Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Zeq-Zero0000/Workshop

This is a page for working on arbitration decisions. The arbitrators, parties to the case, and other editors may draft proposals and post them to this page for review and comments. Proposals may include proposed general principles, findings of fact, remedies, and enforcement provisions&mdash;the same format as is used in Arbitration Committee decisions. The bottom of the page may be used for overall analysis of the /Evidence and for general discussion of the case.

Any user may edit this workshop page. Please sign all suggestions and comments. Arbitrators will place proposed items they believe should be part of the final decision on the /Proposed decision page, which only arbitrators may edit, for voting.

Fred
Fred needs to use the evidence page and the workshop page so that we can discuss this issue. (for example his wrong accusation of me in violating POINT was never in any evidence or discussion and infact he does not even link to a diff I ediited)

On the other hand there is ton of evidence against Zero that he prefer to ignore. It is time that the ArbCom would first rule on my request that Fred remove himslef from this case (see workshop page) I have never disruppted Wikipedia to make a point. On the other hand it is Zero who tried excuse after excuse to ban me and now Fred is handing it to him despite Zero being involved in many edit-wars in articles I have never edited. Fred: Please discuss the real issues in the work shop page - inclusding why you don't recuse yourself from this case. Thank you. Zeq 18:33, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Exclusion of Dmcdevit's block
1) As the matter is unrelated to this arbitration request and, in any event, there have been no attempts made to resolve any issue that may exist, the Arbitration Committee refuses to arbitrate Dmcdevit's actions surrounding John254 and the subsequent blocking. The Arbitration Committee ruled to accept a case which focused primarily on the dispute between Zeq and Zero0000.

As there has not been an acceptance from the Committee regarding arbitrating the dispute between Dmcdevit and John254, any further pursuit of this incident during this case on the Workshop or Evidence will result in a block by any administrator, excluding Dmcdevit, for a period of up to a week. Further, all evidence and workshop proposals will be removed.

If anyone believes that Dmcdevit is acting in a way which requires the intervention of this Committee, they are instructed to request the Committee to open a separate case on the issue, using the normal process at Requests for arbitration. However, at this stage, the Arbitration Committee has not accepted a case to investigate Dmcdevit's block of John254, or anyone, and trying to convert this case into one will be enforced as detailed above.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Proposed. See, which I endorse 100%.  Daniel Bryant  10:19, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree (see below) that Dmcdevit's block is beyond the scope, but this proposal seems a little bit of overkill&mdash;and hopefully is unnecessary, as that block hasn't been mentioned again in a couple of weeks. Newyorkbrad 23:59, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Request that Fred Bauder recuse
See this Diff:

An arbitor is a judicial role. Fred took upon himself to be "the prosecutor" and he is doing it in uncharteristic sloppy way - inveting violations that are simply not true.


 * Fred Bauder agin shows his clear bias against me. I request that he recuse himself from this case. Please see his recent evidence he placed against me which include a gross factual error (by Fred) . As Fred could have easily find out I have never violated any ban placed on me. I have compiled with the ban and Fred could have found out that the ban was lifted on March 5, 2007 prior to the edit diffs Fred placed above. Fred should first use the evidence page of this arbCom case so that people have the opportunity to comment on the quality of evidence he pushed into the proposed decision (so far his "evidence" is not of any meanigfull quality to the arguments he try to support with it. In any case his clear bias is showing once again. BTW, as I said before this case was open I did admit being wrong (such as edit war) in some places so Fred is waisting his time trying to "prove" point in which I admited already.


 * Fred could have read the evidence section of this case and see that Zero has edit war on many more articles that I did. Somehow edit-wars and other violation by Zero (NPOV, Edit-War, Admin abuse, AGF, NPA, and removal of sources) have not been noted by Fred. Since Fred has already admited to being anti-Zionist it becomes clear that he can not honestly judge case involving a zionist and an anti-Zionist editors who are at odds. Zeq 14:03, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * I remain sympathetic towards Zeq and his position and towards the government and people of Israel. Fred Bauder 18:07, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Just for the record: I am very un-sympathetic toward the goverment of Israel - a goverment that allowed itself to be led buy a bunch of gun-ho generals into endless wars, unjustified opersion of the Palestinian people.
 * I am very sympathetic toward the equal rights of both the Israeli and palestinian people to a safe independent homeland to each of them. see more in user:Zeq. I doubt if Fred ever bothered to understand what I stand for. For him all "zionists" must be alike. Zeq 18:14, 7 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * Fred has indeed found out himself that he made mistkes. So far he is unable to find any evidence to support his accusations that I used improper sources. His using the nanalogy that my sources are propeganda sources similar to the  the protocols of elders of Zion  was at least bad taste if not bad judgment - see bottom part of.
 * Fred had removed his proposal that was based on wrong evidence: Requests_for_arbitration/Zeq-Zero0000/Workshop, User_talk:Fred_Bauder and Fred response that no evidence was found to justify his accusation of me:
 * I am more concerned from the fact that that Fred has started to make finding of facts in this case with complete disregard to the evidence presented on the evidence page. This show that there is a problem. In every judicial process one should review the evidence, make a decision on the quality and validfity of evidence before making a judgment-call. So far, Fred has not edited the evidence page (to confirm or refute the pleanty of evidnce presented there) but since Fred had said that he will look at Zero's actions - I tend to drop this request for now. All I am asking is  afir look at all the evidence. On my part I admitted my wrong-doings but they are a small fractions of the violations of policy in this case.Zeq 05:24, 6 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * This request appears to be unwarranted. Fred Bauder is alleged to have formulated views about the case based upon studying the case in his role as an arbitrator. Views that an arbitrator forms during the case itself are rarely, if ever, grounds for recusal. In fact, one of the purposes of the Workshop pages is for arbitrators to present proposals so that any errors in the fact-finding or reasoning can be identified. The remedy for alleged mistakes by the arbitrators is to point them out so that the arbitrator who made the proposal can, if appropriate, fix the mistake or be outvoted&mdash;not thrown off the case. I also perceive no basis for recusal based on Fred's alleged personal political beliefs. Newyorkbrad 23:49, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
 * FYI in response to Zeq's second comment, I've never seen an arbitrator edit the /Evidence page of a case. That doesn't mean they don't read and study the evidence. No comment on issues of taste. Newyorkbrad 05:34, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Arbitrators have in fact added evidence to the evidence page. Paul August &#9742; 20:00, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
 * It bothers me that there is no order in this process. Should a review of the evidence come before making proposed decision ? Zeq 20:46, 9 May 2007 (UTC)


 * All that I am asking is the evidence will be read and considered before finding of facts are made. Zeq 17:06, 6 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I find this comment of Fred Bauder to be vile, disgusting, reprehensible and utterly inexcusable. I believe it reveals much about the state of mind of this arbitrator.  I’m shocked and sickened. In my estimation it does, however, provide some explanatory power in understanding the course and motives for this prosecution.  I believe if Fred Bauder remains on this case, Wikipedia is damaged.  I would certainly like to hear Fred Bauder's explanation for how this racist, bigoted, antisemitic hoax used first as an excuse to exterminate Zeq's people and now used as an excuse to exterminate his country, has any similarity at all to the alledgedly biased Zionist sources that he slanders ZEQ with proffering.  I would also like Aribitratior Fred Bauder to produce the  diffs that he beleives support his allegation. -Doright 07:35, 7 May 2007 (UTC)


 * "And your modus operandi is to find what you want in obviously biased sources. We would not accept The Protocols of Zion as a source, why should we accept obviously biased Zionist sources? Fred Bauder 17:52, 1 May 2007 (UTC)"
 * -Doright 07:35, 7 May 2007 (UTC)


 * By the way, Fred Bauder's above quoted reply was in response to Zeq's (quoted below) description of how he sees Zero's editing.  I'm at a loss to understand how that can be considered a proper response when the subject of Zeq's comment was Zero's editing.  For, an arbitrator to ignore the substance of the comment in its entirety and then to attack Zeq instead, strikes me as very odd.  The reply does not seem to be one directed toward challenging the factual basis for Zeq's claim.  Rather, it appears to be a rhetorical lynching by Fred Bauder. "Zero's most succesfull technique is to push out sources by claiming that the source is POV. He does that only to sources that are against his preffered POV. This is a subtle way to create an POV-biased article while creating the apreance that others use POV sources. This way also help Zero to present himself as the defender of NPOV and RS. Due to the heavy use of this technique many of Zero's edits are deletion of sources (only those that don't fit his prefered POV). Zeq 20:51, 19 April 2007 (UTC)"
 * -Doright 23:07, 9 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Dorights's attitude towards sources can be accessed by reading Talk:British Mandate of Palestine. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black. --Zerotalk 08:17, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I guess we just saw an exaple of how Zero "poisen the well" by only attcking the person and not responding to the content but since Zero mention "the pot calling the kettle black" in the context of Talk:British Mandate of Palestine I'll just mention that beyond the scope of this arbitration but if anyone wants to see how Zero tries to re-write history they better understand what he did to the maps of the British Mandate of Palestine. It is subtle, complex yet serve to turn Zero's version of history into the only version available to Wkipedia readers. Since it involve deep understanding of the content I am not going to go into that - just check the talk page and you will see for yourself. it starts here: and continue with the best of Zero wikilawyering (here is editing his own talk comment after he claims that other mis-quoted a source and turn out the quote was 100% correct:  and continue throughout the talk page (such as this:. Zero's core behavioural problem is this:  Zero refuse to accept that NPOV include more than his own view . Zero will do everything possible to remove the POV that does not fit his own view of history and facts, and if to do that one has to re-draw a map, place an early date on it and make it similar to maps that apear in one-sided propeganda sites, so be it. Since Zero and Fred Bauder both share the same political view (anti-Zionism) can they both be part of the same ArbCom case - one as a party and one as accuser/judge ?Zeq 08:22, 7 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree with Zeq, please go to Talk:British Mandate of Palestine and see what it is like trying to write good articles in the middle east section. On one side you will see several editors bringing an extensive array of peer-reviewed academic sources including those regarded by the experts as the most definitive studies.  On the other side you will see several editors with a few web sites and a caption in an atlas that they don't understand (this comment excludes Leifern).  --Zerotalk 10:03, 7 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I am glad Zero agree. Indeed if anyone would dive into the discussion there s/he will be able to find that only Zero's POV has support by "an extensive array of peer-reviewed academic sources" and the opposing POV is those of editors who "don't understand". Only Zero (and his tag-team) know the truth, only Zero knows the policy and how to implement it - hasn't this been the problem all along ? Why should we have multiple editors ? shouldn't we just let Zero write all the articles about the history of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and save ourselfs the edit-wars ? Zeq 11:08, 7 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Now, a "brand new" IP editor shows up deux ex machina whose only contribution is to nominate this WP:RS map for deletion (i.e., the map Zero wants removed from the article in favor of his WP:OR map) from Wikipedia entirely [], thus attempting to preempt the debate, without even adding a notice or link on the talk page that is the subject of this discussion so that the WP:OR map created by Zero will have no competition. []  Also note that User:Zero has zero WP:RS sources identified for his map.[]  It might be interesting to find out if that IP is associated with an existing editor, especially one that’s already involved in the discussion.


