Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Shamir1

In order to remain listed at Requests for comment/User conduct, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the same dispute with a single user, not different disputes or multiple users. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126;. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: 03:38, 16 October 2007 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is:, 29 July 2024 (UTC).



Users should only edit one summary or view, other than to endorse.

Statement of the dispute
''This is a summary written by users who are concerned by this user's conduct. Users signing other sections ("Response" or "Outside views") should not edit the "Statement of the dispute" section.''

Desired outcome
''This is a summary written by users who have initiated the request for comment. It should spell out exactly what the changes they'd like to see in the user, or what questions of behavior should be the focus.''

Ideally, I would like to stop complaining about the last paragraph of the Israel article and accept either of the following two constructions:
 * "Unlike most countries in the Middle East, Israel is considered a liberal democracy. It has been ranked as the most..."
 * "Israel is a liberal democracy and has been ranked as the most..."

Both of them have been accepted by many of the active editors on Talk:Israel. ArbCom or an article ban is conceivable, but not apparently necessary at this point.

Description
This started as a content dispute, but has since turned into outright disruption by Shamir. In early- to mid-September, Shamir was suggested that the introduction to the article be changed, against consensus. He attempted to insert those changes into the article, only to get them reverted each time. Eventually, he began to focus his efforts on the first sentence of the last paragraph of the introduction. And that is where the problems began.

Shamir wanted to get the first sentence of the last paragraph of the intro changed to say Israel is the only democracy in the Middle East. Others objected, saying the definition of the Middle East is vague and thus his sentence was of questionable accuracy (as it was based solely on the definition provided by Freedom House). A compromise that included a comparison to the Middle East ("Unlike other countries in the Middle East...") was suggested and implemented. Unfortunately, Shamir was the lone dissenter to this compromise. Although most considered the matter closed, Shamir has proceeded to revert to his version (or some rewrite of his version) claiming the compromise compromises the source. He has used numerous dubious interpretations of policy to claim that certain sentences trump the sentence(s) written by consensus. To be fair, some editors have been sympathetic to Shamir's position, proposing compromises that are even closer to Shamir's position. However, these have been rejected by all except Shamir and are inherently unnecessary as they are compromises between pieces that are already compromises and Shamir's position. Ultimately, as Shamir has been the lone dissenter, his opponents have asked him to just drop the matter; currently, in the two and a half weeks since the implementation of the compromise, there has been an additional 150kB of discussion (most related to this sentence). Eventually, some tried to simply ignore him, only to give into temptation to respond to even more of Shamir's misinterpretations of policy.

Shamir has attempted to present this issue to ANI and certain admins he trusts, but, as he has done on Talk:Israel, he has often misrepresented the positions of his opponents. Shamir's constant misrepresentations of policy and positions of his opponents, while also periodically reverting to his version of the sentence, have brought editors to wit's end. That's quite clear in some of the comments by myself and (and, to a lesser extent,  and ). What's worse is that this debacle is reminiscent of a discussion from last October related to this sentence (see Talk:Israel/Archive 18 and Talk:Israel/Archive 18). This kind of editing by Shamir is textbook disruptive editing. He has been tendentious, continuing to edit this article "in pursuit of a certain point for an extended time despite opposition from one or more other editors". He has continuously rejected community input, "continuing to edit in pursuit of a certain point despite an opposing consensus from impartial editors and/or administrators". He indeed offered a request for meditation, but I rejected it because, among other reasons, this long ceased to be a content dispute; the problem is clearly with Shamir's method of approaching this sentence. It's disruptive; there's no better word for it at this point.

