Case Opened on 04:06, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Case Closed on 09:42, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Please do not edit this page directly unless you wish to become a participant in this request. (All participants are subject to Arbitration Committee decisions, and the ArbCom will consider each participant's role in the dispute.) Comments are very welcome on the Talk page, and will be read, in full. Evidence, no matter who can provide it, is very welcome at /Evidence. Evidence is more useful than comments.

Arbitrators will be working on evidence and suggesting proposed decisions at /Workshop and voting on proposed decisions at /Proposed decision.

• Ian Pitchford (talk · contribs) (filer of this request)
• Zeq (talk · contribs)
• Heptor (talk · contribs)
• talk · contribs
  )
• Zero0000 (talk · contribs)
• Kriegman (talk · contribs)

I would be grateful if Wikipedia's policy that articles must

]

Addendum: The comments added below by Zeq, Heptor and Kriegman illustrate how the debate has been conducted for many weeks. A request for scholarly references is never answered with such references, but with additional unsourced claims and personal insults, even though it would have taken far less effort to open a few histories of the period and to report on what they say. Furthermore, I believe that mediation is inappropriate as I am asking not for judgment of a dispute between editors, but for Wikipedia policy on sources to be implemented. We don't mediate policy: we either implement it or we don't. Wikipedia has an entire task force dedicated to removing vandalism and challenging vandals, but there is no comparably efficient and expeditious mechanism for removing unsourced claims and for challenging those who add them, even though unsourced material damages the encyclopedia in much more insidious and destructive ways than simple vandalism. We need a "sources taskforce" to spare editors this unpleasantness and to leave them free to donate their time and expertise to the task of constructing an encyclopedia. --Ian Pitchford 18:41, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ian refuse to accept what was decided in the mediation: That the info that can not be sourced will be taken out and that the info that has sources will remain in. My agreement to the mediator is clearly indicated on the talk page. Ian "implemented" the mediator suggestion by removing sourced info. I suggested to him that if he has sources that say differently (from the sourced info in the article) he should add those sources to the text so we have both versions in the article. Instead he rushed to the ArbCom. (after both he and Zero wrote very starnge interpretations of the NPOV policy on the talk page such as Zero on Pal exodus talk claiming: "NPOV does not consist of multiple POVs" )

The problem in the Palestinian exodus article is not so simple. This article (please see talk page) 3 years ago was pro Israeli , now it is completly Pro- Palestinian (see version prior to the current protected one which is a bit more NPOV). For month and month editors have complianed about the lack of neutrality of that page (long before I have registed with wikipedia - just see the complete talk page one of many examples is [1]) but one after another editor are "chased away" from that page by those who seem to think they "own" it and do not allow any other editor there. This article is at the core palestinian narraitive of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The Palestinian version is well desrve to be on that page but so does the other POV.

All I have to say about the problem is stated here: complete_failure_of_wikipedia_NPOV_policy and part of the solution is here:

A_serious_suggestion_to_Mr._Wales

• For some reason the above two links do not work. I wonder if anyone was bale to find the right link and read it ?

It is the core issue (and the solution as well).

I am distressed that this has escalated to this point. I believe that this case does have merit, but I feel that my attempts to assist the parties in working out a compromise were at least partially successful. This may be a premature request, but I am confident that that the ArbCom will come to a sensible conclusion, whatever it is.--

]

The core of this dispute seems to be a quotation by the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem,

, and also made broadcasts aimed for the Arab World, in which he agitated Arabs to support the Nazis. In one of those broadcasts he, according to Pearlman and Schechtman, expressed himself in following way: "Arabs, arise as one man and fight for your sacred rights. Kill Jews wherever you find them. This pleases God, history, and religion. This saves your honor. God is with you". Ian Pitchford is disputing credibility of Pearlman and Schechtman.

