Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/PalestineRemembered

Case Opened on 05:26, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Case Closed on 15:40, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Please do not edit this page directly unless you wish to become a participant in this case. (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, the parties, and other editors may suggest proposed principles, findings, and remedies at /Workshop. That page may also be used for general comments on the evidence. Arbitrators will then vote on a final decision in the case at /Proposed decision.

Once the case is closed, editors may add to the as needed, but closed cases should not be edited otherwise. Please raise any questions at Requests for arbitration.

Statement by Wooyi
I am not personally involved in this case, however, I spotted Community sanction noticeboard. The initiating administrator, Jayjg, was eager to ban the user PalestineRemebered because Jayjg alleged PR has inserted fraud and deception to Wikipedia articles relating to Israel/Palestine. However, there are many disputes about the allegations, and the things are a lot more complicated than the scope of WP:CN. Some editors there suggest ArbCom investigation into this matter. The discussion now is starting to be an ugly mess. I urge ArbCom to investigate and give a just decision.
 * Addendum: The comments below by editors from both sides, either advocating the ArbCom to take or not take the case, actually demonstrate the need for ArbCom to investigate. Things appear that there is even a personal feud between several established, longtime editors. WooyiTalk to me? 02:55, 14 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Since I had trouble finding it, I'll note the location of the archive  where the above-mentioned CSN page can be located. --Zerotalk 12:33, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Jayjg
I brought User:PalestineRemembered to WP:AN/I board after a long history of violations of various Wikipedia policies, such that he has been blocked for a total of four months out of his entire seven month editing history. User:PalestineRemembered is a self-admitted Single Purpose Account who has been quite open about his agenda; soon after returning from the most recent block he inserted material into an article which seriously misrepresented his sources. A discussion on banning him commenced, and a strong consensus for the ban developed, with 21 editors, mostly admins, in favor; the main exceptions were four editors who have been involved in a longstanding and ongoing series of disputes with me on various articles and Talk: pages, and one editor who is fundamentally opposed to community sanctions of any sort. There is no Arbcom case here, as the community has spoken. Jayjg (talk) 01:33, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Statement by PalestineRemebered
I believe I have "learnt lessons" from previous comments and sanctions.


 * 1) - I have stopped using the word "Zionist"
 * 2) - I am as careful as I can be about my information.
 * 3) - I am as careful as I can be about OR.
 * 4) - I have sometimes been guilty of incivility, but I believe I have mended my ways.
 * 5) - I have been misunderstood over comments concerning "ethnic labelling". I find all such references unnecessary and unhelpful, and have (occasionally) sought to persuade other users not to categorise.
 * 6) - I have created at least one well-established and stable page Naeim Giladi. Only circumstances have prevented others.
 * 7) - I have never edit-warred (good edits lost in the interests of AGF?)
 * 8) - Despite this, I have good edits to my credit.

I have repeatedly explained, apologised and sought guidance on my UserName. I am open to suggestions concerning it.

I have been challenged to say where I first saw the "Lord Moyne's killers buried on Mt Herzl" information - I'm not sure, but it was likely in a usenet group/Forum. It would *not* have been in a group patronised by Holocaust Deniers, whom I've always despised (cites if necessary, under my real name too). PalestineRemembered 08:11, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Additional comment by PalestineRemembered

 * I would like to be credited with never having tried to evade my bans (nor appeal against them until now).
 * I like to think of myself as a well-behaved editor who accepts the words and decisions of those wiser and more experienced than me.
 * After early and potentially uncivil attempts to discover policy from administrators, I have avoided any clash with them. My sole concern has been to insert good information into the encyclopaedia.
 * I continue to believe that in the article under challenge I was acting as an editor should do, inserting (three different) points of information (all of which) I believed to be relevant and well sourced. I have seen nothing to indicate that I was being disruptive of the encyclopaedia in this case.

I am now confident there are no "Single Purpose Account" issues with my UserName. The reasons I gave for editing as an SPA are entirely acceptable under policy. I attempted to get guidance on policy, though this was not forthcoming - this may be similar to other problems I have had attempting to get guidance (see above).

People might wish me to change my UserName, that's a slightly different point, I am perfectly prepared to do this if my fellow editors think it would be beneficial.

Subject to correction and the feelings of all in the project, I believe my participation and editing should be welcome at Wikipedia. PalestineRemembered 10:54, 14 May 2007 (UTC) (edited and expanded PalestineRemembered 10:56, 15 May 2007 (UTC)}

Statements by User:Chovain (advocate)
Since no consensus was reached in the CSN (and given that it was based on what we now know to be incorrect information), could PallestineRemembered please be allowed to edit freely during this RfArb? He is currently not permitted to edit outside this case, and this is already impacting on his ability to defend himself. I can't be here 24 hours a day, and my job should be to advise and educate him, not to pass messages. Mark Chovain 12:24, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Arbitrators' opinions on hearing this matter (6/1/0/0)

 * Accept. Mackensen (talk) 02:40, 14 May 2007 (UTC) Clarification: accept only if there are administrators prepared to unblock PalestineRemembered. Mackensen (talk) 11:03, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Decline. Seems to me like the community has already spoken -- or will soon enough. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 03:04, 14 May 2007 (UTC) Accept. Blecch. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 05:03, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Reject, per Jpgordon. FloNight 11:11, 14 May 2007 (UTC) Accept, since an admin has stated that he will undo the indef block. An ArbCom case is needed to stop this from exploding into an ongoing disruptive situation with wheel warring. (Folks, be on your best behavior on the ArbCom case pages. Not the best place for disruptive editing.) FloNight 22:04, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Accept. - There are several strong objections to a ban on CN. In my view, any such objections by users in good standing should redirect a case to ArbCom deliberations. - SimonP 13:07, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Accept per SimonP. Kirill Lokshin 16:51, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Accept. We have two choices: accept reviews of community bans, or kick them into touch. I would prefer some third, light-weight option. Absent that, my default is to accept review cases. Charles Matthews 18:40, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Decline. At this juncture, he subject user has been unblocked.  It appears to me that, with more complete evidence available, the community doesn't support a block or ban.  I doubt if this committee would come to any different conclusion.  Therefore, I conclude there is nothing for us to do. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 18:42, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

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

Motion to dismiss adopted
As the dispute being arbitrated has been satisfactorily resolved by the major parties, and any restrictions on the involved editors have been lifted, this case is closed with no further actions being taken.

''Passed 6 to 0, 15:39, 4 July 2007 (UTC)