakobou is always willing to start a discussion regarding the most trivial edits, yet he is incapable of following through with any form of WP:DR. As hist track record shows, he is very good at starting disputes, but terrible at ending them. My assumption is that he uses WP:DR only to block an article in his preferred state, since he makes absolutely no effort to reach a solution or accept a compromise.  pedro gonnet  -  talk  - 16.01.2008 10:31

Possible sockpuppet involvement in tag-team editing
might be a sockpuppet used for tag-team editing. That user account appeared less than three weeks ago. It has no user page or information on the talk page. All edits are on Israel/Jewish related subjects. The very first edit by this editor uses tags and template boxes. Within 24 hours, the first revert-type edit on a topic covered by this arbitration appeared.   Two weeks later, he's writing things like "You either misunderstand, or misapply what WP:NPOV_tutorial says as it relates to this article. [Yes, we should list all points of view - but in the context of an article about a term, these points of view are of the form "The term J L means..." or "The term JL is used by..". They do not include any and all POV that happen to use the term.".

That's not a newbie. This behavior is right out of "Characteristics of sock puppets" in WP:SOCK.

Edits by this editor aren't bad, but they tend to appear when the usual suspects are coming close to 3RR and need backup. Worth a look. --John Nagle (talk) 17:04, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Evidence presented by {your user name}
before using the last evidence template, please make a copy for the next person

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

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