 * However, the subject of this section is, "Request that Fred Bauder recuse." Therefore, I look forward to a substantive reply to my inquiry at this link. [] -Doright 17:36, 7 May 2007 (UTC)


 * There is evidence of violation of WP:sock but I will not put all of it here except showing this ID who edit-war the same POV as Zero: Zeq 17:46, 7 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't use socks. --Zerotalk 11:51, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

WP:lead
This proposal by Fred seems to violate WP:Lead policy which state: "'The lead should be capable of standing alone as a concise overview of the article'".

This is the first timeI hear about this and Furthermore this proposal has not been discussed in this workshop page or it talk pages of articles in which there was a dispute on the lead. In one such dispute over the lead Zero tried to prevent inclusion of critism in the intro (this is documented in evidence page as one of Zero's edit wars) he got this reply from user:SlimVirgin :

"'Just about every intro I write contains criticism of the person or group, assuming there has been substantive criticism from reputable sources. Machsom Watch is not defined for you by the criticism that's made of it, but it is so defined by others. The point is to make sure that the criticism is not trivial, and that it comes from a good source'".

It seems it's only purpose of Fred's "findings" is try to protecte Zero and find all sorts of excuses of why Zero's behaviour is justified and mine is not. I am again asking the honorable members of this ArbCom to rule on the request that Fred Bauder requse himself from this case. So far he did everything possible so that this case to apear unfair. Fred has admitted to be anti-Zionist, this case is exactly on the issue of anti-zionist Vs Zionist POV Fred has shown is uncapable of being univolved.

by the way the capgain by Zero to ban/block me is a long campaign that has disrupted wikipedia many times - see this(noy the only time that Zero blocked/complained or threten me with bans/blocks) : Zeq 19:23, 9 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Zero's role as an editor
I have admitted my wrong doing and will take the punishment for them. However, if the excuse that Zeq has edit-wared prevent you from looking at all the evidence about Zero's role as an editor you are allowing a behaviour that is much worse than mine to continue. PLease read the evidence. Pleanty of it starts here: Zeq 04:28, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Template
1)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
2)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
3)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
4)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Questions to the parties
=Proposed final decision=

Admins who enforce probation remedies should be uninvolved
1) Admins who enforce a remedy such as Probation, by blocking or imposing bans, should not be involved in a dispute with the user under probation. This ensures that the admin who is enforcing the remedy is doing so out of an interest to stop disruption, and not out of an interest to gain the upper hand in a content dispute.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * The language was "Zeq [] is placed on Probation. He may be banned by any administrator for good cause from any article which he disrupts by tendentious editing." It plainly says "any administrator" but only for "good cause". If there is good cause an involved administrator is entitled to block. Probation was intended to operate in this summary fashion, but with provision for appeal to determine if there was good cause. Fred Bauder 17:46, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * This seems reasonable and I would favor limiting enforcement to any uninvolved admin going forward. However I am not inclined to penalize Zero for following the apparent intent of an ArbCom ruling. Paul August &#9742; 23:34, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment by parties:

Not only this was clarified by Jimbo in previous arbcom case (identical issue) against Zero:
 * "But we have a cardinal rule, that goes all the way back to the existence of sysop powers in the first place, that they must never be used in a dispute over content that we are personally involved in. If you think we get silly complaints now about sysop abuse, just imagine what it would be like if we let sysops win arguments over content by blocking people who disagree. --Jimbo "  (in an e-mail to mailing list about Zero's previous ArbCom case)

But also Fred specifically told Zero not to use Bans as a first measure against Zeq when Zero has a contant dispute with Zeq: "'Zeq is not an editor in good faith....I have found him willing to discuss matters in a reasonable way. That does not mean that I consider him to now be engaged in optimal editing....Now it may be that he will just get worse and probation, Requests_for_arbitration/Zeq, will have to be more and more vigorously enforced, but my hope is that he will gradually improve in his behavior. Keep in mind that 'He may be banned by any administrator for good cause from any article which he disrupts by tendentious editing.' If that is necessary, please ask for it.'"

I have also suggested to Zero that he proceeds ona slippery slope: - still he excersized his admin tools while being part of an edit dispute. Zeq 06:49, 13 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * This is the principle I prefer, since it helps ensure that nobody will abuse a probation remedy in a way it was not intended. Sjakkalle (Check!)  08:52, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Probation was intended to operate in this summary fashion, but with provision for appeal to determine if there was good cause. Fred Bauder 17:46, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Good cause, sound judgmenet and acting from a Neutral POV are all required even in "summary fashion" Zeq 18:36, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * i think it's ok to have some minor involvement but if if there's anything beyond minor involvement (like reverting due to content dispute), then we'd have a problem. Jaakobou 10:41, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Any admin may enforce probation remedies
1.1) In general, a Probation remedy may be enforced by any admin, including an involved admin, unless this has been specifically prohibited. An involved admin often knows the situation in more detail, and finding and explaining the situation to an uninvolved admin may take time, while in the meantime, serious disruption may continue. Involved admins must take special care that the enforcement is being done in the interests of preventing disruption, and not in the interest of getting an advantage in a content dispute.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Exactly Fred Bauder 17:48, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * "But we have a cardinal rule, that goes all the way back to the existence of sysop powers in the first place, that they must never be used in a dispute over content that we are personally involved in. If you think we get silly complaints now about sysop abuse, just imagine what it would be like if we let sysops win arguments over content by blocking people who disagree. --Jimbo "  (in an e-mail to mailing list about Zero's previous ArbCom case) Zeq 18:32, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I prefer 1. I don't see that explaining the situation to an uninvolved administrator should take that long. Paul August &#9742; 23:40, 4 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * The issue of "involved admin" is about placing of a ban (not the block). Zero has already been suspended already on exactly a similar offense and later was told[] by user:Fred_Bauder that a ban is not the first step in dispute resolution – even if the dispute is with a user under probation. Zero was already told that only after other options have tried should an involved admin ask other (uninvolved) admin to issue and enforce a ban. Jimbo Wales had the opinion that Zero first offesnse was such a clear violation of Wikipedia basic rules that he should have been de-sysoped back then.


 * despite all that Zero used one single edit as an excus to place a ban. (even though he was warned that as an involved admin he can do that.


 * User:Zero0000 knows the rules well – he just choose to wikilawyer (, see 2nd edit here:  , response:) his way around them to gain an advantage in his on-going disputes across wikipedia. user:Zero0000 involvement in multiple (staggering amount) of disputes and edit-wars with many users – not just Zeq - shows that the problem here is much bigger than a "clarification" by ArbCom.  Zeq 09:30, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Zeq's assertions, here and on the evidence page, refer almost entirely to a different case that was judged long ago and for which I was given a penalty. I refuse to be judged on that case all over again.  The current case is of course entirely different and concerns whether or not I was justified in interpretting an ArbCom ruling in a particularly literal way. --Zerotalk 11:41, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Only Zero's current behavior is standing on trial today. The pattern existed for years but the evidence on recent bahaviour is fresh. His on-going violations will are presented (recent edits: 2007, 2006). There is no other Wikipedian who behave with such arrogance toward those who disgree with him and with such sense of impunity – this will be clear from the evidence.(some just days old - zero continue this behavior even after this 3rd ArbCom case of his has started) Zeq 15:34, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * I am putting this up as an alternative to the one above, since I think ArbCom should clarify this point. I don't like this one as much. In either case, I think we all agree that if a probatee is behaving well, it would be inappropriate to for an admin to ban the probatee merely due to a disagreement. Sjakkalle (Check!)  08:52, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


 * There needs to be a middle ground. Imposing an article ban is something that should be left to an uninvolved admin.  On the other hand, if there is an unquestionable circumstance (eg, arbcom bans user from article X and user inserts info into article X), then blocking is fine. --BigDT ( 416 ) 00:02, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * That sounds fair. Sjakkalle (Check!)  05:56, 19 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Any random opinion I might have offered at some point in the past about some incident in the past should have absolutely no bearing on this case. Sometimes I am wrong, and it makes me unhappy to see people citing something like this that I said years ago in an attempt to paint a particular situation in a particular way.--Jimbo Wales 09:43, 8 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Very good! A cookie for Sjakkalle. Thatcher131 03:08, 2 May 2007 (UTC)


 * This is a terrible idea. There is no other admin action that allows action while involved in a content dispute with the receiving end of the action. Why make an exception for probation when that is based on sound priciple? The middle ground doesn't exist, as there is no "unquestionable circumstance": when someone violates a cut-and-dried ban, you still need to decide whether to block or warn, and for how long to block, and these are decisions that should not be left up to an admin who would stand to benefit in a content dispute as a result. We should not be indulging "literal" interpretations of arbitration rulings that serve personal admins' content interests in lieu of common sense. An involved admin knows the situation both "in more detail" and from a biased point of view. You want to send the message that blocking while you are involved in a dispute with a user is bad and desysop-worthy, but blocking while you are involved in a dipsute with a user on arbitration remedies is acceptable? There is no logical basis. Dmcdevit·t 07:35, 2 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The issue is not the blocking. The issue here is that Zero issued a ban after a single edit. He was warned that such a ban is not appropriate and yet he continue to stand by his ban and went on to block. The issue is the ban - was it done "for Good cause" ? and "in good faith" ?
 * This whole subject would not have even come-up. It was already decided many times that only "uninvolved admin" can take action (Jimbo said it clearly in Zero's previous ArbCom on this subject) so why is it that when Zero is involved on one side and a pro-Israeli editor on the other side we have to discuss the same issues again and again and "clarify".
 * It was already clear the previous time and Zero has been warrned. He was also warrned not to edit-war, not to remove sources, not to issue personal attcks - yet he continue to do all of the above. Why ? Zeq 07:44, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

As a viable principle, I'd simply reword it to say that probation generally is not to be carried out by an involved admin, but that under special circumstances ArbCom may decide otherwise. This is what I understood here, per Fred and Sjakkalle. Of course, that doesn't resolve accidental ambiguities, but makes more sense to me as a general practice.

In terms of policy, I think it's simply a matter of probatees' rights vs. those being forced to deal with them. Generally I totally agree that uninvolved is crucial. Still, at some point, the standard presumptions and avenues are no longer feasible. Maybe the answer is moving more quickly to permablock; in individual cases, I think this principle could be one last option. As to "must": one issue I have here is the potential for traps. If you have a person on this type of probation, there's actually some sense in which people (humans) should be given a little leeway in dealing with them (subject to appeal and review). To provide a lot of latitude, but then attach stiff penalties to misjudgments, would turn the whole thing into a rather ironic liability, which I think is part of the potential problem here. If anything, part of the rule might be "We won't desyssop you for getting one of these wrong, but if you abuse it we'll either end the policy, criticize you or both." Possibly overly complicated, and possibly a reason to scrap the whole idea, but a consideration I think. Mackan79 00:44, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Enforcement of probation remedies (intermediate/compromise version)
1.2) The Arbitration Committee appreciates the efforts of admins who help in enforcing its decisions. Unless an arbitration decision says that a remedy may be enforced only by "uninvolved" administrators, there is no absolute limitation on enforcement by admins who may be involved in a disagreement with the sanctioned editor. However, "involved" administrators should be aware of the possibility that their enforcement actions, although taken in good faith, may be misconstrued as retaliation against an editor with whom they are in a content or other dispute, or may be subconsciously influenced by their view of the merits of the dispute. Therefore, the better practice in such cases will generally be to seek assistance from another admin or on a noticeboard except in an emergency or where the situation is clear-cut.
 * Comment by arbitrators:
 * Comment by parties
 * Comment by others
 * Submitted for consideration. I don't have a strong view either way on the "involved admins enforcing" issue, but this is an attempt to steer a middle course if that is what the arbitrators wish to do. Newyorkbrad 12:13, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment by others
 * Submitted for consideration. I don't have a strong view either way on the "involved admins enforcing" issue, but this is an attempt to steer a middle course if that is what the arbitrators wish to do. Newyorkbrad 12:13, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

NPOV requires both views to be represented
2) NPOV requires views to be represented without bias. All editors and all sources have biases. Pushing aside a source by arguing that "it is POV Source" while keeping in an article sources from the opposing POV creates a biased article. NPOV require that All Wikipedia articles must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), representing fairly and without bias all significant views (that have been published by reliable sources).


