all proposed

After considering /Evidence and discussing proposals with other arbitrators, parties and others at /Workshop place proposals which are ready for voting here.

Arbitrators should vote for or against each point or abstain.

Only items that receive a majority "support" vote will be passed.
Items that receive a majority "oppose" vote will be formally rejected.
Items that do not receive a majority "support" or "oppose" vote will be open to possible amendment by any Arbitrator if she/he so chooses. After the amendment process is complete, the item will be voted on one last time.

Conditional votes for or against and abstentions should be explained by the Arbitrator before or after his/her time-stamped signature. For example, an Arbitrator can state that she/he would only favor a particular remedy based on whether or not another remedy/remedies were passed.

On this case, no Arbitrators are recused and 1 is inactive, so 13 Arbitrators are available, making 7 votes are a majority.

For all items

Proposed wording to be modified by Arbitrators and then voted on. Non-Arbitrators may comment on the talk page.

Motions and requests by the parties

Place those on /Workshop.

Proposed temporary injunctions

Four net "support" votes needed to pass (each "oppose" vote subtracts a "support")
24 hours from the first vote is normally the fastest an injunction will be imposed.

Temporary bans from Palestinian exodus and 1948 Arab-Israeli War

1) Enacted on 05:01, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

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.

Support:

Dmcdevit·t 06:06, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Since edit warring is still ongoing, yes. —Matthew Brown (T:C) 07:53, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fred Bauder 14:43, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Mindspillage (spill yours?) 14:48, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 22:05, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Charles Matthews 23:13, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Proposed final decision

Proposed 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.

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Verifiability and sources

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.

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Removal of well-sourced relevant material

3) It is unacceptable to remove relevant material from an article if its source is a scholarly work by an authority in the field.

Support:

Fred Bauder 21:08, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
SimonP 23:45, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
James F. (talk) 09:54, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sound principle, I would have a few quibbles. Charles Matthews 11:59, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Although obviously exceptions do apply, such as for forking articles. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 12:19, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Good in principle, but very easy to game; who decides what material is relevant, and who is a scholarly authority? In non-obvious cases we should try to stick to behavioural issues, they're much easier to judge. Jayjg ^(talk) 13:28, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
➥the Epopt 19:38, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Per Jayjg. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 22:56, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
More to it than that, I'd say. Dmcdevit·t 23:41, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tendentious editing

4) 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.

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Proposed findings of fact

Locus of dispute

Support:

Fred Bauder 21:08, 10 February 2006 (UTC). Corrected error Fred Bauder 19:16, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
SimonP 23:45, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
James F. (talk) 09:54, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Charles Matthews 11:59, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 12:19, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Mindspillage (spill yours?) 22:57, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
➥the Epopt 00:25, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Dmcdevit·t 23:41, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 17:56, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Heptor appears to have hardly edited the Palestinian exodus article; I count 5 edits over a period of 2 months. Jayjg ^(talk) 13:32, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~➥the Epopt 19:38, 21 February 2006 (UTC)~~[reply]

Abstain:

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.

Support:

Fred Bauder 21:08, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is also important to note that while other users removed some sourced material added by Zeq, this was material from highly dubious websites, and could not be considered "well sourced material." SimonP 23:45, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
James F. (talk) 09:54, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Charles Matthews 11:59, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 12:19, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Jayjg ^(talk) 13:33, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
➥the Epopt 19:38, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Mindspillage (spill yours?) 22:57, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Dmcdevit·t 23:41, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 17:56, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Tendentious editing by Zeq and Heptor

3) Zeq and Heptor (talk · contribs) have engaged in sustained aggressive point of view editing of 1948 Arab-Israeli War [1]. The issues involved are set forth at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Zeq/Evidence#Zeq and Heptor's Changes to 1948 Arab-Israeli War. See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Zeq/Workshop#Tendentious editing by Zeq and Heptor.

Support:

~~Fred Bauder 21:08, 10 February 2006 (UTC)~~ see Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Zeq/Proposed_decision#Heptor.27s_deletion_of_material Fred Bauder 04:42, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SimonP 23:45, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~James F. (talk) 09:54, 11 February 2006 (UTC)~~ As per Fred. James F. (talk) 20:36, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Charles Matthews 11:59, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 12:19, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Jayjg ^(talk) 13:33, 19 February 2006 (UTC)~~ As per Fred. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:04, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
➥the Epopt 19:38, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Mindspillage (spill yours?) 22:57, 22 February 2006 (UTC)~~[reply]

Oppose:

Dmcdevit·t 23:41, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

... just by Zeq

3.1) Zeq has engaged in sustained aggressive point of view editing of 1948 Arab-Israeli War [2]. The issues involved are set forth at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Zeq/Evidence#Zeq and Heptor's Changes to 1948 Arab-Israeli War. See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Zeq/Workshop#Tendentious editing by Zeq and Heptor. Heptor makes a credible claim that his edits were due to an oversight, see Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Zeq/Proposed_decision#Heptor.27s_deletion_of_material.

