Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/PalestineRemembered/Evidence

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

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

As such, it is extremely important that you use the prescribed format. Submitted evidence should include a link to the actual page diff; links to the page itself are not sufficient. For example, to cite the edit by Mennonot to the article Anomalous phenomenon adding a link to Hundredth Monkey use this form:.

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

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

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

AN/I & Community sanction noticeboard discussion of ban of PalestineRemembered did not generate consensus
The ban was originally proposed at AN/I, discussion later got moved to the more appropriate community santions noticeboard. The discussion is now archived at Community sanction noticeboard/Archive8. The discussion initially ran very much one way, but once a more complete picture of the situation emerged, consensus for a ban vanished. Reading the commentary with maximum bias towards banning, discussion ended at 24 in favor, 16 opposed, and 4 either abstaining or unclear, with the trend of new participants at the end definitely running against a community imposed ban. GRBerry 03:55, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Sock puppetry authorizes the use of single purpose accounts in topics subject to much dispute
Sock puppetry says (and has said essentially the same thing since at least May 1 2006, before PR began editing): Some editors use different accounts in talk pages to avoid conflicts about a particular area of interest turning into conflicts based upon user identity and personal attacks elsewhere, or to avoid harassment outside of Wikipedia. A person participating in a discussion of an article about abortion, for example, might not want to allow other participants an opportunity to extend that discussion or engage them in unrelated or philosophically motivated debate outside the context of that article.

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

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

Jayjg and FeloniousMonk have been behind all blocks of PR

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

PR has been unblocked only for this case
He is expected to behave as if blocked, other than participating in this case. Explanation of unblock by Zscout370 GRBerry 03:55, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Update, he has subsequently been told that he is fully unblocked, following discussion at AN/I. This occurred between 24 and 48 hours ago. GRBerry 00:36, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

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

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

SPA/SP accounts are not designed to encourage WP:DE
Users can choose to use a sockpuppet single purpose account to edit contentious articles, but that does not mean that they can use these accounts to disrupt Wikipedia and violate WP:NOT. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:28, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Refutation of Tewfik's claims that Jayjg only cares for Wikpedia policy and does not espouse a "cause"

 * Off the top of my head, I offer this latest comment at Palestinian people : . NPOV does not preclude representing the opinion of all notable parties. In an article on Palestinian people, surely their own view of their identity and history is relevant - and mocking refugee children at (UNRWA schools) is not even remotely funny.


 * An earlier example at the same page includes this section where Jayjg tries to advocate for the inclusion of the views of Daniel Pipes as an external link, despite concerns raised about his alleged racism and bigotry. The Pipes article in question denies the existence of the Palestinian people.


 * And this is a compilation of "policy arguments" invoked by Jayjg at Israeli apartheid: Contrast against these comments at Talk:Pallywood (some examples:   ). Or the positions he took at Sabeel.


 * There are many other examples and I can provide more if required. Editors familiar with Middle Eastern related articles know Jayjg's biases all too well. While he is careful to try to conceal his POV by invoking policy using one interpretation where it can be used to uphold the inclusion of material that accords with his POV, and then using it by another to disqualify the inclusion of information that does not - The sum effect is the same. T i a m u t  20:14, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I am an "involved party" in this ArbCom - but am I the subject?

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

I consistently reject bigotry and discrimination

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

I am a reformed character

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

Most of the work I have done is good

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

But I am still a newcomer with a lot to learn

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

Evidence of the contested edits

 * The discussion on a "Community Ban" and perma-block of me was triggered by 4 edits I made to one article - being and  and  and . (Made over 3 weeks).
 * Each of these edits incorporated one or more relatively uncontentious "facts" about events described in, and belonging to, the article currently entitled "Zionist political violence"..
 * There were 4 "facts" in total, and each of them was carefully written and re-written to try and improve the article, hoping to move it forwards in small steps.
 * If I'd been challenged on the provenance of any of these "facts", I'd have done so (and realised that one of them, though perfectly correct and now in the article, was poorly cited).
 * No attempt was made to dispute my "facts", my edits were simply reverted with meaningless explanations. "rv irrelevant time zones or WP:WTA" - "rv pov" - "Undid revision 124873421 by PalestineRemembered" - "Reverted edits by PalestineRemembered to version 130495252 by Jayjg".
 * By comparison, 3 of the 4 edits I attempted came with a full description emphasising that each "fact" was well known and amply "proven".
 * All the "Talk"/discussion about my edits came from me. (Though I am joined by others also attempting to improve the article in a consensual fashion).
 * Two of the edits I was trying to make are now in the article, including the one over which I was accused of "After doing some investigation, I discovered that PalestineRemembered has never read the Evening Star of Auckland; rather, he has copied his views and references from the Holocaust denial group the Institute for Historical Review"..
 * I believe "my" other two "facts" are also 100% verifiable, 100% "true" and 100% relevant to the article.
 * I believe that the accusation against me personally has been totally and utterly refuted. It can be (and has been) easily proved that I did not get my information from the Holocaust Deniers eg and and . I can also prove that I'm a long time opponent of (and even modest campaigner against) religious bigotry. A powerful scrap of evidence for the latter is already available to the arbitrators (or at least one of them?) and I can provide a great deal more. PalestineRemembered 12:50, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I support the process and the project