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Beyond a certain point biased sources are not reliable sources. Where that point lies is a matter of editorial judgment. Fred Bauder 17:52, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with Fred. Paul August &#9742; 23:46, 4 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * Zero's most succesfull technique is to push out sources by claiming that the source is POV. He does that only to sources that are against his preffered POV. This is a subtle way to create an POV-biased article while creating the apreance that others use POV sources. This way also help Zero to present himself as the defender of NPOV and RS. Due to the heavy use of this technique many of Zero's edits are deletion of sources (only those that don't fit his prefered POV). Zeq 20:51, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * And your modus operandi is to find what you want in obviously biased sources. We would not accept The Protocols of Zion as a source, why should we accept obviously biased Zionist sources? Fred Bauder 17:52, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Where did I use such sources ? It does not matter. What matter is that Zero removed sources such as Ha-aretz, DPA, AFP and academic sources.  Suggest you read the evidence.
 * Fred, I am waiting for an answer. Your accusation "And your modus operandi is to find what you want in obviously biased sources" and the example with The Protocols of Zion and obviously biased Zionist sources - all means that you doubt my good faith editing. Please support your accusations with evidence. Zeq 10:53, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I haven't found it yet, but I am not looking. I think I exaggerated considerably. I am sorry. Fred Bauder 18:42, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Fred, I am still waiting for an answer. Where did I use the "protoclos of elders of Zion" type material (as you claimed I did)?
 * If this is an apology it is accepted and forgotten. But the core issue of Zero's continues violation of NPOV (as well as a whole host of wkipedia policies) remain. Zeq 19:06, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm going to have to look at his editing too. Fred Bauder 20:03, 5 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Here are few good places to start:


 * Requests_for_arbitration/Zeq-Zero0000/Evidence
 * Requests_for_arbitration/Zeq-Zero0000/Evidence
 * Requests_for_arbitration/Zeq-Zero0000/Evidence Zeq 20:08, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Some areas of Wikipedia (such as most history areas) are blessed with a huge literature of high quality that shows unanimity on some questions and dispute, sometimes bitter, on others. All the main threads of well-informed opinion should of course be represented in a good article. That's what NPOV means to me. It does not mean (for example) that the rantings of an activist have to be given equal time with the publications of an expert. That is, the weight that a source is given in an article should depend on the quality of the source. To avoid OR this has to be done in a somewhat objective fashion; for example, two contemporary academic historians in the same specialty a priori deserve equal status and similarly for two respected newspapers. However, if an academic historian disagrees with a controversial political commentator, the first should get some priority and the second needs to pass a notability test. This comment reflects my personal bias towards scholars; I'm not ashamed of that. On the other hand, there is a place in articles for popular opinion (well-based or not) if such opinion is widely held and significant, provided it is presented as popular opinion and not as fact. --Zerotalk 13:58, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Another issue that always bothers me is the issue of who exactly is responsible for the NPOV of an article. There are people going around inserting their own POV everywhere and when they are challenged they say "I won't stop someone from adding the other POV". I don't think that is a sufficient defence. I think everyone is individually responsible for NPOV and always inserting just one POV should be a capital offence. --Zerotalk 13:58, 7 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * As written this may be a "kitchen sink" formula, iow, everything goes in. We do and must distinguish been not only RS and un-RS, but between more reliable and less reliable sources. Tendentious material may be kept out. Sometimes a view is revisionist or minority, without being totally fringe. Then I would expect proper weight to be given. On this page we are writing about "articles" but I suspect in places we are really talking about article leads. The rules for inclusion in the lead must be different. Jd2718 14:28, 6 May 2007 (UTC)


 * You are arguing against NPOV ? Please read the policy. The problem is that Zero has been deleting sources (such as Haaretz, Washngton post etc...) which are clearly WP-RS sources (after he was warned by ArbCom not to do that). He also object academic sources that do not fit his POV. Zeq 14:36, 6 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Zeq, I have two questions/comments for you regarding Fred's "Protocols..." accusation;
 * 1) You apparently accepted Fred's apology above ("If this is an apology it is accepted and forgotten."), so why are you still raising a fuss about it over on Jimbo's page?
 * 2) It seems that you took Fred's comment to mean that he was accusing you of using misleading/dishonest sources, using the Protocols as an analogy? And your heated response would mean that you deny using misleading/dishonest sources?  If so, then how do you explain trying to insert sources such as http://christianactionforisrael.org, http://www.tellthechildrenthetruth.com/, http://christianactionforisrael.org into the 1948 Arab-Israeli War article  ?  Spend 5 minutes reading through those sites and we find "information" being passed as fact just as hateful as the Protocols. Tarc 21:49, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Tarc, You have already said you do not trust my good faith editing. Even Fred does trust it. The edit you mentioned was covered extensivly in previous ArbCom case (the edit it self is from my first days in wikipedia) and I am not going to argue with  you  about it. If Fred can support his claim that I use propeganda sources such as the "protocols" let Fred come up with diffs from the last year. So far Fred failed to support his outragous claim. (as for you: the examples you bring show you do not understand what are the Zion_Protocols and how they are used in the context of world-wide anti-semitism Zeq 03:43, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, Zeq, I do understand; the Protocols are shameful lies that were created to propagate an extremist agenda. The types of sources you at times cite in the wikipedia are no better.  The claim is not as outrageous as you make it out to be. Tarc 12:42, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Administrators
3) Wikipedia administrators are trusted members of the community and are expected to follow Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Occasional lapses of judgment are tolerated, but consistently poor judgment may result in de-sysopping.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Proposed. Ryan Postl et hw ai te  13:25, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Adminship is not diplomatic immunity
Every administrator must keep in mind that admins are servants of Wikipedia as a whole. This means that all policies apply to admins just as they do to any user. Admins can be blocked, put under WP:Probation or banned from some articles and subjects matter in which they employ Tendentious editing . Admins must follow all Wikipedia policies, such as the three-revert rule, WP:RS, WP:AGF, WP:NPA, WP:SOCK and uphold consensus and a neutral point of view. Zeq 14:25, 20 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Too wordy, but I love the tagline - that should be turned into an essay. -- BigDT ( 416 ) 14:41, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
 * See What_adminship_is_not Zeq 08:40, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Interpretation of Arbitration Committee decisions
5) An administrator or other editor who takes an action in reliance on a good-faith, reasonable interpretation of an Arbitration Committee decision should generally not be subject to sanction for that action, even if his or her interpretation turns out to have been incorrect or not the intended meaning of the decision. Only good-faith, reasonable interpretations of a legitimately ambiguous ruling are covered by this principle; it does not shield strained, unreasonable actions or interpretations, nor actions taken after the prior decision has been clarified by arbitrators or the community.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Amen Fred Bauder 18:03, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes. Paul August &#9742; 23:48, 4 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * Requests_for_arbitration/Zeq-Zero0000/Evidence dispel any notion that this Interpretation is at all relevant to Zero's behaviour in this case. Zeq 05:40, 21 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Proposed. Zero0000 claims in this case that he believed the words "any administrator" used in a prior ArbCom remedy literally meant any administrator rather than "any uninvolved administrator." He further claims that he relied on the specific wording "any administrator," rather than "any uninvolved administrator" as used in other earlier decisions, in taking action. If it is found that he took an action based on a good-faith, reasonable interpretation of a prior decision, he should not be sanctioned for such action, and the appropriate step is for ArbCom or the community to clarify the ambiguity. If it were found that he was not relying in good faith on a resonable interpretation of the decision, the outcome might well be different. Newyorkbrad 19:33, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
 * This is a rather generous interpretation of Zero's justification, even if the principle is true. He claims Zeq was acting in bad faith and that it was not even a content dispute or edit war, since he was just "enforcing rules": "Obvious violation of NPOV, RS and CITE. I repeat: Zeq is not a newbie who needs educating about the editing rules, he is a very experienced editor who knows exactly what is allowed and what isn't allowed. He broke the rules on purpose and I undid the damage." That alone, in combination with his history, is enough to call his overall judgment into question. Dmcdevit·t 07:47, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
 * WP:FAITH gives very explicit sanction for me to not assume good faith "in the presence of evidence to the contrary". In the face of copious evidence to the contrary, spanning months of experience and dozens of incidents, I made a judgment of bad faith.  You might disagree whether my judgment was correct, but my right to make it is very clearly stated.  I am confident that most editors with the same experience would make the same judgment.  Btw, using wikilinks for emphasis looks silly. --Zerotalk 11:25, 2 May 2007 (UTC)  In any case nothing I did required an assumption of bad faith.  I was entitled to revert him because his edits violated the rules.  And the ArbCom ruling about "disrupt[ing] by tendentious editing" applied because that is what he was doing.  No judgement of bad faith was actually needed in either case. --Zerotalk 12:29, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The problem with that is that all content disputes involve parties' perceptions that the other has broken the rules (namely NPOV, verifiability, or some corollary thereof) or they would have no argument, but such does not make it other than a content dispute, or "entitle" you to revert him. It does, howeveer, necessitate that you attempt dispute resolution rather than warring and then banning, which, incidentally, the Arbitration Committee already warned you to do in the last Zeq case. Dmcdevit·t 19:10, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I think Zeq's edit summary explains why Zero concluded bad faith. If Zeq had come in actually making an argument, I don't think Zero would have reacted as he did.  The dif speaks for itself, though; compare Zero's edit summary with Zeq's.  It's almost a textbook example. Mackan79 15:10, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Great. You too think that Haaretz is not a good source ? Zeq 20:46, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I think the point was that you were reading things into the source that the source was not actually saying. Tarc 21:56, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, and respectfully, I have a hard time believing that Zeq still doesn't understand the difference. Zero said "remove material from a misunderstood source. the paper is only reporting what was claimed at a demonstration, not saying that it is true," to which Zeq responded in his edit summary "Haaretz seems like a WP:RS."  So does Zeq really not know the difference between saying a source has been misunderstood (with explanation why) and calling it unreliable?  I think he does, as his comment  here seems to fully illustrate.  Of course I can't know; I do think based on appearances and history, though, that Zero was reasonable in taking this as disruptive. Mackan79 23:48, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
 * But that is how he always does things. When he remove sourced content it is always the other side that according to him is "POV". Zero is an extremly intelegent person who know how to use the rules to get his way around wikipedia. Everyone knows it. I have received many e-mails from people who know it but are afraid to offer any evidence about Zero's abuse because they are afraid that this will cause them to get banned. This is a power play between two POVs. That is all. Zeq 07:53, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
 * We've moved a bit off-topic from discussing the principle I've proposed. I know it is easy to jump around, but the format on this page is here for good reason. First, let's see if we can arrive at a consensus on the basic principles that should be followed. Then it becomes easier in the next section to apply the agreed-upon principles to the facts of the specific case. Newyorkbrad 23:52, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
 * True. I think it's a good principle, covers both ends of the spectrum.  Mackan79 13:28, 4 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not entirely clear on what this proposal means. Does it mean if ArbCom makes an ambiguously-worded decision about when a user may be blocked, the blocker wont be strung up as long as they acted in good faith, etc?  Or does it mean if ArbCom makes a decision that could be applied more generally("Drugs are bad, mmmkay?") it acts as binding precedent upon the actions of all users as long as the enforcer thinks he's doing what ArbCom would approve of?  I have no problem with the former, but I cannot disagree strongly enough with the latter.  It's wholly unreasonable to expect users to familiarize themselves with ArbCom decisions before they start editing. Chris Croy 23:04, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
 * This proposal deals with situations, like one that allegedly arose in this case, in which a user (typically an administrator) actually relies on the wording of an ArbCom decision to do Action X, and then someone says "the ArbCom decision doesn't mean X, it means Y." If the user had a reasonable, good-faith belief the ArbCom decision meant X was allowed, then the user shouldn't be in trouble for doing X, even if ArbCom later says "sorry we weren't clear, we didn't mean X, we meant Y." A user who wasn't relying on an ArbCom decision (including a newbie user who never heard of ArbCom) wouldn't be affected by this one way or the other. As for your last sentence, I totally agree. Hope this helps. Newyorkbrad 00:09, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Neutral Point of View
Neutral point of view, official policy, requires that all significant points of view regarding a subject be included in an article on that subject. Editors who remove one POV (in an argument that "it is POV") while leaving the opposing POV are in fact violating Wikipedia WP:NPOV policy