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

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.

Support:

Fred Bauder 21:08, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
SimonP 23:45, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
James F. (talk) 09:54, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Charles Matthews 11:59, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 12:19, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Jayjg ^(talk) 13:33, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
➥the Epopt 19:38, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Mindspillage (spill yours?) 22:57, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
(And I thinnk Heptor could have been included in here, too.) Dmcdevit·t 23:41, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 17:56, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

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.

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 Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Zeq#Log of blocks and bans.

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Heptor banned from articles he has disrupted and placed on Probation

2) Heptor is banned indefinitely from Palestinian exodus, and is placed on Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Zeq#Log of blocks and bans.

Support:

~~Fred Bauder 21:08, 10 February 2006 (UTC)~~[reply]

~~SimonP 23:45, 10 February 2006 (UTC)~~[reply]

~~James F. (talk) 09:54, 11 February 2006 (UTC)~~ Changed. James F. (talk) 20:36, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 12:19, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Remedy bans Heptor from the wrong article. Fred Bauder 18:08, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Heptor appears to have hardly edited the Palestinian exodus article; I count 5 edits over a period of 2 months. Jayjg ^(talk) 13:37, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
➥the Epopt 19:38, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Reviewing the edits, I'm changing my vote; I see some POV edits there, but not a pattern of disruption. Charles Matthews 19:43, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
SimonP 22:37, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
James F. (talk) 20:36, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Dmcdevit·t 23:41, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 17:56, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Mindspillage (spill yours?) 22:59, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

... from "1948 Arab-Israeli War" rather than "Palestinian exodus"

2.1) Heptor is banned indefinitely from 1948 Arab-Israeli War, and is placed on Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Zeq#Log of blocks and bans.

Support:

~~Fred Bauder 18:08, 16 February 2006 (UTC)~~[reply]

~~From both would not be a terrible idea. James F. (talk) 23:24, 16 February 2006 (UTC)~~ Changed. James F. (talk) 20:36, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

➥the Epopt 19:38, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Needs to edit with greater discernment. Charles Matthews 19:58, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Mindspillage (spill yours?) 22:59, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and the misconduct of others shouldn't really have bearing on how we interpret his misconduct. Dmcdevit·t 23:41, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Heptor's editing pattern on this article seems little different from those who opposed him, and certainly not enough to justify probation. Jayjg ^(talk) 13:37, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fred Bauder 04:44, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
James F. (talk) 20:36, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Zeq and Heptor cautioned regarding sources

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

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Zeq and Heptor cautioned regarding removal of well sourced information

4) Zeq and Heptor are cautioned to avoid removing information backed by reliable scholarly sources.

Support:

~~Fred Bauder 21:08, 10 February 2006 (UTC) edit by Heptor,~~ but see Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Zeq/Proposed_decision#Heptor.27s_deletion_of_material Fred Bauder 04:37, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SimonP 23:45, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~James F. (talk) 09:54, 11 February 2006 (UTC)~~ No longer. James F. (talk) 20:36, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Charles Matthews 11:59, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 12:19, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

I only see examples of Zeq doing this. The one example subsequently brought by Fred consists of both removing and adding sourced content, and was apparently done by accident, based on bad edit summaries of other editors. See alternative below. Jayjg ^(talk) 13:37, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
➥the Epopt 19:38, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fred Bauder 04:37, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Charles Matthews 19:53, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
James F. (talk) 20:36, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Dmcdevit·t 23:41, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

... just Zeq

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

Support:

Oppose:

~~I disagree; c.f. Fred's link, above. James F. (talk) 09:35, 23 February 2006 (UTC)~~[reply]
But see Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Zeq/Proposed_decision#Heptor.27s_deletion_of_material Fred Bauder 04:37, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Now changed. James F. (talk) 20:36, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Others cautioned

5) Ian Pitchford, Zero0000 and the others who were involved in this dispute are cautioned to use the procedures in Wikipedia:Resolving disputes.

Support:

Fred Bauder 21:08, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
SimonP 23:45, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
James F. (talk) 09:54, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Charles Matthews 11:59, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 12:19, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Jayjg ^(talk) 13:37, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
➥the Epopt 19:38, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Mindspillage (spill yours?) 22:59, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And both, Ian Pitchford in paticular, are getting off lightly with this. Dmcdevit·t 23:41, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 17:56, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Proposed enforcement

Enforcement by block

1) Enforcement of bans imposed under the remedies in this matter may be by brief block, up to a week in the case of repeated violations. After 5 blocks, the maximum block shall increase to one year. All blocks to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Zeq#Log of blocks and bans.

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Discussion by Arbitrators

General

Motion to close

Four net "support" votes needed to close case (each "oppose" vote subtracts a "support")
24 hours from the first motion is normally the fastest a case will close.

Close. Dmcdevit·t 04:48, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Close Fred Bauder 13:57, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
close close ➥the Epopt 13:57, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Close. Charles Matthews 14:17, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Close. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:19, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Close. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 17:56, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]