Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/PalestineRemembered/Workshop

Kick this into touch?
What's everyones thoughts of putting in a motion to close this case with no action taken, given that there has been no support for a community ban - it seems best that issues with PalestineRemembered's conduct would be better served with an RfC at present. The arbitrators have a lot of work on their plates at the minute and this is something which the community is now able to handle.  Ry an P os tl et hw ai te  20:52, 19 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I have some sympathy with this, but as I noted in my evidence, there are issues with Jayjg's conduct as well. Neither party comes off looking good in this affair. I don't think an RfC on either editor is likely to be helpful in the present climate; it will just degenerate into a shouting match between rival factions. Unfortunately, the Arbitration Committee is the only forum likely to be able to deal with this apolitically. There is no need to make this more complicated than it needs to be. The optimal outcome would be for both parties to be admonished (PalestineRemembered for misrepresenting his citation, Jayjg for failing to substantiate his case for a ban) and advised to start dealing with each other more constructively. This controversy was wholly unnecessary and could have been avoided if they'd both taken more care. -- ChrisO 08:56, 20 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Ryan, exactly. ChrisO, no that is completely wrong. What can be the point of having everyone "admonished?" How about noone "admonished" instead?
 * Arbitration should not proceed unless at least one party wants it, and in any event there should be some prior attempts at dispute resolution. What this all shows us is that the committee and the community has no intention at all of following its own stated rules. It shows us that anyone might find themselves in arbitration proceedings at any moment without warning. That's not how all of this was supposed to work; if it works that way now, we must reject it and fix it. That the Committee chooses to take the case isn't adequate. Neither PR nor Jayjg were RfC'd nor otherwise warned, and neither User:Wooyi nor the Committee have the right to force either of them into this proceeding against their will.Proabivouac 11:53, 21 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm confused about the point of this too. Jayjg posted a request for input on AN/I about PR. Other people commented. Halfway through that process, someone filed this RfAr. What we need to do now is see whether there's sufficient consensus to ban PR, and if there is, go ahead, and if there isn't, don't. I'm not clear about what extra thing this ArbCom case is being asked to do. SlimVirgin (talk) 18:07, 21 May 2007 (UTC)


 * There is plainly no consensus, and the charge of plagiarising a Holocaust denial website has been convincingly refuted by Zero0000, so there's no basis for a ban on this count. Whatever else happens, I see no possibility that PR will be banned on the basis of Jay's accusations. -- ChrisO 18:38, 21 May 2007 (UTC)


 * PR has informed that he would rather see this RfArb continue, as public accusations have already been made against him, and he'd like this opportunity to clear these up. He's willing to accept the consequences of his actions, but expects the same of his fellow editors. Mark Chovain 12:11, 21 May 2007 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict - comments in response to Proabivouac) While I appreciate your comments regarding process at arbcomm (something that is wholly new and unfamiliar to me), among the concerns that have been raised by the actions of admins, particularly Jayjg in his latest proposed ban vis-a-vis PR, is that anyone might find themselves banned indefinitely, or facing community votes proposing indefinite banning at any moment with little or no warning. Indeed, the questions raised about PR's first and second bans by other editors/admins speak to the lack of a consensus around procedure surrounding bans in general. (Not to mention, potential conflict of interest issues that arise between invested admins and editors) Surely, these are serious issues. If this is not the forum in which to discuss, where would you suggest?  T i a m u t  12:13, 21 May 2007 (UTC)


 * PR's desire to be cleared of wrongdoing is very understandable. I'd like to suggest a compromise solution. Both sides clearly erred in this episode. PR was wrong to cite a primary source without disclosing that he'd got it from a secondary source. Jay was wrong to accuse PR of cribbing from a Holocaust denial website without any attempt at verification. I suggest that both parties should acknowledge their mistake - PR to say that he made a citation error, Jay to retract his accusation - and agree to engage with each other in a more positive fashion in future. I believe this would be an equitable solution and would avoid the bureaucratic hassle of a full-blown arbitration. I should add that this has advantages for both PR and Jay, as their conduct in this matter hasn't exactly been exemplary and the detailed scrutiny of an arbitration wouldn't be in their best interests. -- ChrisO 18:38, 21 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Which secondary source did PR get the information from again? Sorry, but I've found this hard to follow. SlimVirgin (talk) 18:46, 21 May 2007 (UTC)


 * See Zero0000's comments here. He has the same book that PR used and was able to verify the citation. (The book was the secondary source, the quoted newspaper was the primary). -- ChrisO 19:04, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Temporary injunction
Chovain requests that Since no consensus was reached in the CSN (and given that it was based on what we now know to be incorrect information), could PallestineRemembered please be allowed to edit freely during this RfArb? He is currently not permitted to edit outside this case, and this is already impacting on his ability to defend himself. I can't be here 24 hours a day, and my job should be to advise and educate him, not to pass messages. Mark Chovain 12:24, 20 May 2007 (UTC) This should be placed in the "Proposed temporary injunctions" section, no? nadav 13:11, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I've already put in a proposed motion for this.  Ry an P os tl et hw ai te  13:12, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Ah ok, I didn't know whether that was for consideration now or a proposed decision for the case, but I see now. nadav 13:25, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks guys - I appreciate the help with getting that on the right page. Mark Chovain 13:26, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Comments from the "Arbitration is closed" section

 * The claim was not "potentially libelous," so let's not up the ante. Imagine the chaos if we were to start an ArbCom case every time something factually incorrect was said about another person; Chris, you've said things about me that are false, so I could bring a case against you.