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Accepted Fred Bauder 15:05, 5 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Indeed. But how to deal with biaised significant points of views ?
 * 95% of Israeli and many of their historians consider Haj Amin al-Husseini was -before all- an antisemite. If we follow Zeq, it is significant and must be kept. If we follow Zero, it is biaised and should be removed. Zeq tries to find well-known scholars to comfort this Pov and Zero tries to show how these "historians" are biaised.
 * Going that way, after discussing about Samuel Katz we will soon start discussing about Ilan Pappé and finally within some years we will re-discover everybody is biaised... So what ? Alithien 14:15, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
 * What is going on though, is a propagandistic attempt to brand the leader of the Palestinians a Nazi, as opposed to a nationalist who allied with the enemy of the occupying power, Britain, which was engaged in promoting a Jewish homeland within Palestine. This can be legitimately looked at from opposing points of view, but is improperly presented as a flat statement in introductory material. Fred Bauder 15:35, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Again Fred is making a determination has not bases in facts. The palestinian was  never  branded "a Nazi". He was branded an anti-semite - which is something Fred himslef wrote is indeed true and supported by the academic sources (yes, the sources that Zero wrote are nonsense and he tried to remove them).


 * What was going on is that Zero replaced links to the Mufti colboration with Nazi-Germany to a link with modern day Germany (edit-war diffs:, , ,, ) but this arbcom case is toatly rigged and I can not expcet Fred to be judging this case without his clear bias (already shown) to infulance every decision he made - he already admitted to being rude, to make factual errors and to ignore evidence so what acn we expect more ??? Zeq 17:40, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Advocacy and propaganda
7) What Wikipedia is not, an official policy, precludes use of Wikipedia for advocacy or propaganda. Editors who consistently use wikipedia for advocating a one sided view of history (by placing only material that supports one POV and removing material that supports the opposing POV) are violating this policy and should be prevented from using Wikipedia in such a way.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Wordy, but accepted Fred Bauder 15:06, 5 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Yes. But who knows an editor who introduced both point of views. They are not many, are they ? But that should be the right way to proceed. Alithien 14:17, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
 * People are intensely interested in a subject usually know the arguments and sources of their opponents. What is most objectionable is removing reliable sources which illustrate an opposing point of view. This often occurs due to very shaky objections and is accompanied by advancing biased information from utterly unreliable sources on their own part. Fred Bauder 15:28, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
 * You are right.
 * And that is "sad" that people -knowing arguments of both sides- do not simply introduce all of them.
 * That would be good if Zeq would introduce palestinian Pov's and if Zero would write articles about Zionist's propaganda. Alithien 11:25, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think that any of you know what "Zionist" is. I am a strong supporter of Palestinian rights and work against the occupation. (among others with one of the organizations in which Zero extensly edit-war in the article about them). The only thing I object is use of one-sided half truth by both sides. Zeq 11:33, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Zeq. I am a unconditionnel supporter of Israël and of Zionism, which I consider to be one of the most famous realisation of last century, despite crimes vs Palestinians and despite its few concerns with Shoah. But that doesn't prevent me from respecting knowledge and points of view and to try to understand what really happened and to try to introduce it respecting all PoV... Alithien 15:10, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Good. I am glad that on the important things we see eye to eye. Have you got a chance to review my edit recird this year ? can you see that I did not edit as deep as the year before ? Zeq 19:03, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Never mind. Your behaviour prevents everybody from working on these subjects. The only "excuse" I could see is that you never took care to read anything on the subject. That's all and you should be prevented to edit these articles. Alithien 06:18, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
 * You are making accusations which have no proof. It is very clear to see that articles I worked on (barrier, Israeli Arabs etc...) have greatly improved since I first started to work on them. On the otherhand read the evidence which shows that Zero is involved in multiple edit-wars in articles I never edited . There is a real difference between your preception and what you can prove with evidence. Zeq 06:37, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Unbiased as possible
While "Wikipedia is committed to making its articles as unbiased as possible." there is still no mechanism to remove systematic bias from wikipedia articles.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * We have a mechanism, the editing process, but it does not guarantee or enforce optimal results. The theory is that it tend to produce them, but it is easy to point to specific articles which grossly deviate from an optimal presentation of all significant points of view regarding a subject, the usual formulation of Neutral point of view. Fred Bauder 15:21, 7 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * I think we should introduce all points of views, biaised or not but give to them the appropriate weight. Alithien 14:18, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Wiki-cliques and revert tag-team
Definition - A Wiki-clique is wikipedia's electronic version of a clique among small groups of editors sharing common POV who employ their cumulative weight to sway editing disputes in their favor (i.e. win edit-wars w.o violating the 3RR rule) and insulate each other from the consequences of violating Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Wiki-cliques operate through communications between members on both open (e.g. talk pages) and backchannel (e.g. offsite communications such as email) methods.

Why it's a problem - Wiki-cliques are problematic because they are a detriment to Wikipedia's purpose of developing quality reliable content. As the wiki-clique's focus is on its members POV rather than encylopedic value of content, resulting in cumulative point-of-view pushing in violation of WP:NPOV  mostly by way of removing the opposing POV . This behavior is problematic for Wikipedia as it generally suppresses the discussion of genuine content issues in favor of using wikipedia to promote a specific agenda via subttle infulance on wikipedia article content.
 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Might make an essay, but not appropriate as a principle. Collaboration of editors is encouraged. Fred Bauder 15:17, 7 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
n) {text of proposed principle}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Zero removal of sources and edit-war + refusal of mediation
1) Here is another clear cut example of Zero removal of sources and edit-war to push away any attempt to NPOV an article Zero has created. The original article was a blunt POV ( see history) but a very important source (a judicial investigation committee looked into the issue), listen to evidence and made conclusions which did not fit Zero's POV. So when the words of the judges were inserted into the article Zero just remove the source again and again:

, ,

Zero refused mediation (sounds familiar ?) and justified his removal of the source by using ArbCom rulling (sounds familiar ?) and PA on me :

"Nobody has verified that Zeq's claims about the Or report (which is in Hebrew) are accurate. Since the official English summary does not contain similar statements, and Zeq is a notorious POV-pusher who is on warning from the Arbitration Committee over his use of sources, I am entitled to ask for a second opinion. Ramallite's statements above do not contain confirmation of Zeq's claims. As for the 'propogandistic' [sic] source I used, it is a peer-reviewed paper in one of the leading international journals on Middle East studies. The authors are at the Ruppin Academic Centre, Emeq Hefer, Israel, and the Middle East Institute, Columbia University, New York. --Zero 12:23, 9 March 2006 (UTC)"

Luckily at this case the evidence was so clear and Jayjg intervened so at the end Even Zero had to agree to NPOV the article (again removing the source but at least keeping some of the NPOV facts in the article)

proposed by Zeq 19:52, 8 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Zeq has found another good example why he shouldn't be allowed to edit. This time for once he found a good source (an Israeli inquiry report) but was not able to present it fairly.  His report was extremely skewed to his own political views.  In parallel with questioning his text, I found a more reliable editor to read the Hebrew text and report it properly. See how Zeq's version compares to Ramillite's (spelling errors in original, links omitted):"Zeq: The Orr commision report idenitfy the 'restoration' effort as one out of many acts by the Islamic movments attempts to incite Israeli Arab youth by using a 'religious pretense' - such as rebuilding a mosque out of political agenda and not on a purly religious goals. The commision describe such acts as major contributors to the radicalization of the muslim comunity in Israel that affected negaitvly on the relations between mulsim and Jews in the tense times of the already charged atmosphere leading to further acts of law breaking by increasing radicaliztion among followers of the Islamic Movment in their viwes toward Israel.""Ramillite: According to the Or Commission report, Israeli authorities did not grant a license for rebuilding the mosque after the demolition; a decision that contributed to the souring of relations between Muslims and the authorities. The Or Commission report also claims that activities by Islamic organizations such as the aforementioned society may be using religious pretenses to further political aims. The commission describes such actions as a factor in 'inflaming' the Muslim population in Israel against the authorities, and cites the Sarafand mosque episode, with Muslims' attempts to restore the mosque and Jewish attempts to stop them, as an example of the 'shifting of dynamics' of the relationship between Muslims and the Israeli authorities."--Zerotalk 12:12, 9 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The evidence on Zero's 1) Edit war, 2) Removal of source (the Orr commision report), 3) Refusal for medaition 4) POV pushing and 5) Personal attck on my good faith editing - are all very clear in this case. (see links above)


 * Instead of admiting his wrong doing, Zero's tries to turn his bad behaviour into a content dispute and confuse you yet again with two re-writes of the same facts. Focus on the behaviour. it is well documented.


 * If you want to understand about the content dispute, see the talk page and you will find out that Ramallite, a palestinian editor confirmed to Zero that his assertion are wrong and that the sources confirmed what I wrote.


 * The fact that I cooprated with another editor and agreed to a compromise version (he re-wrote my text) is nothing bad - it is the whole idea behind wikipedia.


 * It was Zero who edit-wared until others told him that he is wrong. evidence is clear.

and if facts are not enough here are few more:

I have requested Zero to stop the edit war few times: this is his response (more insults):, I requested again: , informed him of a medaition:, (he refused), with the ArbCom rulling being wind at his back - why should he compromise, instead he tried to get me banned: (sounds familiar?) It was suggusted to him to accept mediation: he even complained at the same time that my request for mediation (on another article he refused mediation) is a violation of my probation: .....