Ian Pitchford has also erased/commented out some other material regarding the mufti: [2]. For example, I have not seen any explanation why he commented out that "the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem was involved in much of the high level negotiations between the Arab leaders in the 1948 War."

The matter has been under mediation by

claimed there was has never been any compromise, and started removing material soon after. The page had to be protected again.

During the dispute, Ian threatened to submit the matter to ArbCom repeatedly

complained to Jimbo Wales

on his talk page and, evidently, also per e-mail.

I agree with Sean Black that this request is somewhat premature – mediation bore fruits before, and should have been tried further. But it also would be nice if the Arbitration Committee settles the matter once and for all.

'Addendum'

In light of statements by Ian Pitchford, and especially Zero, I will add a little to my statement.

1. As Kriegman stated below, both Zero and Ian Pitchford freely use biased authors, such as Mattar, while labeling those they disagree with as "liars", or useless for other reasons.
2. What Mufti said on Zero's scan is actaully quite similar to what he said according to Kriegman's scan, e.g. go kill jews.
3. It is an aknowledged problem that Wikipedia has systematic leftist bias. Both the Soviet Communists and modern days socialists seem to have something against USA and Israel (indeed, socialists of all kinds somehow seem to dislike Israel), and this shows in many articles. Zero and Ian Pitchford systematically sift available sources for information unfavorable to Israel. I hope Arbitration Committee will make a step to counter this problem.

-- Heptor _talk 18:44, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1. Zeq is one of the most obsessive POV-pushers I have ever encountered in Wikipedia. He has hardly any knowledge either of history, nor of the process of cooperative NPOV writing. His style is to delete large slabs of text he doesn't like [3] and scream when he is reverted. His notion of NPOV is to add text like "mass of frenzied Arab rioters" [4] then claim willingness to accept "the other" POV, as if a good article can ever be written by joining together different bits of gutter rhetoric. Almost every article he approaches becomes a battleground, and countless efforts to reason with him have not had the least effect. Please, oh please, do something about him.
2. The
   version
   that is quite different. None of this has any effect on Zeq or Heptor who want this "quotation" to appear and that's that. Nor have they established any relevance of this to the topic of the article, other than their own opinions.

[I have never participated in a RfArb before and am trying to respond and understand the process while my family is packing and waiting for me: I will be away from any internet connections for the next few days, and I believe the following points need to be known by the arbitrators. So this statement may be more thorough and longer than is considered appropriate.]

I've been involved in this dispute from the beginning, to the point of being threatened by Ian that this would be brought to arbitration. I have only focused on the 1948 Arab-Israeli War article, in which I placed the original disputed quotation by the Mufti. I cited as a source a book by Davis & Decter. Zero claimed that this was not a valid source. He did not say why he made this claim, just that it was not valid. Finally, after much debate (that included a good deal of name calling by Zero), and after many revisions and reversions, he suggested that there was a connection between the Israeli government and the organizations that took over the publication of the Myths & Facts series that indicated that they were biased. I accepted this, as Zero seemed to know more about it than I. But then I discovered that Zero's and Ian's sources, e.g., Mattar, were just as associated with the PLO as Davis and Decter were with Israel. Something was fishy.

[The rest of my statement can be found here.]

I have not been involved in editing the article on the 1948 war at all. I have been involved in reverting deletions of sourced material by Zeq from the Palestinian exodus article where he persistently reverted material he objected to out of the article. All the other editors on the Talk page who expressed an opinion appeared to consider this material appropriate.

I believe that Zeq's approach to editing Wikipedia is highly problematic and results in disruption of articles as well as causing severe annoyance to other editors. My experience of Zeq (mainly on

is a prime example). Unfortunately I cannot see how this can be dealt with. In relation to the problem with coherence, which may be partly or wholly due to an incomplete mastery of the English language, Zeq appears unwilling to seek help or guidance from other editors. When it comes to matters of opinion or ideology, he reacts very badly to anyone who does not fully and unconditionally take his side. Zeq seems to have a genuine desire to contribute to Wikipedia, but his unwillingness to trust anyone else makes it hard to see how any mechanism can be found which will make his editing a more positive experience for himself as much as for others.