 * I believe that this affair was correctly sent to Arbitration, and correctly accepted by the arbitrators (six to one vote ) for arbitration.
 * I would like the ArbCom to consider this affair carefully with the good of the project in mind. I believe the ArbCom case concerns product and the perception that there are, or could be, red-lines against the inclusion of entirely undisputed, easily verifiable and "100% true and relevant" information about the ME.
 * But that the evidence suggests this particular incident is a straightforward content dispute. The evidence suggests that this apparent content dispute was actually manufactured in order to stop uncontestable 59 year old history being added to articles. However, I am still striving not to make this business personal in any way, and I'm not commenting on the likely motives for making (and refusing to retract) the clearly false claim that I get my views from Holocaust Deniers.
 * When this affair is completed, I will return to editing the encyclopaedia without disruptive references to what has happened. PalestineRemembered 12:50, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Advocacy and this ArbCom

 * I am extremely grateful to my Advocate for the help that he (a complete stranger) extended me. His last significant contribution was on the 25th May. Examining this edit may help to explain why this process has already taken so long. PalestineRemembered 12:50, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Fresh attempt to portray me as a bigot

 * 2 days ago I objected to the systematically unpleasant smearing of a man I believe to be entirely honourable. I based my objection on a careful comparison with a somewhat similar biography here.
 * I stated that if we could do the second biography in an understanding/supportive/encouraging fashion, then we should most certainly be able to do the same for the first biography.
 * For this plea for balance, I suffered another aggressive objection, implying that I am a bigot attempting to defend another bigot.
 * If there are any lessons to be learnt from this affair, surely it is that these reckless accusations of bigotry against editors have no place and must stop. (Particularily against people speaking out against bigotry, as I've sometimes done and was attempting to do in this case!).
 * I would like the ArbCom to examine the evidence and at least consider this particular lesson from an otherwise most unedifying affair. PalestineRemembered 18:33, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Smear still spreading 6 weeks later
Seen at, "PalestineRemembered has a history of making unreferenced, libelous accusations of Israeli genocide and ethnic cleansing campaigns that make it very difficult for me and others to assume good faith such as when he compared supporters of Israel to Nazis and made the inexplicable claim that David Ben Gurion and other prominent Jewish leaders during Israel's War of Independence were actively planning an ethnic cleansing campaign against Lebanese Muslims. Its a shame this is occuring again because PalestineRemembered has been warned and almost banned for making these kinds of statements in the past."

Close examination of the diffs will prove I've not said what I'm accused of - and the final accusation is, as we know, totally false. This kind of behaviour casts a chill, and is damaging to the project. It hampers important discussions (as in this case, whether to re-direct a link). I believe it is as important as ever that the ArbCom examine this case and bring honesty and AGF back to the encyclopaedia. PalestineRemembered 13:07, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Undue haste and lack of due process for the accused editor
At no point was PR given an opportunity to give his side of the story, nor does Jayjg appear to have informed him of the discussion:


 * At 18:17 on 13 May, Jayjg posted his initial accusation.


 * At 19:43, Tom Harrison informed PR of the AN/I discussion.


 * At 20:01, Seraphimblade informed PR that he had been blocked indefinitely.

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

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

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

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


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


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

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

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

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

ChrisO's unfair evidence
While my position is that PR's disruption warrants sanctions, I would just like to make a brief comment on ChrisO's evidence above. I believe that his presentation of "Pattern of poor judgment by Jayjg" [sic] is an unfair description of events which leaves out significant details, including ChrisO's own action:
 * Missing from the description of the April 1st events are ChrisO's unilateral speedy deletion of an image and its Talk (as well as on the Commons), against the consensus on Talk, in a content dispute to which he was party. Jayjg, who "had previously played no part in the discussion", was reversing in part that action.
 * Jayjg's action was not "quickly overturned" in the AN/I discussion as ChrisO asserts. In fact, much, if not all of the censure was directed at ChrisO, who had taken questionable admin action for the second time that week. Neither is the map in "widespread use across Wikipedia", rather the previous discussion was allowed to continue until a new image formulation was agreed upon.
 * The article in question was not "successfully merged", so much as the AfD and DRV served as an impetus for the creation of a new entry not subject to the scoping or original research problems of the original. While Jayjg may have acted out of process, there is no need to further frame his actions as having been without rationale or support from many editors.
 * ChrisO's assertion that he is "wholly uninvolved in this case" and has "little sympathy for or interest in the causes espoused by either" is false and misleading for a number of reasons. First, it asserts that Jayjg, like PR, "espouses" a "cause". PR quite openly espouses a cause; Jayjg does not, except that of promoting Wikipedia policy, and I challenge ChrisO to bring examples of Jayjg stating he espouses any cause besides Wikipedia policy. I also find the assertion odd in light of his remarks that Jayjg is "well-known for 'his' promotion of neutral wording and reliable referencing" Second, while he says he has "little sympathy" for PR's cause, his edits in Israeli/Palestinian articles typically promote a POV that is close to PR's - just a few recent examples: . Third, it presents ChrisO as "uninvolved" when, in fact, he has consistently opposed Jayjg in article edits and on Talk pages, and he was even involved in a lengthy Arbitration Committee case as one of the involved parties on the opposite side of Jayjg.