Zeq 12:59, 9 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

Zero POV pushing while edit-war with PA on other editor (and Zero restoring edits by a banned user sock puppet
Here is another example of Zero's editing: Edit-war and POV pushing. This example is especially sinister: Zero tried to use an article on a suicide bombings to push his POV that Israeli authorities (in this case the Jerusalem municipality) are racially biased so he used a remotely related fact and edit war to  push his POV into the article . In the process he of course makes false accusations on me (sounds familiar) calling my edits  bad faith  and remove the Palestinians organization who claimed responsibility for the attack:

Is this just lapse of judgment by Zero or maybe an attempt to use wikipedia to push his POV by making an Israeli municipality looks racist while hiding a Palestinian organization claim of responsibility for the real atrocity:

As in every example – the pattern of edit-war is quite clear: (and in this case Zero is again helped by a sock-puppet – this time identified as banned editor Albourini)

,, ,  – Zero justify this edit by a banned user. Is this what you would expect from a Wikipedia editor who is an admin ? and the edit war goes on (now Zero also remove the well documented claim of responsibility for the crime):

,

proposed by Zeq 19:52, 8 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Zeq banned from articles he has disrupted and placed on Probation
1) Zeq is banned indefinitely from 1948 Arab-Israeli War and Palestinian exodus, and is placed on Probation. He may be banned by any administrator for good cause from any article which he disrupts by tendentious editing. All bans and the reasons for them to be logged at Requests for arbitration/Zeq.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Language of previous remedy Fred Bauder 17:42, 1 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Edit warring by Zeq
2) Zeq has engaged in edit warring, , , and , , , His edits, often to hotly contested, introductory material, are characterized by aggressive biased editing, inadequate command of English, and misunderstanding of appropriate use of sources, see. See also Zeq's user page where he sets forth his program.


 * What "Program" ? there is none on my user page. There never was. Zeq 18:30, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I am asking again: what "program" have Fred found on my user page ? all there is there is who am I . Zeq 21:22, 9 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Proposed Fred Bauder 00:52, 5 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:

How is this edit: "misunderstanding of appropriate use of sources" ? Clearly every word there is: 1) True 2)supported by the source

If it was not the right source Zerio/Ian/Fred could have asked for another source for that line and it was easy to supply it (because it is true) Instead Zero just banned me from the article and Fred now go to support him.


 * I am confused as to why Fred is ignoring other evidence. Was I the only party in this ArbCom case to edit -war ? In any case I admitted before that in some cases I did edit-war. but.....


 * some of the examples cited by Fred are  not  an edit war. I was responding (in edits # 2 andf #3) to comments made by other editors and fixing the edits accordingly. I actually asked 3rd party editors (an admin) to help with the English and he reviwed the material and responded that the english is fine. I think Fred has mis-understood godd faith edits (at least in this case). I already said that in other places I admitted being guilty but these at least 2 out of thse 3 edits are not a violation. (the 1st edit is a revert after Ian edit-wared using an anti-vandal tool so I asked him to use talk and explain - I am always willing to listen to reason) Zeq 18:58, 4 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I am confused as to why Fred is ignoring other evidence. Was I the only party in this ArbCom case to edit -war ? Zeq 19:03, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
 * It is your behavior that is at issue. However, I just got started. Fred Bauder 00:52, 5 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Fred, I admitted my behaviour (which 50% or less of the issue). I don't try to wikilawyer my way and hide from it. Why are you ignoring the other 50+ precent ?????


 * This Arbitration has two sides. The other side is more exprianced, is an admin and has engaged in a massive amounts of edit-wars with many users, among other in articles in which I never edit. Zero has been warrned twice by ArbCom on exactly the issues of edit war and banning users in which he has disputes. His violations and behaviour is much more severe than mine - just look at the evidence. It is plain and simple: He edit war, he remove sources, he violates NPOV - just read the evidence. That is all I am asking for: A fair look at the evidence. Zeq 06:45, 5 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

Zeq has edited articles from which he is banned
3) Under the terms of his probation, Zeq may be banned from articles which he disrupts. Banned from Allegations of Israeli apartheid, see Requests_for_arbitration/Zeq, he had repeatedly edited it, , ,
 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Proposed Fred Bauder 13:42, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
 * As pointed out below, the ban was only until March 5. Fred Bauder 15:10, 5 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:


 * See this Diff:


 * Fred Bauder agin shows his clear bias against me by dramming up false accusations . I request that he recuse himself from this case. As Fred could have easily find out I have never violated any ban placed on me. I have compiled with the ban and Fred could have found out that the ban was lifted on March 5, 2007 prior to the edit diffs Fred placed above. Fred should first use the evidence page of this arbCom case so that people have the opportunity to comment on the quality of evidence he pushed into the proposed decision (so far his "evidence" is not of any meanigfull quality to the arguments he try to support with it. In any case his clear bias is showing once again. BTW, as I said before this case was open I did admit being wrong (such as edit war) in some places so Fred is waisting his time trying to "prove" point in which I admited already. He could hoever, read the evidence section of this case and see that Zero has edit war on many more articles that I did. Somehow edit-wars and other violation by Zero (NPOV, Edit-War, Admin abuse, AGF, NPA, and removal of sources) have not been noted by Fred. Since Fred has already admited to being anti-Zionist it becomes clear that he can not honestly judge case involving a zionist and an anti-Zionist editor who are at odds. Zeq 14:03, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
 * My apologies. That was in my evidence. The ban expiration was not logged at Requests_for_arbitration/Zeq, leading to the mistake. Dmcdevit·t 05:52, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Apology accepted. always AGF. Zeq 06:11, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment by others:

Outside conflicts
5) The participants in disputes which are the subject of Wikipedia articles may be banned, or otherwise restricted, from editing articles in which their editing involve edit-wars or other violation of wikipedia policy (such as WP:NPOV)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * This would be a principle, but I'm not sure how it applies to this dispute. Fred Bauder 15:14, 5 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * pleanty of evidence presented showing Zero tactic of violating NPOV by removing sources that oppose his POV:Requests_for_arbitration/Zeq-Zero0000/Evidence

Zeq 15:28, 5 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

Use of extremist sources
(6) Reliable_sources, a guideline, cautions against use of extremist sources: Organizations and individuals that are widely acknowledged as extremist, whether of a political, religious, racist, or other nature, should be used only as sources about themselves and their activities in articles about themselves, and even then with caution.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Another principle. I think the issue here may be not use of extremist sources, but proper use of sources which, on their face, are reliable. Fred Bauder 15:14, 5 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * Please see the evidence. Some of the sources used by Zero are by definition "Extremist_sources" and I have wrote you (on your talk page) about them once in while. Zeq 15:16, 5 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

Disputes regarding adequacy of source and mediation about "removal of sourced material from opening paragraph"
7) This edit by Zeq was characterized by Zero0000 as a "ridiculous claim from useless source", Zeq reverted . The information was characterized by as "possibly true, but it's weaseling coming from a poor source" . Zeq continued to maintain it was a reliable source ; Zero continued to revert "Oh, give it up!)". Zeq continues to emphatically insist, citing the reference 3 times. makes the point that the material is already in the article, while Zeq is focusing on the introduction. This turns out to be true, see last paragraph of "The Holocaust". Zeq repeats the triple cite and requests mediation. Introduction restored. Zeq continues to edit war while calling for mediation. Introduction restored. Zeq continues to edit war, citing mediation. Zero restores introduction calling Zeq's edit a "misrepresentation of source". Zeq continues to war. Introduction restored. Zeq continues to war. On February 14, protects the page, citing mediation. On March 28 unprotects it citing lack of talk page discussion. Zero edits with the comment "remove nonsense not support by the source, which in any case is a travel company".


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Proposed. Is this an appropriate source? Fred Bauder 15:00, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
 * It turns out that this is simply inept editing, trying to put poorly attributed language into the introduction which was already within the body of the article and properly attributed. Fred Bauder 15:28, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Introductions, being summaries, are vulnerable to edit warring. Fred Bauder 15:35, 5 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:

Just to be clear: The source is an acdemic book quoted by 2 news-wires (AFP and DPA) and one news-paper (Washington Times) so the question Fred is asking is: "Is this an appropriate source?". My answer is : You bet it is.

Fred have already found that I was right (since I used proper acdemic sources) while Zero has removed the source again and again in an edit war (in order to push his POV). Since the quote comes from an american news paper the usual argument about "Zeq's english" also does not hold water.

Fred makes another factual error in his claim "trying to put poorly attributed language into the introduction which was already within the body of the article " - Simply  not true  the edit war (over the lead section) took place long before the text was placed into the body of the article (after ian and Zero realized - just like Fred recently did - that the text is indeed a wp:rs source and they can not remove it completly so they removed it from the lead and placed it hidden inside the article. in any case WP:LEAD clearly sais that "The lead should stand on it's own".

1) The issue was refered to mediation: Mediation_Cabal/Cases/Mohammad_Amin_al-Husayni
 * So here you have it all: Zero violating NPOV and edit war to remove sources. The issue is about edit war, about removal of sources, about violating many wkipedia policies see the evidence:

2) Zero and Ian_Pichord have refused the madiation (Zeq accepted) - this is despite previous ArbCom case that erquire  both of them  to participate in dispute resolutions.

3) Zero and Ian have edit war for month over this issue - knowing very well that the source for the claim is an academic source (a book by two history professors who investigated the connections between the Mufti and the Nazis) The source for the quote was in a article (by DPA and AFP news wire service) describing the book and quoting the authors of the book. 4) This is the book that was used as a source:

5) Zeq has  urged  Ian and Zero to participate in the mediation about thjis exact question (is it a good source) but they refused: Talk:Mohammad_Amin_al-Husayni

6) Zero (and Ian) chooae to edit war in order to minimize the ability of the article to fully show the extent of the colboration of the Palestinian Mufti with the Nazis. In this edit Zero revert and places a link to modern day Germany instead of to Nazi Germany:, , , , (he describe my edits as "vandalism" - is this an error ? Is this bad judgment ? or is this showing bad faith editing - you decide I don't know what Zero think I just know the edit is wrong as modern day Germany did not exist in the 1930s and the Mufti colborated with th Nazi army not modern Geran army.
 * You wanted the information prominently featured in the introduction. You were citing an article about the book while further down in the section "The Holocaust" the book itself is cited. Fred Bauder 15:31, 5 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The first time the book was cited,, the section (in the body not the lead) you mentioned did not yet exited in the article. Yet Ian Pitchford removed this academic source :,,,,,,,. Fred: Please check your dates before trying to use half-true "evidence"


 * Zero wanted to control the lead -, He described my edit as "pathetic" (while using POV and unverified claims such "most remebered" to describe the Mufti in favorable way.
 * Zero removed (from the article body not the lead) sources based on published books - see his edits in line 67 :, an edit which he described my work as:

"'rv. Zeq has been vomitting on the article again'"(see evidence page for more details about Zero's NPA violations.