Evidence of disputed behavior

 * 1) Reverting against consensus: Sep 10, Sep 10, Sep 10, Sep 10, Sep 14, Sep 24, Sep 24, Sep 25, Sep 29, Sep 29, Sep 30, Oct 1, Oct 1, Oct 1, Oct 3, Oct 9, Oct 10, Oct 12
 * 2) Extremely poor interpretations of policy (this list does not constitute every example):
 * 3) *Oct 3: "Hmmm... trying working by the rules. Tariqabjotu, until you explain to a mediator how WP:REF somehow does not apply to this, the sentence that correctly reflects the words of the research will be put back in."
 * 4) *Oct 3: "This is not my way. Stop with this talk. These are the ways of Wikipedia and I, unlike you, are taking the rules into consideration. Tariqabjotu, we would not be here if there were a "consensus". You can revert but you will have to explain to a mediator how WP:REF somehow does not apply."
 * 5) *Oct 4: "Tariq, you say: "We all seem to agree that Israel can be characterized as a liberal democracy, so the statement that "all of the countries in the Middle East" are not liberal democracies is clearly false." What does WP say? "Remember that Wikipedia is not a place for expressing your own opinions or for original research"--both of which you have just exhibited."
 * 6) *Oct 5: "I took your suggestion into consideration, and on top of that, linked eighteen countries to the list of the eighteen countries that Freedom House includes in that region, and on top of that added a footnote (which I am not sure if it is even called for as per WP guidelines) to clarify Tariqabjotu's apparent view, despite the fact that WP:REF reminds us that WP is not the place for our own opinions or original research)."
 * 7) *Oct 12: "Synthesizing the source's position with the CIA that says Cyprus is in the Middle East is not acceptable. The CIA would have to say that Cyprus is one of the countries categorized in Freedom House's Middle East & North Africa group. That is what WP policy tells us." – Shamir is suggesting WP:SYN says this
 * 8) *Oct 15: "All that is being done is reflecting the position of the source. (That is such a basic principle of Wikipedia.) Has the source 'dropped' the comparison? I dont think so. Start paying attention to policy." -- suggestion that just saying "Israel is a liberal democracy" is against policy
 * 9) Poor interpretations of opponents' positions (this list does not constitute every example)::
 * 10) *Oct 11: "An editor in particular is refusing to discuss Wikipedia policies regarding a sentence in an article I am working on. As a part of dispute resolution, I suggested mediation, which he rejected. What can be done when an editor is acting this uncooperative?"
 * 11) *Oct 11: "As both Okedem and Tariqabjotu said there is no issue with the sentence it will be added."
 * 12) *Oct 11: "I suggested WP:Mediation as a proper way to resolve the dispute and concentrate on Wikipedia guidelines, but Tariqabjotu refused. He still did not want to talk about any WP policy."

Applicable policies and guidelines

 * 1) Consensus
 * 2) Disruptive editing

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute

 * 1) Talk:Israel
 * 2) *Talk:Israel
 * 3) Talk:Israel
 * 4) Talk:Israel
 * 5) *Talk:Israel
 * 6) Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive309
 * 7) User talk:Shamir1/Archive 2

Users certifying the basis for this dispute
Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute


 * 1) --  tariq abjotu  03:38, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) -- okedem 06:29, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) -- Jdcaust 02:54, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) -- Telaviv1 13:40, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) El_C 06:48, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Response
''This is a summary written by the user whose conduct is disputed, or by other users who think that the dispute is unjustified and that the above summary is biased or incomplete. Users signing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Outside Views") should not edit the "Response" section.''

Tariqabjotu's list of reverts is misleading. It is not reverting of the same material, but also includes contributions of different material separate from the sentence specified in this discussion. Some in the list is unrelated material that was edited to be made more suitable to be added again. Even the ones that included the sentence at hand are different and were edited after discussion. Other reverts were made on other material by other users and on that sentence in specific.

Furthermore, this dispute is clearly about article content.


 * "Shamir wanted to get the first sentence of the last paragraph of the intro changed to say Israel is the only democracy in the Middle East. Others objected, saying the definition of the Middle East is vague and thus his sentence was of questionable accuracy (as it was based solely on the definition provided by Freedom House)."
 * False, I was supporting what the source says, not my own opinion. The sentence had been written in that manner a long time before, and was only changed after an argument made by another editor (not based on any source). Anyway, I was only supporting the inclusion of the position of the source: "The source says: "In the 18 countries of the Middle East and North Africa, only one, Israel, ranks as Free; Israel is also the only electoral democracy in the region. There are 6 Partly Free states (33 percent), and 11 countries that are Not Free (61 percent)."


 * "A compromise that included a comparison to the Middle East ("Unlike other countries in the Middle East...") was suggested and implemented. Unfortunately, Shamir was the lone dissenter to this compromise. Although most considered the matter closed, Shamir has proceeded to revert to his version (or some rewrite of his version) claiming the compromise compromises the source."
 * I was not fighting for a comparison, I was fighting for the opinion of the source. Citing sources states: All material that is challenged or likely to be challenged needs a source.

The need for citations is especially important when writing about opinions held on a particular issue. Avoid weasel words where possible, such as, "Some people say ..." Instead, make your writing verifiable: find a specific person or group who holds that opinion and give a citation to a reputable publication in which they express that opinion. Remember that Wikipedia is not a place for expressing your own opinions or for original research.

User:Tariqabjotu disregarded this policy. He hardly discussed them, and even if he did (after I had begged him to stay on track and direct his criticism on the content and not on me, he was defended his own sentence on weak ground, rather than attempting to prove that the edited sentence contradicted any single WP policy. He was never able to prove that.


 * "Shamir is suggesting WP:SYN says this"
 * Is it really that hard for Tariqabjotu to understand? Based on that policy I filled in position A and position B. I stick by that. Tariqabjotu is making it seem as if I am saying that WP:SYN says those exact words. It is obvious that I was filling in the blanks. Very obvious. He has nothing to complain about. That is a misrepresentation of an editor's opinion'


 * "suggestion that just saying "Israel is a liberal democracy" is against policy"
 * No, it is it not a suggestion that that sentence is against policy, it is a suggestion that: All that is being done is reflecting the position of the source. (That is such a basic principle of Wikipedia.) Has the source 'dropped' the comparison? I dont think so. which is exactly what I said, there is nothing for you to interpret. A more important point made was that there was no suggestion that "Israel has been ranked as the only liberal democracy out of eighteen countries in the Middle East" (sourced) is against any policy. Tariqabjotu, it seems obvious, but to let you know, that is different.


 * Tariqabjotu speaks of only one compromise--the compromise that he accepts. That is clearly unfair. He refuses to acknowledge the compromises suggested by User:Jdcaust and User:Taz00. User:Taz00 had shared the same issue with Tariqabjotu but after editing, he believed that the issue had been solved.


 * "Shamir has attempted to present this issue to ANI and certain admins he trusts, but, as he has done on Talk:Israel, he has often misrepresented the positions of his opponents."
 * This is absolutely false, Tariqabjotu seems to be trying to smear me. It is uncivil for an editor to be putting words in my mouth.


 * "What's worse is that this debacle is reminiscent of a discussion from last October related to this sentence."
 * Yes, and that dispute had ended with the source's comparison in. (Notice how all of the editors opposing it were only doing so with their personal opinion, not a challenge by any reliable source. In the end, the source's position was included.)

Tariqabjotu's argument against the sentence is not acceptable, nor has he been consistent. For starters, Wikipedia is not a democracy. Many editors voiced what they personally think about it, but not whether WP policy tells us not to add it per WP:REF or any other rule. Secondly, he stated that the CIA considers Cyprus to be in the Middle East, and since Freedom House considers Cyprus to be a liberal democracy, then Freedom House's stated position is wrong. Freedom House does not group Cyprus in the Middle East & North Africa group. We are not defining a region, this a group of countries categorized by Freedom House. The difference is that the latter is a fact and undisputable. It is completely clear to the reader that the comparison the source makes is to this group of countries. The phrase "eighteen countries" links to a list of the countries in that group so any reader can visually see which countries exactly is Israel being compared to by the source. User:Taz00 backed that suggestion, as it eliminates any hint of ambiguity as to what the source is talking about or is comparing Israel to.

Tariqabjotu stated that the definition of the Middle East is vague, and to quote him, "could apply to any number of countries." That is not true in this case. The Middle East is a regional group categorized by Freedom House. (Similar logic to United Nations Regional Groups.) It cannot be argued which countries are not in that group. It is clear for users to see what that group is exactly. The sentence proposed is: "Israel has been ranked as the only liberal democracy out of eighteen countries in the Middle East."

This way, as I said, there is no concern about ambiguity, and every word is verifiable and clear to the reader.

Tariqabjotu argued that the CIA considers Cyprus to be in the geographic region of the Middle East. Freedom House categorizes a regional group (Middle East & North Africa), which Cyprus is not a part of. Freedom House explicitly states that Israel is the only country in that regional group that they rank as free. The reason why Tariqabjotu's logic is unacceptable is WP:SYN: "Editors often make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article to advance position C. However, this would be an example of a new synthesis of published material serving to advance a position, and as such it would constitute original research.[1] 'A and B, therefore C' is acceptable only if a reliable source has published this argument in relation to the topic of the article." As hard as it is for Tariqabjotu to accept, he has not brought up a single source that has published an argument in relation to the categorization of Freedom House's regional groups, or of Freedom House's position on Israel being the only the liberal democracy there. Tariqabjotu's position C is not legitimate, nor was it verified by the source.

Taz00 recognized Tariqabjotu's concern, and stated he believes it can be solved by linking to the group of countries the source is comparing Israel to. (He also recognized that Tariqabjotu's argument was clearly synthesizing two different and unrelated opinions from two different sources.)

In addition to that, while it is completely unnecessary in this case as the regional group is clearly defined and the source makes a direct comparison to it, after reviewing List of countries by Human Development Index, I suggested that a footnote be added to advance further clarifications that are not represented by the source the sentence is cited to. I suggested this again after seeing the article I just pointed out's Notes on the bottom of the page. Notes 5 through 11 have such descriptions. In our case, the source's position is a comparison to a defined group of countries, and that regional group is visible to the reader, but in the interest of all of this, I would agree to an additional note.

More than often would Tariqabjotu make personal attacks or irrelevant comments, like: "It's quite pathetic that your infatuation with Freedom House has been that long-lasting." "You're a waste of my time. I'm not going to burden a mediator by letting you waste his too." "I'm not afraid of a mediator (you seem to have a penchant for putting words in my mouth); I'm just sick of you." It was hard for him to focus on policies (which he never used to say that any sentence contradicted it, or ever used as a basis to edit a sentence), and he usually focused his criticism personally at me.

He also made rude comments to User:SpiderMMB and User:Taz00, but it is up to them if they wish to complain. Tariqabjotu was acting awfully strange and rude to User:SpiderMMB, telling him not to participate in a discussion with me.User talk:SpiderMMB

I suggested mediation as a way to stay on track and correctly follow WP policies, but Tariqabjotu refused. I clearly wanted this resolved and only reviewed WP guidelines. This decision seemed like a stubborn one. I did not want to continue bumping heads, and did not know where to go from there. For some reason, a request for mediation is not seen by Tariqabjotu as an attempt to resolve the dispute.

I always pushed for dispute resolution and named the policies, and to this day Tariqabjotu has yet to even try to prove that that sentence would contradict any policy. Discussion was limited to policies, and I was always answering other editors. To editors, I was making different suggestions per each issue that arose to solve this.

Users who endorse this summary:
 * 1) --Shamir1 06:04, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Final response
I am not going to have time for this. If User:Tariqabjotu's desired outcome will end this, then it can happen. --Shamir1 08:43, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Outside view
''This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute. Users editing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Response") should not edit the "Outside Views" section, except to endorse an outside view.''

{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.}

Users who endorse this summary:

Discussion
All signed comments and talk not related to an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page. Discussion should not be added below. Discussion should be posted on the talk page. Threaded replies to another user's vote, endorsement, evidence, response, or comment should be posted to the talk page.