And as I've pointed out elsewhere, a consistent pattern has developed both on the original Arbitration and here, where editors who have been involved in other disputes with Jayjg, often longstanding, have used this ArbCom case as a platform to attack Jayjg over all sorts of unrelated issues. It would be far more reassuring if the criticism came from editors that were truly uninvolved.

It's also very important to remember what some of those presenting evidence seem to be glossing over; Jayjg did not ban PR, he simply proposed it on AN/I.

I would also like to emphasise at the outset that my comments aren't intended to "get at" any particular editor, but rather are meant to provide a fuller context to issues that were presented as salient to this discussion.  Tewfik  Talk 19:39, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

PalestineRemembered owns a copy of the 1990 reprint of Hadawi's Bitter Harvest
At 05:04 UTC, 22 May 2007, I emailed asking for two images: Until this email, I had advised PalestineRemembered that evidence of the source would not be required, as I believed it had been demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt that the quote had been sourced from Bitter Harvest.
 * 1) A scan of the page from Bitter Harvest from which he claims to have sourced the Auckland Evening Star quote; and
 * 2) A photo of him holding the book.

At 06:38 UTC, 22 May 2007, I received a response, which included the images I had requested.
 * Image 1 also included a composite of the copyright and reprint information, indicating that it was taken from a 1990 reprint of Hadawi's Bitter Harvest.
 * Image 2 included a composite timestamp indicating a local time corresponding with 06:13 UTC. Image 2 is a 5MP image that clearly shows the person who I know to be PalestineRemembered holding a book that I know from Amazon to be either a 1990 or 1999 reprint of Bitter Harvest.  The embedded XIFF data in the image file is consistent with the timestamp on the photo, and indicates it was taken on a 5MP digital camera.

I am able to make the Hadawi scan available on request. For privacy reasons, I am not permitted to distribute the photo. I realise that given I am PR's advocate, this may take some weight away from the evidence, but given that I have nothing to gain from lying, I ask that people accept on my word that I have witnessed the image.

Note that the time elapsed from my request to the image being taken is 69 minutes. The total elapsed time between the request and the response is 94 minutes. Mark Chovain 04:19, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Appropriate use of Community sanctions noticeboard
One unfortunate factor about the timing of this particular case is that came up at WP:CSN shortly after a deletion discussion for the board and series of guideline-level and policy-level discussions about the nature and process of community banning. Opinions vary on those matters, but I cannot concur with an accusation that the board itself was misused in this instance.

My own involvement in these processes was inspired by what used to be an excessively process-bound banning system that erred on the side of leniency toward hardened disruptive editors to the point where frustrated good faith editors quit articles and quit Wikipedia entirely. While no one wants to community banning to get exploited to railroad good editors out of the project, I ask the Committee to weigh its decision here in terms of overall balance: at some stage a reasonable editor ought to anticipate that banning is possible, and the community can expect such an editor to take the initiative in pulling back from the brink.

Some of the arguments in support of PalestineRemembered imply that a user conduct request for comment ought to have taken place before the community ban proposal. Although that makes sense in many instances, an account that has been blocked for four of its seven months of existence is hardly a borderline case. That's long enough for uninvolved observers to expect that the blocks would have been challenged, and probably shortened, if they had been implemented inappropriately.

My own statements on this matter have consistently expressed the opinion that any account with such a substantial block history is basically one mistake away from a siteban. In the absence of any positive action (such as joining Adopt-a-user) I considered that context enough to support a ban proposal for a misuse of WP:CITE. PalestineRemembered did admit to violating WP:CITE, so in my evaluation the surrounding accusations regarding Middle Eastern politics and Holocaust denial weren't relevant. WP:AGF constrains me to suppose that all such claims are good faith misunderstandings unless compelling evidence demonstrates that one or more other editors has acted inappropriately. Hot button political issues tend to precipitate heated editorial discussions, which is what happened at this ban discussion, but that doesn't alter the burden of evidence. Durova Charge! 20:11, 23 May 2007 (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.