7)Zero continued his edit war and removal of sources: claiming: "this is nonsense",, ,,  (this is the first edit after the article was protected and unprotected - Zero just continue the edit-war) and the edit-war goes on: . Only at that point was the suggestion that the matrial will be moved from the lead (the suggestion was made by Beit-Or:. So it is clear to see that Zero just used edit-war to remove academic sources that did not fit his POV. btw, beit-or lated added back the source into the lead: but with less detaild quotes (which were moved the article body). — Preceding unsigned comment added by someone, who? (talk • contribs)


 * If any of the administrators ask me to explain particular edits, I will be happy to do so. Otherwise I do not feel obliged to answer every wild claim that Zeq posts here.  Nevertheless, I'll address this one as it illustrates why banning Zeq is essential.  Zeq claims that this edit removed an academic source.  It is in fact an unsourced press report on the web page of a travel company.  The fact that it mentions two academics does not make it an academic source.  Moreover the claim is indeed ridiculous.  Suppose I inserted "Carsten Olafsen is the best tennis player." into the intro of tennis after finding it on a page about tennis in Greenland!  Amin al-Husayni was the most important of the Arab collaborators with the Nazis (already in the intro and expounded in the article at length).  Calling him "the most important collaborator with the Nazis" without the "Arab" qualification turns this quotation into a lie.  (Zeq is incapable of this sort of elementary logic, which makes working with him impossible.)  If someone actually gets the academic book (in German only) and quotes directly from it, that would not be a problem (even though it received very nagative reviews from other historians). --Zerotalk 08:59, 7 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Honestly, this is one of the area where I have encountered the most difficulty with Zeq. There is a clear pattern of him tendentiously editing the leads of articles to ensure that his own POV is displayed prominently, even when such information is already covered in the main body of the article.  When challenged that such POV additions run counter to the guidelines that the article leads should be concise intros to the subject matter. Zeq will fall back on the "WP:RS!" defense.  This behavior has been observed in the already-covered Mohammad Amin al-Husayni situation, as well as the World Council of Churches; the latter taking place right as this very arbitration request is progressing , but looking through the article history we see that Zeq has been hell-bent on getting this info inserted since last May; , ,  ,  ,  ,  , , ,


 * A solid year of trying to get a specific POV into an article. Tarc 18:33, 6 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Tarc is inviting his own ArbCom case as he was editwarring to remove facts from the article. This is the whole point about NPOV: Two viwes need to be represeted - not just one view which fit what Tarc wants to keep but also the other POV. that is how NPOV is done: Both POVs. (as for edit-war I have already admitted my wrong doing but the other side edit-war as well) Zeq 18:48, 6 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Here we have yet another example of this user's preferred tactics; threaten and/or demean the other side, coupled with an avoidance of the facts that the other side brings to the table. The issue is not the removal of sources; the issue is where in the article the sources are most appropriate.  Zeq is purposefully and deliberately misleading these proceedings by claiming that others are simply "removing reliable sources".
 * What we are seeing right here in this section is truly the crux of the matter, and I sincerely hope that the arbiters see this and consider it carefully; WP:AGF can no longer be considered for this user. other editors decline to enter into arbitration with him because of his refusal to adhere to past mediated decisions.  Other editors decline to engage him in talk page discussions because of past refusal to acknowledge the issues that others raise.  How much rope must one user be given? Tarc 19:58, 6 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Not going to debate tarc here about his part in the edit-war. It may require a separate case. Tarc has again and again saying that he does not trust my good faith so no point arguing with him about it. Zeq 20:07, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Removal of well sourced material by Zero0000
7) Information from this source was removed from Mohammad Amin al-Husayni by Zero000 with the comment "→External links - delete link with blatant lies (al-Husayni had nothing to do with the fate of the Bosnian Jews)". The author was Carl Savich, see brief biography on Serbianna.

In this diff Zero removed information sourced to HRW (a human rights NGO):

massive deletions of sources Zero disagree with:

Information from this source: was removed by Zero as part of his edit war here:. see also:

Information from this source: was removed by Zero claiming that : "It isn't information at all, it's hysterical junk journalism". For more on this massive edit-war to remove sources see:

In an article in which  Zeq Never edited  Zero was involved in massive edit-war and removal of source: the sources were restored by user:SlimVirgin  who wrote:  "rv, please do not removae material". Since the edit war (by Zero and his tag-team reverters) continued User:SlimVirgin had to restore the material again saying "I've taken a closer look and I can't see what's wrong with this material". More on this edit-war and removal of sources can be found here: Zeq 17:13, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * For consideration Fred Bauder 16:35, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The first source, which was only an external link, was on a Serbian Nationalist site, http://www.serbianna.com/ It has some references, but is not written by a professional historian. Zero0000's comment was excessive and inflammatory, but the source does not meet professional standards, however well founded it may be. Fred Bauder 17:53, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
 * In this edit Zero0000 removes 3 sources (one to the Hebrew Wikipedia, one now dead) with the comment "remove unsourced attacks, see talk." Fred Bauder 18:39, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

With respect to this source, it is a critical review of a potential source. It is in Haaretz, to be sure, but it is not, in itself, a source. It probably belongs on the talk page as part of any discussion of the book being reviewed. Fred Bauder 19:21, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Fred is correct howver that is not what Zero had claimed. Zero denied the ability to use Regev's book as a parimary source: - this is because Zero always know which sources are good and which are not. Pleanty of evidence of his behaviour is in:,  and  Zeq 19:38, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment by parties:
 * In all honesty one of the 3 sources Zero removed (Arutz 7) in the link by Fred is a source that is not a WP:RS but the other one is clearly a WP:RS
 * as for Carl Savich  is a historian who teaches history at the college level. His articles have appeared on numerous websites and newspapers.
 * He is most likely an attorney, given his J.D. degree. Nothing in the source cited would lead one to conclude he is either an historian or teaches history. Fred Bauder 16:35, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Nothing ? except maybe that that is what the source said: "Carl Savich is a historian who teaches history at the college level. His articles have appeared on numerous websites and newspapers."
 * Yes, I see it now, but it was not in his biography . Fred Bauder 17:05, 6 May 2007 (UTC)


 * In any case this is  not  the only such violation by Zero. (he also removed material from Haaretz, Washington times, academic books, and more) Please look at the evidence page: Requests_for_arbitration/Zeq-Zero0000/Evidence and Zeq 20:13, 5 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I am happy about all the editorial judgements I made in these examples (maybe not about my choice of words in summarising them). (1) The ynet article had a complaint from some soldier's mother who was not a witness; it would obviously be silly to include that. (2) Nobody ever brought anything from Regev's book, only a newspaper article that called it "riddled with  inaccuracies, large and small".  When our only source calls a book unreliable, should we use it anyway? Besides, the book is discussed ad nauseam on the talk page. (3) Savich has not published in the academic history literature as far as I can tell (I consulted some standard indexes like "Historical Abstracts", though these aren't perfect).  He is a Serbian nationalist who posts anti-Bosnian polemics.  In this case he claimed that a Bosnian SS division that the Mufti helped to recruit for was responsible for the genocide of the Bosnian Jews.  As I explained on the talk page with evidence, this charge is chronologically impossible.  As you can read there, I also ordered a specialist book to check this information.  It describes the history of the SS division in great detail and Savich is absolutely wrong.  Comment : If examples of me being a careful editor with very high standards is the best that Zeq can offer, then bring it on. --Zerotalk 11:34, 7 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Can't wait to hear your explnation why you removed "haaretz" and HRW report. Zeq 12:17, 7 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The HRW report does not contain the information cited to it. However, I cited HRW's main source directly as it is very good and also cited the most important primary source.  (Nope, didn't get me there.)  As for Haaretz, if you mean this, I didn't delete it but cited it properly in a new extensive section  that includes more new high quality sources than you introduced during your entire time in Wikipedia. --Zerotalk 13:15, 7 May 2007 (UTC)


 * No I meant this: and  but there are ton more in the evidence page. Why don'y you comment there on each of the times you removed sourced material - I am sure you have an explnation to all of them and a justification why you edit-war to keep the removal out of Wikipedia. I am also sure it has nothing to do with your own POV.


 * and here: Zero removes a source and in edit summary offer to replace the source with his own OR. (this is part of a bigger edit-war that earned Zero a 3RR - all documented here:


 * and here is another removal of sourced info (YNETnews.com) as part of the edit-war documented in great detail here:   Zeq 14:11, 7 May 2007 (UTC)


 * what about the removal in this edit (the last one line 86): - this is a source that was added by SlimVirgin - maybe she does not know what is a good source. Zeq 07:42, 8 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Are you trying to waste my time on purpose? It won't work.  All of those are adequately explained in the relevant places.  All of them were good edits.  The fact that you don't see how they were good edits is a just further proof that you shouldn't be editing articles. --Zerotalk 14:29, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
 * No, they were not good edits. They were POV-pushing removal of well sourced material, made with false edits summaries and "explained" with original research. They are they kind of edits that in normal WP discourse are sometimes called vandalism, and result in the POV-pusher being blocked. Isarig 04:21, 8 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * I know it's off-focus, but Savich seems to be primarily a writer of op-eds, writing from a consistently pro-Serbia POV. Sources who grind axes in one area often grind them in others as well. Jd2718 17:10, 6 May 2007 (UTC)::
 * Right, only this is the same area. The claim he made is an attack on Bosnian muslims. --Zerotalk 11:34, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Mediation declined
8) When Zeq requested mediation regarding the introduction of Mohammad Amin al-Husayni both Ian Pitchford and Zero000 declined to participate and the request was eventually dismissed, see Talk:Mohammad_Amin_al-Husayni.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Proposed. There had been an earlier request at Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-02-20 Amin al-Husayni, discussed on the talk page at Talk:Mohammad_Amin_al-Husayni Fred Bauder 16:05, 5 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * The fact that Huseeini was an anti-semite was confirmed by Fred Bauder here: Yet Ian and Zero have edit-war to remove this word from the lead of the article. The edit-war is dwell documented here:


 * Ian try to confuse and mask his refusal to take part in the mediation that was supposed to end the edit-war.
 * The issue of the mediation was discussed in talk page: Talk:Mohammad_Amin_al-Husayni
 * Zero has refused to take part in the mediation . His refusal has nothing to do with Lead Vs Body of article (an issue that could have been resolved in the mediation). Zero focused his objection on the issue of quality of sources. he declined the validity of the source: "'The text Zeq wants to add to the intro is unacceptable. To start with, Expatia is not a recognised news source (it is mostly a travel company), and the linked article has no author and no sources. So its reliability is unknown. Second, there is nobody who believes that al-Husayni was 'the most important collaborator with the Nazis'. This is in fact completely ridiculous. Are we supposed to believe that al-Husayni was more important than Philippe Pétain, Vidkun Quisling, Maurice Papon, Dinko Šakić, Georgios Tsolakoglou, Ante Pavelić, Döme Sztójay, Ferenc Szálasi, and a hundred other collaborators who played much greater roles? Nor is it correct to say that the linked article really makes that claim; that would be to ignore the context. Within the limited context of Arab collaboration, al-Husayni was no doubt important. Without that context, the insertion is a lie. --Zerotalk 07:32, 23 February 2007 (UTC)"
 * The request for the 2nd medaition came about after Ian and Zero edit-war to remove content from a newly published academic source . The source shed important light specifically on the subject of the article and included new information that required an upgrade to the article. Since the new info was not according to Ian and Zero POV they edit-war to surpress it and avoided a mediated solution which might end in including the material they did not like. Zeq 20:15, 5 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * As Fred Bauder notes above the introduction to this article had already been through mediation once at Zeq's request and the editors involved reached consensus, as Zeq acknowledges  . The very next day Zeq started a campaign to change it again . Strictly speaking I didn't decline a second mediation - I just told Zeq, on a number of occasions, that he "might also want to consider whether any editor will want to mediate anything with you if you don't stick to what's agreed." . --Ian Pitchford 10:13, 6 May 2007 (UTC) Addendum: The additional comment by Zeq below is also false. The "newly published academic material" he mentions was incorporated into the article months before he requested another mediation on the introduction to the article on 11 February 2007. Here is just one archived version of the article from July 2006 demonstrating that.
 * Ian trying to misrepresent the dates to justify why he refused to take part in mediation. The 2nd mediation was proposed after Ian had edit-war trying to prevent inclusion of newly published acdemic maerial. The publication date (something none of us has no control over) took place shortlu after the 1st medaition was finished. Surly academic sources who reaserched the subject have more encyclopedia value that 3 wkipedia editors who somehow reached a compromise based on the data that was available to them prior to the new and comprehensive academic publication that looked deeply at the subject of the article.


