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.

Involved parties

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

Statement by Ian Pitchford (talk · contribs)

I would be grateful if Wikipedia's policy that articles must cite credible sources could be enforced in the articles on the 1948 Arab-Israeli War and the Palestinian exodus. I have tried to get these two editors to abide by the policy without success. In this case the material being added to the articles is blatantly inappropriate and no credible sources have been cited at all, whilst that being deleted, (as for example, here), is quite clearly relevant, appropriate and well-sourced. I enjoy editing Wikipedia, but like most editors have limited time to spend on the project and don't want to waste the bulk of that time trying to make sure that editors comply with minimum standards. Is arbitration really the only way viable of making sure that policies are implemented? If so, I think it is going to be difficult to justify the time I spend on the project. --Ian Pitchford 20:09, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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]

Statement by Zeq

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).

Statement by Sean Black

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.--Sean|Black 22:37, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Heptor (talk · contribs)

The core of this dispute seems to be a quotation by the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, Amin al-Husayni. This mufti has collaborated with the Nazis during the WW2. Among other things he assisted in formation of Bosnian [Waffen_SS |Waffen SS]] troops who fought Yugoslav Partisans, 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 Sean Black. Interestingly enough, both he, me and Zeq concluded that a compromise has been reached. I implemented it here. However, Ian Pitchford and Zero 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 (an example from my talk page), violated the 3RR ( more on my talk page) and immediately afterwards asked to protect the article as it was after his fourth revert, threatened to quit editing Wikipedia, 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.

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.
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.
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]

Statement by Zero

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.
The 1948 Arab-Israeli War problem: Zeq and Heptor want to present it as a war of Israel versus genocidal fiends. To this end they found some alleged "quotations" of the Palestinian leader Amin al-Husayni during WWII (when he was a Nazi collaborator, which nobody denies). These quotes come from a book by a Haganah spokesman Pearlman and were repeated by a book by Revisionist Zionist and Arab-expulsion advocate Schectman. Both books are regarded as propagandistic by academic historians, and I gave an example of a provable lie in Pearlman's book. No other sources are known even though Ian Pitchford and I have scoured the academic literature. Moreover, when I went to a contemporary report of the radio broadcast in question, I found a 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.

Statement by Kriegman

[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.]

Statement by Palmiro

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 Israeli Arab but I have also observed his involvement in the Israeli West Bank barrier article) has been that he has repeatedly added material to articles that was either unsourced, confusing, or in one case lifted wholesale from (apparently) the website of the Israeli Ministry for Foreign Affairs. He has repeatedly refused to comply with requests to state his sources. He has edit-warred over the application of POV tags to articles. He has occasionally either denounced his own contributions as POV or reverted away from them, apparently unconsciously. His edits disrupt the coherence of articles (again Israeli Arab 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.

Preliminary decisions

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (6/0/0/1)

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. Dmcdevit·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]

Temporary injunction

Temporary bans from Palestinian exodus and 1948 Arab-Israeli War

1) For constant edit warring, Zeq (talk · contribs) and Ian Pitchford (talk · contribs) are banned from editing Palestinian exodus and 1948 Arab-Israeli War until the conclusion of this case.

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

Final decision

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

Principles

Dispute resolution

1) Edit warring is not acceptable. Disputes should be resolved by discussion, consultation of reliable resources, and by following the procedures in Wikipedia:Resolving disputes.