• I'm not sure. I'm minded to say "this is indeed policy; just implement it already, and ask on WP:AN/I or whatever for backup if you need it", but on the other hand, perhaps we should accept it to look as the policy violations apparently taking place. Would appreciate further commentry (esp. by other Arbitrators, or uninvolved parties). James F. (talk) 00:47, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Accept to examine all issues Fred Bauder 16:41, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Accept. Charles Matthews 11:52, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Accept, though to consider Ian Pitchford as well.
  t 17:13, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Accept. Mackensen (talk) 21:09, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Accept ➥the Epopt 03:16, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Accept. —Matthew Brown (T:C) 20:42, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Unrecuse. - SimonP 23:45, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1) For constant edit warring,

until the conclusion of this case.

Passed 6 to 0 at 05:01, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

All numbering based on /Proposed decision (vote counts and comments are there as well)

1)

.

Passed 10 to 0 at 09:40, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

2) Information used in articles, especially those whose content is contested, should be verified by reference to a reliable and scholarly source, see Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Reliable sources.

Passed 10 to 0 at 09:40, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

3) Users who disrupt the editing of articles by engaging in sustained aggressive point of view editing may be banned from the affected articles. In extreme cases they may be banned from the site.

Passed 10 to 0 at 09:40, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

1)

. Heptor only on 1948 Arab-Israeli War.

Passed 9 to 1 at 09:40, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Removal of well sourced material by Zeq

2) Zeq has removed well sourced material from Palestinian exodus, see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Zeq/Workshop#Removal of well sourced material by Zeq.

Passed 10 to 0 at 09:40, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

3) Zeq has engaged in sustained aggressive point of view editing of

.

Passed 8 to 0 at 09:40, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Edit warring by Ian Pitchford, Zero0000 and others

4) Ian Pitchford, Zero0000 and the others involved in this dispute have engaged in extensive edit warring.

Passed 10 to 0 at 09:40, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

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.

Zeq banned from articles he has disrupted and placed on Probation

1) Zeq is banned indefinitely from

.

Passed 10 to 0 at 09:40, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Zeq and Heptor cautioned regarding sources

2) Zeq and Heptor are cautioned to avoid using propagandistic sources.

Passed 10 to 0 at 09:40, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Zeq cautioned regarding removal of well sourced information

3) Zeq is cautioned to avoid removing information backed by reliable scholarly sources.

Passed 9 to 0 at 09:40, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Others cautioned

4) Ian Pitchford, Zero0000 and the others who were involved in this dispute are cautioned to use the procedures in

Wikipedia:Resolving disputes

.

Passed 10 to 0 at 09:40, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Enforcement

Enforcement of restrictions

0) Should any user subject to a restriction in this case violate that restriction, that user may be blocked, initially for up to one month, and then with blocks increasing in duration to a maximum of one year.

In accordance with the procedure for the standard enforcement provision adopted 3 May 2014, this provision did not require a vote.

In accordance with the procedure for the standard appeals and modifications provision adopted 3 May 2014, this provision did not require a vote.

Motion to ban Zeq for a week for creating an attack article regarding User:Homey (article has been deleted) diff will be available to Arbitration Committee members. Fred Bauder 21:57, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Fred Bauder 21:57, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support ➥the Epopt 23:06, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support.
  t 18:08, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Support. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 16:31, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. - SimonP 19:47, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. James F. (talk) 19:22, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Enacted (6-0) at 13:18, 18 August 2006 (UTC) (Tony Sidaway, clerk)

• 9 May, 2006, Tony_Sidaway (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) bans Zeq from Nakba Day under remedy 1, for tendentious editing, particularly removing well-sourced information [6].
  • Completely rescinded with apologies. --Tony Sidaway 15:11, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• 30 May 2006.
  Sean Black 02:26, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Rescinded upon discussion.--
    Sean Black 04:40, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• June 2, 2006 Sceptre blocked "Zeq (contribs)" with an expiry time of 48 hours (Vote-stacking). --Ben Houston 00:20, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• As blocking admin, I would like to note that it was for the AFD he had been temporarily banned from Will (^E_@) T 21:27, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above two lines are the same block, which was not "vote stalking" and has nothing to do to this arbCom case. Please remove them from here. Tnx. Zeq 12:54, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• June 6, 2006: as a result of an investigation resulting from this report, Tony Sidaway banned Zeq from editing the following articles:
  • Hafrada
  • Israeli apartheid (phrase)
    (or whatever name that article might end up having after the ongoing moves)
  • Israeli West Bank barrier
  • Apartheid (disambiguation)
  • He may still use the talk pages. He may not move the articles.
    • Note: These bans when imposed were time limited to end 5 March 2007. [10] [11] [12] [13]
      GRBerry 20:12, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
      ]

• July 2, 2006.
  Operation Summer Rains: failed to employ the article talk page after being instructed to do so ^([14]) to explain the contested additions, even after being reverted by two other editors. El_C 05:18, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• 16 August, 2006. El_C (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) banned from re-recreating contents in Metula Farms — copyvio of Haaretz. El_C 18:04, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• 18 August, 2006.
  Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs. El_C 18:04, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• 18 August, 2006. Cyde (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) blocked Zeq (talk · contribs) for one week on as per the above "Motion to ban Zeq for a week for creating an attack article regarding User:Homey". MER-C 13:36, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• 11 April, 2007. Zero0000 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) blocked Zeq for an initial period of 48 hours for continuing to make tendentious edits to 1929 Hebron massacre after being banned from that article on the authority of the above ruling. Also note his defiant response. --Zero^talk 07:30, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • As the article ban at
    Thatcher131 22:44, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]

• After further reviewing the recent history of
  Thatcher131 22:44, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Note my objections (here, and here). Note also that I am also inclined to block Zeq for alleging "discrimination" on Zero's part. I am awaiting a response, but if a block is issued, I will note it here and, unless told otherwise, will be counting it toward the 5 block limit. El_C 23:22, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify, so far I see one block by Cyde (18 August 2007) and a bunch of article bans. Do you concur or are there more?

Thatcher131 23:34, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

I concur. It looks like I misrecollected earlier on. Sorry for any confusion. El_C 23:38, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Since he refused to either substantiate or retract the "discrimination" accusation, I issued a 48 hr block. El_C 04:57, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

:::El-C has made the same mistake before[15] confusing a block with "Enforcement of bans". In the past he indicated that after 5 blocks he can block me for a year. This is wrong. The number 5 is used exculsivly in the case of blocks resulting from violation of "Enforcement of bans ". I have never edited any article on which I was issued a ban so El-C can stop issuing blocks with the hope to get to block #5. I respect any ban issued by an admin even when i don't agree with the ban so there was never any need to block me for a violation of a ban. (One exception: this does not include the ban by Zero now under ArbCom review).

I would appreciate if Zeq were to refrain from attributing motives to actions, or mistakes. El_C 20:31, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

:::::Fine. I only quoted what you wrote. Have no idea about your motives. Feel free to edit my comment if it is in any way offending you - there is no such intention. I just want to make sure you know the facts. Zeq 21:18, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• 22 October, 2007.
  Causes of the 1948 Palestinian exodus (a fork of Palestinian exodus) in violation of ArbCom probation conditions. Kaldari 16:38, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• 7 November, 2007.
  Causes of the 1948 Palestinian exodus and any future forks of the article Palestinian exodus (in case such a probation is not obvious). Kaldari 19:44, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• GRBerry 16:37, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]