 * The correct time line is deatiled here: . The acdemic source itself was interduced here: Mediation request was closed based on "no reply" from Ian and Zero:   Zeq 10:22, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Zero Edit-war and PA in edit Sumarry, nulification of WP:RS sourced inserted by other editors
8) Zero (together with Ian pichford) have edit-war to remove refrence to Nazi connection, replace links to Nazi Germany with links to modern day Germany (that did not existed since the article is on Germany in 1930s) and edit-war to remove a well known fact that the Mufti was anti-semite (Zero prefred his own version "anti-Zionist"):

  – calling other editor edits "vandalism"   – calling fellow editor "pathetic labeling. this is not a toilet door" – "Zeq has been vomiting on the article"  – "Remove misrepresentation of unreliable source"

Prposed by Zeq 18:42, 6 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Remaoval of request for Mediation - mediation declined
8) part of the edit-war described in detail in: Requests_for_arbitration/Zeq-Zero0000/Evidence - an edit war which included 3RR violation, removal of sources and more NPOV violation.

Proposed by Zeq 14:03, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Amoruso
8) The behavior of is not considered in this arbitration.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Proposed Fred Bauder 14:43, 7 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Rudeness by Zero0000
8) Zero0000 has been quite rude and dismissive of Zeq's and other editors' efforts. This comment, while dated, is utterly unacceptable. This comment: "Sigh. Do I really have to give Zeq an assumption of good faith despite evidence to the contrary over several years, over multiple bans and blocks, endless attempts by multiple editors to try to reason with him, plead with him, beg him to please oh please behave correctly? Well, no I don't. WP:AGF states: "This guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of evidence to the contrary." (bold in source). What can I say?" betrays a clear misunderstanding of our responsibilities to editors who are obviously having trouble editing adequately. Examples which pertain to, a troublesome pro-Zionist editor who is nevertheless in good standing , ,.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * I suppose I am guilty also, but the point should be made regardless Fred Bauder 15:03, 7 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * PA is not "rudness" it is PA. Zeq 20:01, 8 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

Participation of "involved" administrators in enforcing arbitration remedies
N) Prior to this case, whether an "involved" administrator was allowed to enforce a user's probation was unclear. Some prior arbitration decisions limit enforcement of probation to "uninvolved administrators," while others do not. (For example, a word search on Requests for arbitration/Completed requests reveals that "any uninvolved administrator" was used in the Occupation of Latvia and Ed Poor 2 cases, while "any administrator" was used in at least 8 cases, most recently RPJ, Hequong, and EffK.) For a user to have drawn an inference from the variation in the wording of prior decisions, while hardly inevitable, also was not unreasonable. As a matter of principle and practicality, there are also legitimate arguments on both sides of this issue.
 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * It's a finding of fact. Use of the phrase "any administrator" should be recognized in the future as intending to include involved editors, if it is used. As applied to this case, its use by me, at least, was quite deliberate. In this area it is very difficult for an outside administrator to figure out what is going on. Fred Bauder 15:15, 7 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * Not only this was clarified by Jimbo in previous arbcom case (identical issue) against Zero:
 * "But we have a cardinal rule, that goes all the way back to the existence of sysop powers in the first place, that they must never be used in a dispute over content that we are personally involved in. If you think we get silly complaints now about sysop abuse, just imagine what it would be like if we let sysops win arguments over content by blocking people who disagree. --Jimbo "  (in an e-mail to mailing list about Zero's previous ArbCom case)

But also Fred specifically told Zero not to use Bans as a first measure against Zeq when Zero has a contant dispute with Zeq: "'Zeq is not an editor in good faith....I have found him willing to discuss matters in a reasonable way. That does not mean that I consider him to now be engaged in optimal editing....Now it may be that he will just get worse and probation, Requests_for_arbitration/Zeq, will have to be more and more vigorously enforced, but my hope is that he will gradually improve in his behavior. Keep in mind that 'He may be banned by any administrator for good cause from any article which he disrupts by tendentious editing.' If that is necessary, please ask for it.'" Zeq 18:00, 7 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Proposed. Incidentally, the fact that two arbitrators have disagreed in this very Workshop regarding whether an "involved" administrator should be allowed to enforce probation or not confirms that the situation is presently ambigous. (Also incidentally, I'm not at all sure whether this paragraph should be a proposed principle or a proposed finding, so feel free to refactor.) Newyorkbrad 23:41, 5 May 2007 (UTC) Moved to the "findings of fact" section per Fred. Newyorkbrad 15:25, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
 * With all due respect, this reads like wikilawyering. I take it the lack of explicit mention of involvement in the Blocking policy means that that too is ambiguous? You can say this, but, considering that we choose admins for their judgment, it's not a good idea to assume they have such poor judgment like that. Anyone who seriously believes that the blocking policy allows blocks by involved parties doesn't deserve to have blocking powers in the first place. It is common knowledge and common practice that such blocks are unacceptable, but we want to say that a certain subset of blocks, probation enforcement, with no difference in supposed "ambiguity," instead means that blocking while involved is permitted? That's illogical not just because the so-called ambiguity relies on the fact that our policies are all simply written down and prescriptive (and using common sense has no place), but illogical becuse there is no reason in principle why probation blocks are different than others. It seems to me that almost every single probation remedy has, like the blocking policy, seen no reason to explicitly say involved administrators are permitted. I'll say, I wrote a lot of them, and this is always how I thought of it: every intelligen administrator knows using the admin tools while involved is bad, and we choose them for that understanding, so there is no reason to elaborate all specific rules of conduct in every enforcement remedy. This is the understanding with which I wrote all my decisions, and voted on all others, and it rather seems to me that if Fred had wanted to specify that involved administrators could act in this case, as he indicates, he should have said so, so he could have been voted down. I didn't put my name to that. If this were intended to be the deliberate meaning for this case, it makes no sense that nearly every case has that wording. Dmcdevit·t 18:57, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Edit warring
Edit warring is one of the most destructive actions you can take as an editor, on par with personal attacks. Most vandalism and spam is dealt with swiftly and uncontroversially, however edit warring strikes at the very principle that Wikipedia rests on: that normal people can write a good encyclopedia with a radically open and transparent system.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Various Policy violation by Zero0000
almost any random pick from Zero contribution page yeilds a long list of policy violations:

Advancing political views:

Part of Zero long campaign against Katz: ,

Use of NPOV words, removal of relevant facts to POV an article: ,

Removal of sources:, , , , ,

Threats:

Violation of Point:

use of Original reserach: (part of an edit war see article history page)  more OR:,  ,  - according to WP:No original research: "Any interpretation of primary source material requires a secondary source". Zeq 19:35, 10 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Zeq seems to be getting desperate. Look at this edit of mine that he claims is "original research".  I undid an incorrect change by an anon and cited the most popular textbook in explanation.  A perfectly good, perfectly justified edit.  This is a good illustration of Zeq's case. --Zerotalk 11:11, 11 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Zero, this is one out of 17 ! edits in this section. I guess if you responded to this one saying  I  am desprate you have a good explnation to all the other 16 ? Your violations are sp pleanty that almost any random collection of diffs with your contributions show the patterns of : edit-war, removal of sources and POV (by removing the other view point) Zeq 11:20, 11 May 2007 (UTC)


 * It doesn't matter whether you make 17 false charges or 70 false charges. Look at this one - as I wrote in the edit summary, this is in the source given.  Did you even read it before making this accusation?  And, no, I am not going to answer your claims one at a time. --Zerotalk 13:35, 11 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Zero, no "content dispute" here. what you wrote there is your own OR POV and not 100% true. It is the long held position of the Israeli Supreme court that some aspects of the Geneva Convention are valid in this contxt and some are not. based on source[] I have fixed your OR POV.


 * As a response you again offered your Original Research POV interpretation to the Supreme court document. This is how you always operate: creating a delicate bias in the article almost undetected to all but those who have intimate knowledge of the situation and the facts.


 * Because of such edits (as demonstrated here) Wikipedia require  sources  and to avoid OR – you have been caught making a false generalization and now you try to attck my due diligence uncovering your false edit.


 * Add this edit war – you reverted my edits:  and after you understood you are wrong changed your original words to something less POV:  (yet no completely true) and actually started to accept what I Initially wrote - but re-insrted your own OR :  while I restored the what the source say:


 * I realize this is a complex content dispute, not clear to those who are not familiar with the issue but let's sumerized:


 * •	Zero's Original research determine that Israeli supreme court does not adhere to the 4th Geneva convention
 * •	The court actually does adhere to it where it is applicable
 * •	Here is a quote from the article as it is today (showing the court in some part rely and adhere to the Geneva conevention where it is applicable): "'The ruling cited the topography of the terrain, security considerations, and sections 43 and 52 of The Hague Regulations 1907 and Article 53 of the 4th Geneva Convention as reasons for this rejection.[ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_West_Bank_barrier#_note-HCF]'"


 * Zero edit-war and also tried here to cover up his POV pushing which was based on his own OR.
 * Zero's  POV pUshing  is discussed here as well.


 *  so far you have answered (a false answer) about 2 edits out of 17. What about the other 15 ?    Zeq 14:41, 11 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Zeq apparently can't see the difference between adhering to a law and considering the law to apply. From the same source that Zeq cited (Israeli court ruling): "The State of Israel has declared that it practices the humanitarian parts of this convention. In light of that declaration on the part of the government of Israel, we see no need to reexamine the government's position.  We are aware that the Advisory Opinion of the International Court of Justice determined that The Fourth Geneva Convention applies in the Judea and Samaria area, and that its application is not conditional upon the willingness of the State of Israel to uphold its provisions.  As mentioned, seeing as the government of Israel accepts that the humanitarian aspects of The Fourth Geneva Convention apply in the area, we are not of the opinion that we must take a stand on that issue in the petition before us."  That's exactly what I said in the edit that Zeq claims was original research: the Israeli court avoids ruling on whether the Geneva Convention applies. It only cites some parts of that Convention because the government claims to adhere to those parts. (Until about the 1980s, the Israeli court ruled explicitly that the Geneva Convention does not apply.  The full story has not yet appeared in Wikipedia. I collected a lot of first-class sources on this subject but with editors like Zeq waiting with their fingers on the disrupt button I'm reluctant to write anything.) --Zerotalk 04:01, 12 May 2007 (UTC)


 * So despite thefact that you knew that "The State of Israel has declared that it practices the humanitarian parts of this convention" You have reverted my edit that sais excatly that (and moer applicaable quotes from the court verdict): (source Haaretz)  - this is how you operate Zero - you keep half of the truth and remove the other half that does not fit your own view . this is the problem many editors have with your edits:  - it is a (delicate yet obvious)  POV pushing  based on your own OR interpretation of the sources.