 * It seems to me that certain people are just using this as a platform to attack Jay, even though all he did was ask for input on AN/I, which is what admins are supposed to do when they have concerns. Let's face it, PR is not exactly a good editor. SlimVirgin (talk) 19:38, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * It's exactly nebulous claims like people claiming "PR is not exactly a good editor" which are as good a reason as any to go forward. Just the way even his second and third block proposals were titled The return of PalestineRemembered and PalestineRemembered again as if he were some endlessly problematic editor have been prejudicial, when, still, no one have presented any diffs as evidence to support such an idea. -- Kendrick7talk 20:11, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * PR messed up with some citing, Jay messed up and thought he was adding false sources into an article and lost patience and took it to AN/I, it went to CN, PR got blocked, there's no consensus for the block to go ahead now, so lets close, move on and allow everyone to get on with their lives and PR and be properly unblocked. If people need it - heres the link they might need - no arbitration.  Ry an P os tl et hw ai te  20:24, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * It'd be nice if Jay withdrew the accusation that PR "copied his views and references from the Holocaust denial group the Institute for Historical Review". --Coroebus 20:38, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * We don't use arbitration to make people give forced appologies.  Ry an P os tl et hw ai te  20:45, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * That was intended more to convey that if Jay withdrew the accusation, and since PR has admitted misattributing his citation, that'd pretty much be it closed. --Coroebus 20:48, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * That would be a reasonable outcome. Let both acknowledge making mistakes and let them go on their way. -- ChrisO 22:41, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Kendrick, you want to "go forward" so you can use this case as a platform to attack Jay. I had little or nothing to do with PR, but my recollection is that he added his own opinions to articles, and constantly abused other editors. Even you told him he was out of order, Kendrick, and you've supported other disruptive editors because they were anti-Zionist (e.g. the Disruptive Apartheid editor), so PR must have been seriously abusive for you to say: "Geez PR, can you please take your foot out of your mouth and try better next time? Your edits to articles aren't terrible, but you have to do something about all the anti-Zionist rants ..." There's no sense in misusing the dispute resolution in this way to discuss a lack of consensus to block an editor, just so that certain others can get their digs in about Jay. It's a waste of everyone's time, and it's actually making the attackers look bad, not Jay. SlimVirgin (talk)  20:40, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict)I'm not certain I have any real problem with Jay. If you are talking about User:Kiyosaki, he was my first run-in with any of the incarnations of the DAE, and I WP:AGF'd perhaps longer than most, but I did stop editing with him, and ultimately ignored his cries for my help well before the community properly banned him as a sock. As for PR, I supported PR's second block and gave him some constructive advice. -- Kendrick7talk 21:21, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * SlimVirgin, frankly I'm getting very tired of this habit of yours of making unprovoked attacks against other editors. You did exactly the same against G-Dett on Talk:Pallywood a while back and you're right, I do "feel that [you] contributed to a poor atmosphere" by doing so. The atmosphere on articles about Arab-Israeli issues isn't just poor, it's thoroughly venomous. This debacle is a direct result of that - essentially, it's Jay lashing out at an editor who annoyed him. From what I've seen of your contributions, you're fully participating in the poisonous backbiting that's going on. Please stop this. It's absolutely not appropriate conduct for any administrator, let alone one as experienced as you. -- ChrisO 22:12, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Chris, I'm equally sick of your snide remarks and your certainty that you're the only neutral editor on these articles. You're far from neutral, and you contribute substantially to the poisonous atmosphere, and in fact often initiate it. If you want to avoid poison, you could make a start by not trying to turn ArbCom cases into attacks on admins because you disagree with them politically. Be the change you want to see in the world. SlimVirgin (talk)
 * You appear to be mistaking "holding administrators accountable for poor judgment" with "attacks on admins". I believe in accountability. Do you? -- ChrisO 01:06, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I think if you and I are going to argue, we should take it elsewhere. But to reply, I believe in being responsible and using common sense. What a responsible admin would have done in this case is quietly e-mail Jay and point out to him that there was evidence that PR had taken the material from a legit source. Jay would then likely have posted to that effect on AN/I and withdrawn his concerns, and that would have been the end of it. Instead, a bunch of people (including the usual suspects) jumped on the chance to kick Jay to the curb, and started the pompous footstomping about how outrageous it is to block an account with all of 200 edits to the encyclopedia, who's been ranting about Zionists almost the whole time he's been here. It hasn't reflected well on you, speaking of accountability. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:18, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * G-Dett did precisely this at 19:51, 13 May, on the community noticeboard: "PalestineRemembered gives his source here: Bitter Harvest: a Modern History of Palestine, by Sami Hadawi, p.59 ." Jay dismissed this at 20:28, insisting that "the charges were accompanied by evidence, and they appear to be as true as ever"; he posted again at 20:46 to reiterate his certainty. Zero0000 posted on the CN at 12:23 on 14 May that he had been able to establish PR's source definitively. However, Jay has not made any public comment on this matter since 14 May. While I don't think anyone here is defending PR's past record (I'm certainly not), getting rid of a bad editor using a baseless accusation is not the way that it's done in these parts. I'd like to think that we as a community have a bit more integrity than that. -- ChrisO 01:39, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Come on, Chris, you know as well as I do that if this involved an editor called User:ZionismForever, who went around insulting Arab or Muslim editors, and who'd made only 200 edits to articles, you wouldn't have batted an eyelid if he was banned, no matter the reason. SlimVirgin (talk) 02:18, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * If this case doesn't go forward, then I'm sure soon enough there'll be more "PR at it yet again" threads on the noticeboard, or else this'll end up here at arbcom again in some other form. It is strange to me that he's been blocked so many times before, and when I looked at the supposed justifying diffs, they didn't really justify his harsh treatment.  All the hazy allegations in the air should be either conclusively proven or summarily withdrawn. Otherwise, they will continue to color people's perceptions of him, will affect his ability to freely edit, and will probably be used as vague justification for yet another block. nadav (talk) 21:15, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Nadav1 articulates the key point here, and well.--G-Dett 21:34, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Disagree - There are still too many issues here. PR is not willing to have Jayjg apologise for the sake of closing this case. Why is PR still blocked?  He's done nothing wrong.   All involved editors should be blocked, or none should be.  Why has Jayjg been given the benefit of the doubt beyond all evidence, yet PR still blocked in the absence of any eviedence of wrong-doing. Mark Chovain 21:49, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * He isn't blocked, and there are no other involved editors; all that happened here is that an admin posted his suspicions and other admins responded. There's no question that PR has been disruptive &mdash; the suspicion he was lifting material from a Holocaust denial website was simply the last straw. The community judged him insufficiently disruptive to block indefinitely. End of story. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:58, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * No evidence has been submitted to the case file yet that he has in recent months been "disruptive." This is the kind of statement that either should not be made, or should be profusely backed up with evidence, and is exactly what I was referring to above. PR has said that this case is about clearing his name of all such allegations (or proving them). nadav (talk) 22:11, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * No, Jay made a specific, unconditional assertion of fact (not "suspicions") against PR. Nor did the community "judge him insufficiently disruptive" - the judgment of some of the community (not including you) was that Jay had made an erroneous charge. It wasn't a matter of being "insufficiently disruptive", it was a matter of there literally being no basis to the charge. Really, it doesn't do you any credit to misrepresent things this way. -- ChrisO 22:12, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * He is still blocked. The software block has been lifted to let him edit this page, but he will be blocked again if he edits anything else, as happened the other day.  How would we all like being treated as a guilty party when there is still no evidence supporting a block? Mark Chovain 22:29, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * If it closes now, PR can edit as he wishes - there really isn't anything to arbitrate.  Ry an P os tl et hw ai te  22:04, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * So tell me - if Jayjg were incorrectly accused of something, without any evidence, would he be blocked for the duration of his defence, and told, "If you let this go quietly, we'll let the block go." Great... Mark Chovain 22:32, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The key question is this: does Jay still stand by his original charge that PR "copied his views and references from the Holocaust denial group the Institute for Historical Review"? (And since she's here, can I ask SlimVirgin if she still stands by her charge that PR made "fraudulent use of material"?) The allegations haven't been withdrawn. If Jay stands by his charge we can't dismiss the case summarily. I've asked him to clarify his position, and I hope he takes this opportunity to withdraw the charge - I note that PR has already acknowledged his errors in the evidence page. If Jay does agree to withdraw, I'd be in favour of closing the case as well. Hopefully both parties will then reflect on this episode and learn the appropriate lessons. -- ChrisO 22:12, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * It looks like the constant back-and-forths between administrators in good standing, as well as the desire of one of the involved parties to continue, are further reinforcement of the reasons the arbitrators took on this case. I am disappointed that quarrels of this sort are occurring on the very page that is meant to resolve them.  nadav (talk) 01:31, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm a bit confused; which of the involved parties wishes to continue? Also, I'm not quite sure how disputes on this page between various other administrators are relevant to this specific case, or would have any impact whatsoever on the merits of this case. Jayjg (talk) 02:10, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * At present, it is PR wishing to continue. He's concerned that he'll be right back where he started if this gets swept under the carpet. Mark Chovain 02:46, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I've read Zero's explanation of where PR's information could have come from, and in the interests of concluding this dispute, I'm happy to accept his evidence, and I apologize to PalestineRemembered for not asking him directly where he really got his material from before soliciting advice on AN/I. Jayjg (talk) 02:03, 22 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I believe that addresses the outstanding issue (hopefully to PR's satisfaction). Assuming all parties are happy I support Ryan's motion that this arbitration be closed. -- ChrisO 02:06, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll let PR know that you "accept the evidence" "in the interests of concluding this dispute". You use interesting wording though.  "... Zero's explanation of where PR's information could have come from".  Is there a competing hypothesis? Mark Chovain 02:46, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * of course there is. A competing hypothesis is that PR got the quote exactly where jay claims he did, but once he became aware of the fuax pas, he quickly searched for alternate sources (or has some alternate sources conveniently provided to him by his supporters) and once he found a more respectable source, claimed that is the original source. I don't know if this is the case any more than i know if the former hypothesis is true - but let's not pretend that jaygj's original hypothesis has somehow been proven false by the emergence of an equally credible or even more credible hypothesis. Isarig 03:13, 22 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I think Zero showed that the wording of the edit made it more likely that it had come from the book than from the Holocaust denial site. The point is that PalestineRemembered has edited in such a way that his taking material from a Holocaust denial site is not beyond the bounds of real possibility, given his obsession with "Zionists." If anything good can come of this, it'll be that PR changes his editing style so that the benefit of the doubt is extended more readily in future. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:19, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * showing that one hypothesis is more likely than another is not the same as proving one hypothesis correct and the other false. Isarig 03:22, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * There was never anything to recommend or support the Holocaust-denial hypothesis, except that it was the only source of the Evening Star quote that Jay knew of. PR, however, knew of another, from Hadawi's Bitter Harvest, which he provided almost immediately after he was informed of the controversy.  The accuracy of his page citation has been independently verified; PR's source predates Jay's source by six years; it is not mentioned by Jay's source, and it is not available online (ruling out the "quickly-searched-for-alternate-sources" theory, which frankly smacks of desperation).   In short, there is no link between the two.  You may if you wish continue to imagine that in addition to finding his material in Bitter Harvest, PR also found it on a Holocaust denial website.  You may also imagine, if you like, that PR is this very moment wearing a green velvet tuxedo and is bouncing on a trampoline on the lawn in front of his parents' house.  Both propositions are possible, and you have as much evidence for one as you do for the other.--G-Dett 03:40, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * you are confusing "lack of supportive evidence" with "proven false". The two are not the same, as a basic introductory logic course will teach you. As I wrote, I don't know if the competing hypothesis is true, and I don't know if the other one is true, either. One may be more plausible than the other, but let's not pretend that this is "proof", one way or the other. Isarig 03:48, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, which "hypothesis" are we talking about now? Holocaust denial or tuxedos and trampolines?--G-Dett 03:52, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Since you are apparently just begging for a quick intro to logic, as well as for a lesson about conflating "lack of evidence" with "proof", here's a little story: Contrary to what you wrote, the nearly exact text of what PR inserted into the article as a quote attributed to the Auckland paper, to wit, "lay in Jerusalem's Hall of Heroism and were given a military burial on Mt Herzl" is available on line, an is in fact the 2nd link that comes up when you insert that quoted sentence into Google. The first link is a WP link related to our discussion here, which means that at the time of jay's report, that link was actually the first. That link gives as its source "http://www.network54.com/Forum/145962" - which happens to be a Forum now shut down, becuase it contained "links to nudity, sex, pornography, illegal activities, unauthorized use or distribution of copyrighted material(s) (including 'warez' boards), mail fraud and pyramid schemes, hatred and racism of any kind, guns or firearms, or any other material that may be deemed libelous or offensive to another individual or organization.". A little further snooping in internet archives will show you the kind of offensive material that Forum 145962 used to contain and got it shut down - screeds against "Jew york", 'Jewish theivs" etc.. as well as, surprise surprise, support for Holocuast denial and revisionism  - not too far a cry from what Jay was claiming. Does this prove Jay was correct? of course not. But It does put your false claim that PR's source 'is not available online (ruling out the "quickly-searched-for-alternate-sources" theory', and illustrates rather nicley why current paucity of evidence is not the same as proving the theory false. Isarig 04:31, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Isarig, do not talk to me about elementary logic. You are eight days into this and still fumbling around with the pieces of child's jigsaw puzzle, ages 3 & up.  I wrote that PR's source (Bitter Harvest, 1989, p.59) "is not available online (ruling out the "quickly-searched-for-alternate-sources" theory, which frankly smacks of desperation)."  The point being that you cannot track down this particular citation to Bitter Harvest online, so your theory (or "hypothesis," or whatever the latest word you're dishonoring) that PR "quickly searched for alternate sources" is ridiculous.  You are imagining that he darted to the library and raced to the Israel-Palestine section, and began yanking books off the shelf and looking for references to Lord Moyne.  This is your "hypothesis" which hasn't been "disproved."  Your sophistry has the sole purpose of keeping the ghost of a smear alive on life support; it is intellectually and ethically disgraceful.--G-Dett 14:01, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The line on that site (which is otherwise in Italian) is "His body was given a military hero burial and lay at Jerusalem Hall of Heroism on Mt. Herzl" which has no citation except to that shutdown website (last archived in Apr 2006). It is logically possible that PR sourced his quote from this site if it has a more accurate version, and he kept the details of it after the site shutdown.  But it is still not logically possible for him to have solely sourced the quote where Jay alleged, as Zero's evidence demonstrates, and if he didn't solely source it there, in what way is he supposed to have sourced it from that site, what evidence is there that he did, and why would he have bothered if he already had a source?. --Coroebus 09:30, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * (This is a silly argument but...) this version is factually incorrect. The Jerusalem Hall of Heroism is not on Mt. Herzl, it's in the Russian Compound. The version in Bitter Harvest is correct.  --Zerotalk 12:58, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * May I ask that you add this as a statement on the evidence page. Also, there should be a statement on the evidence page that includes all the refutations that have been given for why PR did not copy from the Holocaust denial site. They have not been collected into one place yet. nadav (talk) 04:50, 22 May 2007 (UTC) It is an unrealistic suggestion that PR took his quotes from the non-identical bulletin board quotes when in fact he already owns the Hadawi book that has the exact form of the quotations he used. If, however, you really believe this is possible, then you should add this as evidence. If it is not submitted as evidence, then it is irresponsible to continue this atmosphere of unproven, damaging insinuations about PR's actions. Moreover, the burden of proof is on PR's accusers, and they should not use words such as "logically, he could have done it." We would not allow these kind of statements in biographies of living people, so why allow them in reference to fellow wikipedians? nadav (talk) 05:26, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * And claims that both hypotheses are equivilent are exactly why PR wants this case to continue. Mark Chovain 04:45, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The above is not a claim that both hypotheses are equivalent, but rather an illustration of why saying one hypotheses is more plausible than another is a far cry from proving the other hypotheses false. Do you understand the difference? You are not doing your client any favors by prolonging this case, because as this little exercise shows, it is easy to cast doubt on the strength of the (currently) more plausible theory, with the consequence that it will not be as easy to get him unblocked. Isarig 04:53, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * It's not my choice to keep it open. That's PR's choice.  Once again, you've proposed this idea of "Drop the argument against Jayjg, and the block against PR will be dropped".  Why is PR currently blocked?  (I'd really like an answer to that) Mark Chovain 05:17, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * It's worth bearing in mind that, wherever PR took the material from, he added his usual spin to it. The Holocaust denial site calls the two subjects of the edit "assassins." The book PR says he used names but doesn't describe them. But PR calls them "terrorist assassins" in his edit. He had no source for that. SlimVirgin (talk)  04:51, 22 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Suggestion: All individuals who continue to stand by the allegation should add themselves as involved parties to this case. nadav (talk) 04:04, 22 May 2007 (UTC)