 * Now, What about the other 15 examples in this section ? Zeq 05:59, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Proposed remedies
Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Dmcdevit desysopped
1) For severe administrative misconduct as described in Requests_for_arbitration/Zeq-Zero0000/Evidence, Dmcdevit is desysopped, and is relieved of his checkuser and oversight privileges.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * No, per Newyorkbrad below. Paul August &#9742; 23:56, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Non-starter, a separate request would have to be filed. Fred Bauder 00:54, 5 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * I fail to see the relevancy to this case. Suggest this request will be dropped stricken-out to prevent loosing focus.
 * John254 should find other evenues to his grivence. Zeq 10:00, 23 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Proposed. Dmcdevit has asked the Arbitration Committee to desysop Zero0000 because of a total of two blocks issued by Zero0000, one recently and one in 2004. It appears that the recent block was justified; however, Zero0000 should not have issued this block himself due to his involvement in a content dispute with Zeq.  Surely Dmcdevit should be held to no lower standards of administrative conduct than those he seeks to impose on other administrators.  Considering my evidence in light of the criterion for desysopping that Dmcdevit has advocated, he should be desysopped himself for blocking my account while engaged in a content dispute with me, and for issuing a block that was clearly without justification. John254 21:27, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Despite the proposer's contention to the contrary on the evidence page, this is outside the scope of the case. By bringing an arbitration request, an editor becomes subject to review of his or her behavior relating to the subject-matter of the request&mdash;not to open season on every word the user has ever written or every admin action the user ever taken. There is also no showing of attempts at prior dispute resolution between John254 and Dmcdevit, which would generally be a precondition to ArbCom's considering the matter. Newyorkbrad 21:39, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, previous Arbitration Committee cases have considered conduct by the initiator completely unrelated "to the subject-matter of the request", effectively becoming "open season on every word the user has ever written or every admin action the user ever taken". Consider, for example, Requests for arbitration/Billy Ego-Sandstein, which was initiated by Billy Ego to resolve a dispute over what content was permissible on his userpage, and resulted in Billy Ego being banned for a year for disruption, much of it unrelated to his userpage content, and a number of accounts found to be sockpuppets of Billy Ego being blocked indefinitely.  The Arbitration Committee may properly consider serious misconduct by a user bringing a request for arbitration; moreover, by initiating a request for arbitration, Dmcdevit has waived any claims to the benefit of prior dispute resolution regarding his administrative conduct just as surely as Billy Ego waived the benefit of prior dispute resolution regarding allegations that he was engaging in disruptive editing and abusive sockpuppetry.  Finally, after accusing Zero0000 of "lawyering" regarding the language of Requests_for_arbitration/Zeq and claiming that "Zero0000's actions here are indefensible", I doubt that Dmcdevit will proceed to defend his own far worse administrative misconduct here by claiming that the Arbitration Committee is not quite in the correct procedural posture to consider it. John254 22:52, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
 * You claim that we were in a content dispute on the basis of a single comment of mine where an arbitrator's opinion on the section regarding arbitration was specifically requested, my last edit to the talk page since then (not to mention no edits to the page since months earlier), is less than tenuous. Especially considering that now, four months later, is, as far as I know, the first you've ever made that claim, and the first time you've ever made an attempt to communicate with me since your block expired (though this hardly counts), and the first time you've ever attempted dispute resolution on the matter (again, though this hardly counts). And this arbitration case has nothing to do with my conduct, except perhaps as it relates to my comments regarding this matter. This feels like opportunism and grudge-holding from out of leftfield. The block was justified for, among other things, the uncivil accusation of vandalism that you have repeated in your evidence. Dmcdevit·t 09:50, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
 * This matter is unrelated to this arbitration request and, in any event, there have been no attempts made to resolve any issue that may exist. If you feel that Dmcdevit is making inappropriate blocks, discuss it with him or open a request for comment.  I suggest that an arbiter remove this section as it is irrelevant. -- BigDT  ( 416 ) 14:50, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Zero0000 admin actions against Zeq
2) In light of the prior history between these two editors, [and without any finding of wrongdoing], Zero0000 is advised not to take any further administrator actions against or in relation to Zeq, including but not limited to enforcement actions under their prior arbitration case. Zero0000 may of course bring concerns to the attention of another administrator. Newyorkbrad 23:19, 5 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * For the best Fred Bauder 14:54, 7 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * This is reasonable and corresponds to what I intend to do even if this proposal is not adopted by the committee. --Zerotalk 01:44, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
 * This is Zero's 3rd time in ArbCom. The behaviour problem shown in the evidence clearly demonstrate that his actions (such as edit-war, removal of sources, violation of NPA, violation of NPOV and using wikipedia for to push his POV) are all problems in which he run into disputes with many other users. The problem is systematic behaviour and the solution should address this behaviour. The behaviour is focused around Zero's obsssetion with the Israel-Palestinian conflict.Zeq 05:14, 6 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Proposed. I don't know how broadly the arbitrators will want to sweep in terms of establishing broad principles with this case. This proposal is more narrowly tailored to address the tension between these two editors and avoid a flare-up of the specific issue that brings us to this page. It could be adopted either in addition to or as an alternative to broader remedies against either of the parties. The bracketed language is optional. Newyorkbrad 23:19, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I think the evidence against Zero0000 was monumental. Zero has a history of abusing his adminstrator powers with people he's been in dispute about the Israeli-Arab conflict. He recently threatened to take action against me too. It's obvious that he fails to understand the wikipedian mechanisms. He should be de-sysoped in the minimum IMO. I would say furthermore that that the comunity had enough with the fights of Zero and Zeq and they should both be handeled much the same way. Zero's violations (and him being an admin) points to a higher level of violations - he edits war more and he should have known better. Amoruso 08:06, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Zero0000 admonished
3) Zero0000 is admonished that so long as an editor is not restricted in their editing of a page or area they are entitled to be accorded good faith and be treated with respect and courtesy. This includes users who are on probation.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Proposed Fred Bauder 14:48, 7 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * 3rd arbCom case with no real measures designed to change Zero's behaviour is providing no practical advantage, as the offender will return to the behavior. see this and further evidence in the evidence page.  Zeq 19:55, 7 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

Zeq banned
4) Zeq is indefinitely banned from editing articles which relate to the Israeli-Arab or Israeli-Palestinian dispute. This specifically includes articles which relate to the modern history of Palestine prior to the creation of the state of Israel.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Proposed Fred Bauder 14:54, 7 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:

Zero claimed about his edits that "All the edits mentioned above were well justified and well explained". I have yet to see a discussion by the arbitors looking into Zero's edit. Hundreds of diifs have been presented as evidence. Many of them show repeated edit wars, pattern of removal of sources and POV pushing described here:. yet there is no serious discussions on all but select few of them. Evidence should be considered not ignored. Zeq 11:08, 11 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * For more than 1 year I follow this case I can just support. Alithien 19:52, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
 * This seems highly unfair, especially if Zero is to be simply "admonished" rather than desysopped, as I think the evidence supports. Where is the proportionality here?   6SJ7 21:39, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 1 year ago I defended Zeq but after 1 year it is clear he wants to write on a topic without knowing anything of it and trying to push "poor sources" and information on these articles. Unfortunately he contributes to preventing people to work on them.
 * There is no problem with Zero other than Zeq... Alithien 07:13, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Alithien, Can you offer ANY evidence to the above ? My editing a year ago was extensive. My editing this year has been very limited, a word here, a sentence there. On the other hand there is pleanty of evidence for Zero's extensive edit war in articles I have never edited. But you are not the only obe who simply ignore the evidence. Zeq 07:22, 8 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Here is a typical edit from few days ago: – do look it up scroll all over, it is a long massive change to the article (an article that Zeq never edited at all ) yet Zero is involved in long stream of edit wars in this article.

Zero's argument for the change is (as always) to discredit those who oppose him: "no good case made to remove it" – however this is only partially true. In fact while the edit war has been raging in this article for months and months Zero himself has made Zero attempt to use his intelligence and convince the parties that his text should be accepted – From Nov 2006 until April 11, 2007 (i.e. for over 4 months Zero has not touched the article talk page. He just edit-war and edit-war – here are the last few rounds of that war:

, ,,, all are similar reverts.

– New edit using words which are not NPOV and appear in Wikipedia – words to avoid,, – more edit war over POV tag

More reverts: ,massive changes, removal of what Zero's deem "un-sourced info" without using talk at all: and to end it:  – Zero just restored his preferred version that includes large text from a source described as "No author is stated"  (Is this WP:RS source ? Fredplease answer.

This last edit got a reply from other editors with these words: "'This is an encyclopedia, not a leaflet, no good reason has been given'"

Note that Zeq have never editted this article still Zero's edit-war is extensive. Zeq 07:24, 8 May 2007 (UTC)


 * All the edits mentioned above were well justified and well explained if you look back through the history. --Zerotalk 10:55, 11 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't find this kind of sanction to be proportional or conducive to calming spirits across the board. While I've disagreed with some of Zero's and Zeq's edits in the past, without directly commenting on that point, it is important to note that Zeq's edit to the article that precipitated this situation was not entirely unreasonable and was since incorporated in part. Tewfik Talk 05:22, 11 May 2007 (UTC)


 * It makes more sense to ban both Zeq AND Zero0000 from all articles dealing with Israel, Israeli history or the conflict. Zero0000's behaivour as presented above has been more severe and the punishment for both should be equal or none at all, IMO. Amoruso 07:53, 14 May 2007 (UTC)


 * How can you compare us ? Zero have wared with many more editors and on many more articles than I did. Just look at the evidence. Zeq 08:49, 14 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree, but to end this dispute once and for all, both sides should be banned. If indeed Zero is not banned, there's no reason that you should be either. I would also accept if Zero would have been reprimanded more severely as reasonable, perhaps 2 year ban for Zero, 6 months for Zeq etc. Amoruso 09:46, 14 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Let's see: I am under probation and for the most part kept within it. I admitted my wrong doings (mostly against zero's). On the other hand Zero  is an admin, he edit-war endlessly on large number of articles (inlcluding many that I never edited), he remove sources that do not fit his POV (while I strive for balance) - do you still see symetry here ? well maybe in th fact that we both edit-war I would agree that there is symatry, but the magnitude and intensity is more than 4 times on Zero's side. There need to be a mecahnism that would make sure he stops his edit-wars, NPOV violations and participate in mediations. I offered him several mediations which he refused. Zeq 11:13, 14 May 2007 (UTC)


 * From my experience, Zero does not approve of mediations and when they do happen, he ignores them, as in the case of this which he kept ignoring and pretending it was never up for RFC and abusing pop-ups in the edit-war after many months . Amoruso 12:17, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Template
5) {text of proposed remedy}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
6) {text of proposed remedy}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
7) {text of proposed remedy}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
8) {text of proposed remedy}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
9) {text of proposed remedy}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
1) {text of proposed enforcement}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
2) {text of proposed enforcement}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
3) {text of proposed enforcement}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
4) {text of proposed enforcement}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
5) {text of proposed enforcement}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

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

Template

 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template

 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template

 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template

 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template

 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template

 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template

 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

General discussion

 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others: