2275:, binding mediation is about "reaching an agreement that can be acceptable to everyone". I don't think anyone should be concerned whether I, as a party to the mediation, find a solution acceptable. The objective should be to reach an agreement that maximizes compliance with policies and guidelines whether I or anyone else likes it or not. It should be possible to demonstrate that it is a near-optimal solution based on evidence in the sources, not the happiness of the participants. Having watched this issue for years, it seems to me that it is not possible for some editors to agree to a solution that does not include the unattributed statement of fact in Knowledge's voice that "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel". No amount of evidence in the form of sources that present the information in ways other than a statement fact will persuade these editors that the inconsistency matters and is a policy violation. It's therefore not possible to reach "an agreement that can be acceptable to everyone" that also maximizes compliance with policies and guidelines at the moment. They are mutually exclusive and will remain so unless the behavioral issues are fixed and editors are forced to follow the rules. I can see mediation working if it had zero tolerance for various behaviors such as voicing a personal opinion on an issue rather than citing a source/repeatedly making demonstrably false statements/using original research/arguing from first principals etc and the editor was immediately removed from the mediation process. At the moment there is zero cost for behavior that disrupts the process of finding a solution that complies with policy. Until that changes so that this is only about the sources, the policies and the guidelines, I don't think mediation can resolve it.
3931:
seeking process. There is no need for either ArbCom or AE admins to get involved. As
Knowledge develops so we are ensuring that various forms of disruption can be dealt with. Knowledge does have problems with content disputes, but as a community we are working on ways that we can directly solve them. I don't feel that having ArbCom - which is a last resort mechanism - stepping in at this stage is sending out the right message to support and encourage the community to continue working on solving content disputes. The Committee could have allowed the community the opportunity to resolve this - so far there have been talkpage discussions, and two failed attempt at mediation (which requires all parties to agree - something that is not always possible), but there has been no RfC. In a case like this where there is no user misconduct, and insufficient attempt to engage the Knowledge community in resolving the issue has been made, coming to ArbCom is not appropriate. It's worth revisiting
2297:
reports I've watched but it goes back to at least
Archive34 and AE is currently on Archive127. What I haven't seen is evidence that complicated issues covered by ARBPIA like persistently biased editing, anything that could involve large amounts of evidence, can be handled at AE. AE hasn't dealt with issues like that for ARBPIA. It has been used to deal with technical violations/edit warring and editors who make patently disruptive edits in the topic area. If AE could deal with (and editors could be bothered to file reports about) the longer term more fuzzy behavioral issues, I don't think we would be here today. The only people who could survive in the topic area would be those who follow the rules and edit neutrally. I would like to see AE become a venue that could deal with these kind of issues but that would probably involve filing test cases (and a lot of drama).
2549:
things about the article have to change too. For example at present the infobox shows the
Israeli flag of Jerusalem, Israeli emblem for Jerusalem, the mayor of Jerusalem. These would all have to be changed along with huge amounts of the article if the small number of editors got their way and had the article act as though Jerusalem is not the capital and a city in Israel. Also none of those demanding change have produced evidence that a country cannot decide its own capital, or that a capital is dependent on international recognition. The international community officially do not recognise Jerusalem as the capital (something that is made clear) but there are numerous sources showing that Jerusalem does serve as Israels capital. Some countries do not recognise the fact the state of Israel even exists, we do not seek to say it may not exist in the first article of the
2791:
solution. For example: I don't want to spend hours discussing the issue. Nableezy not being invited would also be beneficial (he declined mediation but kept on arguing on the talk page) while others could also take a step back and let those without such passion hammer it out in a more structured, concise, cooler, and objective manner. An RfC might be fine but a select group of editors already involved might fix this in mediation. Conversely, people are going to argue over this issue no matter what the wording is so maybe the status quo is perfectly fine. The article might actually be sufficient as is and the issue is primarily talk page behavior instead of how the article currently comes across to the reader. I lean towards the former since there is nothing that cannot be improved.
2194:
comply with our policies and guidelines. It should be easy but it has not been possible, largely it seems because the information in the sources gets convolved with editor's personal opinions on the real world issues. If the only thing that came out of this was that it stopped editors from writing their personal opinions/personal analyses based on what they think they know about the real world issue without "utilizing reliable sources for contentious or disputed assertions" (to quote the discretionary sanctions) or what they think about other editors, it would be a huge leap forward. It's difficult to convey how low the signal to noise ratio is on that discussion page or how rarely people actually survey and look at how sources handle the contested status of
Jerusalem.
1748:
mind. Some people are going to hold fast to their positions that their opponents are guilty of blocking or filibustering or violating some policy. Some people are going to continually misstate their opponents' positions. Some people are going to continue to respond to straw-man arguments, and insist that the straw-man arguments be defended. I did not sign up for
Knowledge to be subjected to such abuse and stress, and it is a colossal waste of time, especially at this time of year, to be dodging that while discussing some text that has no importance or consequences on Knowledge, let alone in the real world, with people who care so much more about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. And without any third-party observation or intervention, this will continue.
2625:
already had participants who disagree with doing so at all. It's true that it's theoretically possible for the community to force people to abide by the result through extensive policing; in practice, the community has practically never had the patience or collective attention span (and collective attention span is a really hard thing to achieve in any case) to police it well enough. Coming from the perspective of an AE admin, I would generally be unwilling to enforce in cases like this without AE rules to back me up. So if you're convinced we don't need a binding RFC at all, fine, but please don't go down this road of "we don't need a motion, the community can do it itself". That position is not grounded in the reality of what
Knowledge is like.
2246:
the people there who actually does what they are supposed to do, surveys them and cites them in discussions. Of course I know that there are sources that say
Jerusalem is Israel's capital. Of course NMMNG knows that I know this because I have explicitly acknowledged it on several occasions and I have told him many times that there is diversity in the sources and that we have to deal with the mess. And NMMNG should know by now that I never pretend about anything. There is no possible justification for this kind of misrepresentation, no one should have to deal with it. It needs to stop. Is the example I gave above dismissive of the views expressed by the editor
2223:. Why is it problematic ? It ignores countless sources that present Israel's claim that Jerusalem (complete and united) is their capital as a claim, rather than presenting it as a statement of fact. The statement is predicated on the editor's personal view that it is a fact that "Jerusalem is israel's dejure and defacto capital", and it is that belief, not the data in the sources, that is used to make content decisions. Also, no one wants "to pretend that Jerusalem is not the capital of Israel". The issue is, as always, presenting a disputed claim as a unattributed statement of fact using Knowledge's narrative voice.
3073:
held their own auditions and applied for mediation in the normal way (e.g. to formulate an RfC question). I don't think there would be any clear benefit to ArbCom assuming this role. The risk, on the other hand, is that disputants may decide not to respect the outcome, on the grounds that ArbCom chose badly. For the
Muhammad RfC, the in-advance/when-the-time-comes issue was decided (by disputants) in favour of the former, so that editors would not be able to bypass the RfC and instead appeal directly to the closers. The decision here might be different, but I think it should not be a matter for ArbCom.
2690:), however I note that preference seems to be leaning towards holding a binding RFC as opposed to some other form of binding resolution (like mediation). If I could offer my thoughts on the matter, binding RFCs have been used now and then on Knowledge, with varying results. Some have success and bring peace, others are hopeless failures. Sometimes this is because the issue is so bitter that reconcilliation between editors is impossible, and the period in which an RFCs result is binding serves only as a brief ceasefire in a bitter war. In other situations (like the
2117:
the issue, the Arbcom will be able to say who is working in the global spirit of our wikipedia rules and who does not and it will be able to take a decision based on concrete facts. Doing so, we move forward, we don't need to dig the history of the articles and the discussions to prove this one or that one is the bad guy. We could even find a solution by ourselves because everybody knows that the Arbcom will just look at us. That is also a good opportunity to synthetize all arguments and refresh the discussions. And all in all, it is the more constructive.
2662:@SilkTork nooooo. Having been in a similar boat many years ago, a binding RFC is what is needed, and is what the committee can do here. Otherwise, there is nothing binding about the RFC if parties do not agree to it. But why would I think that they wouldn't agree to it? Because they didn't agree to mediation, for the exact same reason: what if they lose? Then they have to forfeit the right to argue endlessly and continue disrupting the subject area in the process, while trying to get what they want. --
3841:
Knowledge, so the need diminishes to have a restricted and exclusive system such as ArbCom. I wish to encourage that, and in general I feel that the current
Committee has also supported that view. Where the community can set up an RfC themselves I find it inappropriate for the Committee to set up a formal motion asking them to do that. More appropriate for us to simply reject this request with a note that the people involved can set up a RfC - which is what we normally do.
2169:: I may be right or I may be wrong in considering that contributors refuse to move forward constructively and WP:GAME the system. We can comply to WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF strictly but then nothing will evolve and this talk page will remain a WP:BATTLEFIELD (or a multi-players on-line game, whichever is the less childish). According to your point of view, how can we manage this contracdiction ? What community's principles give an answer to such a situation ?
2729:@ArbCom, my experience with the I/P articles is that people are reluctant to get involved because of the environment that exists in the topic area. The other thing I note is that the arbitration motion directs the community to set up the process, which in the past has had varying results. An RFC format is too free-form for a dispute of this nature. I think that mediation should be used to develop alternate proposed lede sections, like in the
1581:
and I'm sure I'm not alone in this -- am worried that if a compromise is struck again, there is no guarantee, without a third-party observer, that the editors involved in this discussion will drop it for good. I'm not confident an arbitration case will end this matter either, and I'm sure this time of the year and the ArbCom calendar is not ideal, but we need to try and I urge the
Arbitration Committee to consider this case. --
2021:
significant uninvolved input in this topic area? What do you think the chances are that this ends in anything other than a "no consensus" result? Is a "no consensus" result binding for 3 years? If so, does that mean that the current wording is enshrined for 3 years? If not, where would we be other than right back here? How would the RFC question be formulated? Why not binding mediation instead of a binding RFC?
2517:
with arbitration and not the wider problem. Firstly we have in recent months seen a number of attempts to change the article, some of which have not been specific proposals, merely the fact some editors believe the current article introduction is wrong. There have been clear opposition to proposals and more editors times seem to support the current wording than any change, let alone a specific change.
2766:
would be willing to do so. I am not asking ArbCom to order mediation, but if the only option is a bad one (and I rarely talk out against ArbCom, but I only do so in this instance because I feel that throwing this dispute into an RFC in the deep end would be a bad idea) - then it should be passed back to the community.
2611:
result of such a process would be honoured. The naming of Macedonia-related articles was dealt with by an RFC mandated by the committee itself and has as such been clearly enforceable. Leaving it to the community to sort it out without ArbCom's authority tends to lead to more and more discussion with no results.
2953:" determines that all legislative and administrative measures and actions taken by Israel, the occupying Power, which have altered or purport to alter the character and status of the Holy City of Jerusalem, and in particular the recent 'basic law' on Jerusalem, are null and void and must be rescinded forthwith."
1629:", "racist", and "hatikvah brigade" (to say nothing of the standard "Israeli POV-pushers") have been thrown around recently. A second notable issue is that Dailycare is now arguing against the current wording, saying that cannot have consensus because it's not supported by policy-based reasons -- despite
1527:
months, the issue has been rekindled with a fire and desperation like never before. While there have been more than ninety threads on this matter, at least four RfCs, and at least two attempts at mediation (both rejected, including one rejected just this month), we have been left with zero ends in sight.
3190:
There is a good point below -- is there enough misconduct to justify the time spent on a case, or can we get to the point quicker, and where a case would surely end up, by ordering a binding RFC by motion as we have done in cases with similar problems in the past? (Abortion, Ireland, Muhammad Images,
3072:
Noting the suggestion that RfC closers should be appointed in advance. I don't strongly mind if this happens, but in past successful binding RfCs (e.g. VnT, Muhammad), these details have been left to disputants and have not been imposed by anyone. Editors have put out their own "adverts" for closers,
1902:
because it will never happen. The unreliability and poor quality of articles on the Arab-israeli conflict will be a permanent feature of wikipedia for decades to come. As long as prominent notices alert the reader to the manipulations of the more active/effective side (currently Israeli nationalists)
1747:
I really don't give a shit anymore. When whatever process or medium is set up to resolve this issue once and for all, feel free to ping me and I will provide my input as appropriate. But, until then, I have no interest in the proceedings here and on the talk page. No one is going to change his or her
1724:
Once again regarding the binding RfC: If you all are going to leave this with suggesting a binding RfC, can one of you at least provide the framework for it? Perhaps a small group of administrators could be charged with unanimously agreeing on its conclusion and paying attention to it to some extent?
3767:
I've given this a lot of thought, and I think this is the best solution. Ideally, mediation would have netted a good result, but I hold out little hope of successful mediation given the entrenched positions involved; further, I think it is far outside of our scope to pressure MedCom to accept a case
2586:
Second, arbitrator SirFozzie has suggested "binding arbitration" as a solution. I would strongly support such an approach if one existed. But, as far as I know, there is no such thing as binding arbitration (am I wrong?). The latest attempt at arbitration failed because not all the parties agreed to
2582:
First, editors and arbitrators who are looking for a permanent solution to this problem should be disabused: there is no permanent solution, because the situation is not permanent. The political forces affecting Jerusalem's status are constantly changing, and the article should reflect that. What we
2245:
Thank you NMMNG, that is another example of a behavioral issue, misrepresentation, NMMNG saying that I am "pretending the people they disagree with do not base their views on reliable sources, which is patently false and obviously dismissive." Of course I know what the sources say because I'm one of
2020:
I dont know if any of the arbs are reading this or not, or anything else, but in the hopes that you are could I ask that you play this out and answer a few questions? What brief, neutral statement could possibly exist that would summarize this dispute? What do you think the chances of an RFC getting
1777:
I support this request for arbitration. We've been to formal mediation twice (or, more exactly, twice the formal mediation didn't go ahead due to incomplete assent). Overall editors have been discussing the issue for years with RFCs and threads. Progress in content has been glacial to put it gently,
1658:
Some pointers that would clear the air. Do the user conduct issues have weight? Is there "blocking"? Are some people breaking a compromise? What does a compromise mean? I understand ArbCom doesn't rule on content, but I would hope that you could rule on the framework that would allow this dispute to
3840:
I can't speak for the person who opened this case request, though I have noticed that sometimes people request ArbCom assistance earlier than unnecessary. As the community develops dispute resolution procedures which are open to all and can be managed in the open, collegiate manner which epitomizes
3802:
The community should not be asked or directed by ArbCom - particularly in regard to content matters. The community are quite capable of opening a RfC by themselves. I have already offered to assist in closing an RfC as an independent admin, but I feel it would be inappropriate for me to do so if it
3100:
Sent by me to the clerks' mailing list, a moment ago: "Dear clerks, You will notice that it is now mathematically impossible for the Jerusalem RFAR to be accepted. However, an arbcom-l thread regarding this case request is pending, and we are waiting to hear back from one arbitrator on a particular
2790:
The talk page has obviously failed. Editors are filibustering to the point that it is almost as disruptive as edit warring and it appears that no one wants to budge out of fear of hurting their cause. As mentioned on the talk page, a request for mediation with certain parties not invited could be a
2765:
case, the case closed at the end of November 2011, but wasn't opened until the end of February, after being set up by yours truly. The wording of the proposed motion below asks the community to set up and hold an RFC on the issue. But given the nature of the dispute, I have to wonder whether anyone
2590:
Nishidani and others are right that this case is outside the formal purview of the arbitration committee. I would suggest, however, that this is a time for you to take a bold step, live by the spirit of the fifth pillar, ignore all rules, and accept this case. To do otherwise would be to admit that
2548:
So theres no case based on Knowledge policies, and no case based on sources for the change they propose. Also there is a third problem that is often overlooked. If we are to change the article to pretend that Jerusalem is not the defacto and dejure capital of Israel (and in Israel), then many other
2528:
Certain editors are insistent that the article introduction be changed to treat Palestine and Israels current situation in regards Jerusalem as entirely equal. That is not the case, and if we tried to treat them as equal it would be giving clear undue weight to the Palestinian POV. Jerusalem is the
2524:
The other two problems are content issues. The current wording is neutral and balanced. It states that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel but that this is not internationally recognised. That is accurate and balanced, and was a significant change prior to two years ago when the introduction did not
2520:
Those of us supporting the status quo (which was based on the compromise agreed around two years ago) have on a number of occasions been accused of breaking the rules or doing something wrong, merely for supporting the status quo. So one thing Arbcom could probably help with is reinforcing the fact
2327:
Writing that recent discussions have been 'rekindled with a fire and desperation like never before', is hyperbole, and would appear hysterical were it not from the fact that that is not Tariq's style. Very level headed people (not myself) have honestly tried to work out a compromise and met a stone
2148:
At least 3 arbitrators suggest a '(binding) RfC' closed by a designed independant editor/admin. This was tried in the past and suggested that 3 admins close such RfC. But the contributors could never be found. Given they are not involved and it seems there is a a least consensus to refer to ArbCom,
2116:
I would propose the following to the ArbCom. Don't analyse the past but let's see the good will of contributors to solve this "under the eyes of the ArbComs". Let's create a page of discussion where a few contributors will intervene and let's see how it moves forward. If we don't succeed in solving
1859:
says this). In this sense if editors just show up to say no, they couldn't force a "no consensus" result. The edits could even be done in rounds, so that each editor can contribute one comment in "round one", which is then followed by "round two" and "round three". This may in fact sound a bit like
3309:
What specific allegations of misconduct are you making? Tariq's initial statement mentions a number of different accusations made by a number of people towards a number of people, but doesn't seem to make any claims of his own. Dailycare's also alleges misconduct, but not by any specific user, and
3125:
I wish to point out, that the initial question of this subject was the both part of this sentence. Those two parts namely "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel" and "although not internationally recognized as such" were equally but separately viewed as they are already balanced. Numerous sources are
2643:
I've been thinking about the same thing for days, and Heimstern beat me to it. What makes the binding RFC binding is ArbCom's say-so. Otherwise, one of the parties won't agree to it just as they wouldn't agree to the mediation, and the whole thing will be a wash. You need at least a motion for it.
2556:
So again, im not convinced arbitration is the right way forward, but if there was a ruling that editors are entitled to oppose proposals and support the status quo, it would at least help bring to an end some of the dismissive tones by those demanding the change, as though we have no right to take
2516:
I am not convinced that Arbitration on this matter is the right way forward although i agree with a lot of what Tariqabjotu has said. There are three primary problems at present it seems to me and as Arbcom does not usually rule on content matters only one aspect of the situation might be resolved
2480:
We have Dailycare, who agreed to the current wording as a compromise only to come back later, challenge it, POV tag it, change it while declaring he has "consensus by default" because whoever doesn't agree with him is part of the "hatikva brigade" and their views are not valid. Now he pretends the
1929:
I dont honestly see what an ArbCom case would do to resolve this issue. There hasnt been any edit-warring, or at least nothing on the scale as to require a case to resolve, and while the talk page may be a bit uncomfortable it hasnt reached a point that the standard discretionary sanctions couldnt
1909:
The bad acting partisans are intelligent calculating and don't give a hoot about wikipedia and are acting based on nationalistic motivations. So the realistic energy-optimal strategy towards them is not confrontation or arbitration but containment. Anyone who thinks the interests of their precious
1751:
MedCom rejected this issue. ArbCom has rejected it. Some aren't even sure this needs some direction. I'm sorry, but if that's the way the Knowledge community feels about this, if a hundred threads over nine years, with the current talk page containing more than 500KB of heated text from at least a
1725:
Perhaps you could dictate where and how the RfC is advertised (if at all) to gain a broad section of the community? Binding RfCs don't generally come organically (especially as very little is truly "binding" around here) and, as you've seen, seemingly permanent resolutions have not really held. --
1580:
So I'm calling the bluff, requesting that these accusations (and any other issues) be considered. Unaddressed, any sort of resolution is impossible, as it is impossible to discuss with people who believe your every word is in bad faith and intended to push a point of view. Further, I personally --
1555:
Unsurprisingly, this has fostered an environment in which the improbable has been rendered impossible. Several people from both sides (myself included) have said that even attempting to discuss this matter with one or more adversaries is a waste of time. A few editors have stated that there are no
3749:
In reply to the suggestion that we order mediation or binding mediation: I have deep reservations about the "binding mediation" system, which has never helped to resolve a dispute, and I am opposed to compelling the Mediation Committee to mediate a dispute that they have already decided would not
3529:
must be the most important considerations. The editors who choose to participate in this discussion are asked to form an opinion with an open mind, and to explain their decision clearly. Any editor who disrupts this discussion may be banned from the affected pages by any uninvolved administrator,
3410:
as this is a content dispute (which is now spilling out onto this case request), and such a dispute is best sorted via a RfC where it is agreed at the start that it will be closed by a named independent admin, and that the outcome will be binding on all users, and can only be changed by a further
3395:
I'd like the parties to answer whether they think a binding RfC would be a good venue to attempt a more enforced compromise. As mentioned in the statements, this is a relatively "simple" question in terms of the actual content that is the source of the dispute--and ArbCom wouldn't and couldn't be
2705:
I agree with what Nableezy said about a binding RFC being a bad idea. This situation seems to be too entrenched for anything except a split vote to occur, with minimal community input due to the contentious nature of the dispute, ending with a result of no consensus. Binding mediation has no real
2610:
Arbs who are suggesting a binding RFC or mediation, are you going to make a motion mandating one? If not, I can't see how this is going to happen. Number one, there's no guarantee the parties will make an agreement to such a method, and number two, without ArbCom's stamp, there's no guarantee the
1526:
explaining the controversy. In October 2010, a (further?) compromise was struck that called for noting immediately after the contested point that Jerusalem's status as capital is not widely recognized. While that seemed to maintain calm for the better part of both 2011 and 2012, over the past few
3054:
Perhaps two discussions should be held, one on how to observe the neutrality policy and one on the actual wording, with the former being the more necessary. Some previous discussions have ended with a show of hands on who thinks that it´s a fact that Jerusalem is Israel's capital, subverting the
2624:
SilkTork, yes, it is absolutely true that the community can call RFCs on its own. What it cannot do is make them binding. You ask for people to agree that the result will be binding. That will not happen willingly in heated national/ethnic disputes like this one, it simply will not. Notice we've
2296:
Casliber, you said "reports of transgressions should be brought to Arbitration Enforcement". I see this kind of comment quite often but do you have any evidence based reason to believe that AE can handle it ? I don't. I've been editing in the ARBPIA topic area for years. I don't know how many AE
3930:
For Heim: The community have already set up provision for ensuring that a consensus decision is enforced without having to resort to ArbCom. An uninvolved admin can block a user who consistently and disruptively refuses to comply with a clear consensus decision or who disrupts a valid consensus
3160:
We need better management of case requests. Something is very wrong when an experienced administrator has an expletive-containing hissy fit after the arbitration committee refuses to take a case related to an intractable dispute. Would you all please stop abdicating your responsibilities: you
3038:
Israeli position outside Knowledge, ignoring the counter-arguments and falsifying the position of what is commonly referred to as the international community. A set of double standards has been applied in order to minimise, or avoid, mentioning the Palestinian position on Jerusalem in the Lead.
2455:
East Jerusalem to become part of the state of Israel.' is the only way that sentence could be redeemed, since it is an (improbable) hypothetical astutely rephrased as a combination of a factitious 'fact' and an improbable conditional outrider, since the resident Palestinian majority of the East
2193:
I agree with much of what Pluto2012 has said. The content issue is embarrassingly simple to resolve in principal because it is about correcting a basic error. Many sources have already solved it in ways that comply with our policies. All that is required is for editors to follow the sources and
3915:
I'll note that I originally opposed the wording that passed in the Muhammad Images case, and while I'm not repudiating my oppose in that case, and some of my objections to the wording apply equally well to this case, I'm also mindful that the wording and the ensuing process was accepted by the
3250:
I also await statements, but I note the apparent failure of community-bred compromise to hold for any great length of time, and I consider that failure to indicate that an arbitration case may be necessary. The failure of previous attempts at mediation is particularly concerning, and I welcome
3037:
a fact that Jerusalem is Israel's capital. Therefore, what looks as though it should be a trivial matter to fix, has taken on the dimensions of an ideological struggle. To support their position, editors taking the Israeli view have advanced identical, partisan arguments to those advancing the
3023:
Given the above, I cannot see how "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel" is not a seriously contested assertion and that making it in the Lead of the article does not, therefore, breach the neutrality policy. In fact, the first sentence in the Lead doesn't even properly summarise the body of the
1854:
One way to make any binding RFC more useful could be to limit the number of responses to three per editor. Each editor could then lay out his case in these three edits, and the closing admins could then assess the relative merits of the arguments to assess whether the proposal on the table has
2408:
appears to be deftly sidestepped here have endeavoured over several years to find a more balanced formula, in which the clash here between truth propositions that contradict each other would be replaced with a perspectival phrasing that clarifies neutrally the competing claims. The issue is
2323:
I concur with Pluto's suggestions and Sean.Hoyland's follow up remarks, though I think Nableezy has made the right technical call, unfortunately, because it's realistic enough to appreciate that there is no clear behavioural issue in the extensive discussions that would call for the kind of
1530:
The impetus for this mediation is less a direct accusation of misconduct by some of my adversaries, but more a request to consider the accusations made by them. Over the past few weeks, there have been an increasing number of accusations from them that some people are "blocking" any sort of
3027:
In line with the neutrality policy, editors have been asked to modify the Lead so that it either states something that it is not disputed, such as that Jerusalem is the declared capital of Israel or that it is the capital under Israeli law, or that it represents the claim that Jerusalem
3618:
With two caveats, as there is no decision in the usual sense, the disc. sanctions should refer back to the I/P case; and 2) we should likely decide who the closers are going to be now so they can guide and supervise the RFC instead of being thrown a megabyte of text in a couple months.
1646:
I'm not sure what you mean by "in which members of the entire community participated". Are you suggesting some sort of RfC that actively attracts members from outside the Israeli-Palestinian topic area? Or is this nothing beyond a normal RfC? If you were thinking of the latter, neither
3032:
the capital as the Israeli point of view. Nobody is particularly exercised over the form of words used, so long as the neutrality policy is adhered to. However, ignoring the Knowledge definition of what a fact is, it is an article of faith with editors taking the Israeli view that it
2701:
for mediation when fourteen out of the sixteen listed participants who commented on the case (out of a total nineteen) accepted the request (and the requirements of acceptance was changed earlier this year to not require unanimous acceptance), but nevertheless, what's done is done.
2328:
wall, but manners (AGF compliancy) have been almost impeccable. Just for the record, the humongous threads may be summed up in a thumbail form (Knowledge#Jerusalem-lead for dummies), which you can without offense take as a time-saving device to avoid reading those massive archives.
1963:
without once providing a cause. You cannot refuse to discuss the content and then complain that it was never discussed. What is this, kindergarten? No I wont play soccer. No I wont play basketball. I wont talk about what game to play. Teacher! They're playing football without me!!!!
2331:
There are two deeply problematical assertions in the lead, problematical because the form they take, is, per sources, self-contradictory, and represent poor compromises because of their clumsiness, which confuses two POVs with two facts, while pretending their is no POV problem.
2848:. What we need is an entrance fee. Every time someone feels the need to file such a case they need to cough up, say, 70$ (I dunno, give it to the Wikimedia Foundation, or better yet, some charity). Every time someone feels like they must comment on the case, it's 10 smackeroos.
2706:
precedent that I know of, but it may be what's needed. For what it's worth, I'd be happy to mediate such a dispute - I think I'd be able enough to do so. But it all comes down to what's best for the dispute. I'd suggest mediation, failing that, a salted earth remedy like the
2855:
That way, if there's a truly serious problem which really is deserving of a case, the person or persons concerned will be perfectly willing to cough up the cash, forkout the funds, bankroll the blocks. If it's the standard frivolous bullshit, they'll think twice about
556:
1552:). These accusations have been countered by allegations that some are pushing the Palestinian POV, reminding them the current formulation is the result of the October 2010 discussion (in which some of the current proponents of change were actually participants).
1752:
dozen editors, only necessitate rejection, the weakest of imperatives, and the suggestion from an elected member of the most powerful committee on Knowledge that this matter might have been brought to its attention "earlier than necessary", well, forgive me for
2056:
That's my mind and indeed the situation is contested except that I personnaly cannot believe any more in the good faith of some other editors. If we would apply the rules of NPoV quietly (ie just referring to what reliable sources state) that would be easy to
1930:
deal with. If this were to be accepted as a case, the outcome would likely follow the pattern of you banning anybody who knows anything about the dispute, resulting in a new group of partisans arguing on an even lower level. The Knowledge way, tried and true.
1598:
P.S. I didn't know where precisely to stop with naming parties. I tried to only list people that were recently active in this dispute so as not to unnecessarily drag people in, but people who would like to be apart of this could presumably add themselves. --
1560:
because of that. In recent days, it seems like there has been focus on a particular wording that mentions, but distinguishes between, Israeli and Palestinian claims, but some are still arguing that's not far enough. Throughout, there have been
2002:
Please listen to Steven. And would a "no consensus" RFC be binding for three years as well? Binding mediation would be an exponentially better method to resolve this dispute. RFCs in this topic area rarely get meaningful uninvolved comments.
1620:
It was intentional to not make any accusations; I (and others who support the current wording) am more the target of accusations than one making them. However, some of their statements, in the course of making their accusations, suggest a
305:
3055:
principle that, in Knowledge, facts are based on sources, not editors's opinions. A bit of regard for policies would be nice. On the question of whether there have been any behavioural issues, I'd say, definitely yes, nine years worth.
2532:
Yet a few editors are demanding the introduction say Jerusalem is the Capital of Israel and Palestine. When I challenged one of the editors demanding the change to provide sources for this claim saying it would help justify the proposal
1440:
3396:
saying what version is correct or proper, so it would be a lot of time and energy that might be better spent at RfC rather than ArbCom. Alternatively, I'd like to see all parties provide more examples of serious behavioral problems.
1679:
In response to the suggestion by one of the ArbCom members, I'm perfectly happy with a binding mediation (or RfC), but as you see, voluntary mediation didn't work and I don't think mediation could be made involuntary otherwise. --
301:
395:
413:
389:
2961:"that all legislative and administrative measures and actions taken by Israel which purport to alter the status of Jerusalem, including expropriation of land and properties thereon, are invalid and cannot change that status."
2413:. Every suggestion that tries to address this has failed, in the face of a resolute preference for the text more or less as it stands, which, some argue, privileges the Israeli POV by prioritizing its basic claims as facts (
1782:
behaviour involved, and frustration has manifested as uncivility in the long discussions. This does, of course, relate to a significant real-life controversy that arouses strong passions so this shouldn't be surprising.
297:
289:
2697:), the structure of the discussion/vote is the cause of downfall. I would suggest mediation to be the better alternative, under the guidance of an experienced mediator. I am quite surprised that the Mediation Committee
2685:
The issue at hand is no doubt a complex one which has been an issue almost since the inception of Knowledge. Some community members and arbitrators have suggested a method of binding content resolution for this dispute
2529:
defacto, and dejure capital of Israel, rightly or wrongly that is indisputably the situation, although the future status of the city is certainly part of the dispute and that is already explained in the introduction.
2927:
Some history: after the 1967 War, the UN passed a series of resolutions stating that any current or past unilateral Israeli attempts to change the status of Jerusalem, East and West, were invalid, including Israel's
3712:
Yes, worth trying. I've made a small copy-edit, echoing Courcelles above. That is changing "under the discretionary sanctions authorised in this decision" to "under the discretionary sanctions already authorised in
2151:
Anyway, I still think a 'binding mediation' eg by the same 3 could be much more efficient. If this mediation could be done on a dedicated page to which we could refer in case of failure, that would even be better.
2591:
the Knowledge way has failed: that there are some topics about which we cannot write objectively, and that there are content disputes so intractable that the collaborative editing approach is doomed to failure. --
3935:
to see the suggestions that are made, which have not been explored in this case, and to note that ArbCom is seen as the last resort. And so that it is clear that I am not shifting responsibility elsewhere, I had
293:
285:
3601:
3351:
as a primarily content-based dispute. I would also suggest a binding RFC to resolve this matter. If it can be demonstrated that there is misconduct preventing discussion beyond the issue of the introduction to
2851:
If you wanna translate this into Wikipdia-costs, then make it an automatic week long block for filing a case, and a day block for commenting. Standard procedure, no stigma, you just got to lay off for awhile.
2993:"... no state has sovereignty over Jerusalem. The UK believes that the city's status has yet to be determined, and maintains that it should be settled in an overall agreement between the parties concerned."
3301:
Just to make it clear up front, the Committee will not rule on the content-based part of the dispute (although I don't think the filer expects that); we will only review the allegations of misconduct. I'm
3714:
3531:
1470:
281:
3141:
etc. So if this sources without any dispute point out that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel, our lead is at least already balanced with the negation of this claim through "international community" --
2108:
I think that a part of the problem is that too many people intervene. No discussion can evolve because it goes in all directions and people do not answer to others'arguments and everything turns around.
1837:
4) An RFC would fail if the same group of editors can "just say no" to prevent an outcome as are saying no currently to prevent an outcome. If this possibility is somehow controlled, an RFC might work.
437:
1706:
after it was reverted out). Other than that, I can't imagine needing to elaborate further; the tone and contents of some of the statements here speak for themselves... as I expected and intended. --
1446:
3734:) we will appoint "supervising administrators" for the discussion soon after the implementation of this motion, not immediately before a decision about the result of the discussion is to be made.
3317:
2730:
2094:
2918:"Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources."
2484:
Pluto accuses whoever disagrees with him of gaming the system, as if having an opinion and stating it is some kind of sneaky underhanded attempt to play wikipedia's rules in order to corrupt it.
1643:
Perhaps. Someone even suggested to meet that that might be a good/better course of action. But, I'm not convinced an admin would have the courage to act on accusations that aren't very concrete.
426:
273:
3534:. The discussion will be closed by three uninvolved, experienced editors, whose decision about the result of the discussion will be binding for three years from the adoption of this motion.
2760:
2521:
people are free to support the status quo, and that a change should only take place if there is a consensus. Not a change imposed by a minority of editors seeking to push aside objections.
3356:
I may reconsider (and I would again ask for answers to the questions above, which most people seem to be ignoring), but I'm gathering from the statements so far that this is not the case.
3170:
2401:
In both these sentences, (a) an ostensibly factual proposition is asserted, and (b) then challenged as not true. The Israel POV is first asserted as a fact, and then denied as a fact.
2080:
A side is WP:GAMING the system in refusing any evolution of a pov-ed sentence based on the fact it has been in the article for months. I assume the other think that we are biaised (?).
3521:, with a specific emphasis on the lead section and how Jerusalem is described within the current, contested geopolitical reality. As with all decisions about content, the policies on
727:
3471:
2219:"Oppose this wording. "claims" again this goes back to the suggestions we add proclaimed capital. If we are going to pretend that Jerusalem is not the capital of Israel.." etc.
450:
402:
142:
130:
2879:
point-of-view pushing. Since about 2007, I've participated in a couple of the futile, labyrinthine and archive-spanning attempts to change it by means of talkpage discussion.
3547:
146:
126:
2988:
138:
3185:
1906:
Ravpapa nicely states it as " there are some topics about which we cannot write objectively" This I think is absolutely correct and I believe the failure is inevitable.
540:. Then click the button below. Complete the instructions quickly; requests incomplete for over an hour may be removed. Consider preparing the request in your userspace.
2494:
1518:, discussions have raged on the talk page regarding the point in the lead that the city is the capital of Israel and, to a lesser extent, that it's the capital of the
1074:
548:
365:
2882:
That the current wording violates Knowledge's neutrality principle has been shown (and ignored) time after time in the nine years that the current wording has stood.
2754:
1648:
536:
349:
1874:
I hope the 'withdrawing' of the filing party doesn't affect the rfc plan. There is clearly need to move this issue forward, we've had a few normal rfcs already.
3101:
point of discussion. Therefore, please do NOT archive this case request until further notice. I've copied this instruction to the on-site clerk notes section."
2542:(which is what they have been demanded be added to the article).. the editor in question all but admits there are not the sources to back up such a statement.
2042:
I wrote on the Talk page that I would ask the ArbCom to study the issue if we could not find a way to move forward on the article. Tariqjabotku did it before.
2999:
Jerusalem as the seat of government, rather than capital, of Israel (and East Jerusalem as the intended seat of government of Palestine). Another concerned a
2215:
Arbitrators asked for an example of behavioral issues. Here is one that just happened. It's typical, so I'm by no means singling out this particular editor.
511:
2502:
2779:
2746:
2490:
Sean and Nishidani pretending the people they disagree with do not base their views on reliable sources, which is patently false and obviously dismissive.
3786:
3381:
As this case stands, I would suggest binding mediation or binding RfC, I'm not seeing enough "misconduct" to warrant a lengthy arbitration case hearing.
2915:"NPOV is a fundamental principle of Knowledge and of other Wikimedia projects. This policy is nonnegotiable and all editors and articles must follow it."
1736:
1717:
1691:
1670:
1610:
1522:. Around April 2007, just before the article achieved FA status (yes, I know, unbelievable), it was decided that the point would be settled by inserting
3402:
3725:
3207:
3195:
2674:
2105:
Would an RFC on the lead section, in which members from the entire community participated, work to bring a compromise to the central issue of content?
1919:
3886:
3664:
3390:
3323:
Would an RFC on the lead section, in which members from the entire community participated, work to bring a compromise to the central issue of content?
1910:
nation is more important than wikipedia should be barred from editing it. In lieu of that poor quality tagged dispute ridden articles will have to do.
3636:
3623:
3448:
3425:
3339:
3229:
2632:
2465:
2178:
2161:
1883:
1869:
1849:
611:
Under no circumstances should you remove requests from this page, or open a case (even for accepted requests), unless you are an arbitrator or clerk.
3649:
3954:
3925:
3855:
3835:
3817:
3707:
3687:
3465:
3369:
3243:
2569:
2456:
Jerusalem population refused Israeli citizenship. Of course, as such it has no place in the lead, nor in the text, being a conjectural speculation.
2013:
1974:
1091:
3777:
3540:
For this motion there are 13 active arbitrators, not counting 1 recused. With 0 arbitrators abstaining, 7 support or oppose votes are a majority.
2525:
mention at all the international community view in the first sentence, because it is handled in detail in another paragraph of the introduction.
3265:
2250:? I hope so. I'm not interested in what editors think is true, I'm only interested in what the sources say and how we can deal with that data.
1640:
I don't edit in other parts of this conflict, and only recently (in October) returned to this article after a two-year hiatus. So, I don't know.
2822:
2723:
2313:
2291:
2266:
2239:
2210:
1767:
172:
115:
67:
3744:
2471:
1592:
1498:
755:
633:
3613:
2545:. Not only did they never provide the sources requested, none of the other editors demanding change stepped in to provide sources either.
2053:, applied in good faith by editors striving to reach a neutral statement describing a contested reality, is supposed to prevail. (Jclemens)
1947:
Tariq, that last comment is patently untrue. The formulation was discussed, the exact sentences and sequences were brought to the talk page
2656:
1822:. The latter edits were made by an editor who is an administrator of the project, unless I'm mistaken. (Further examples are easy to find).
3000:
1698:
One more revision to my answer to Question 1 comes by looking at the recent edit history. A formulation that was never discussed was just
1428:
3760:
3292:
3165:
2426:
2131:
1792:
1652:
803:
2100:
I don't think sanctionning anybody could solve anything. WP:GAMING or WP:WIKILAWYERING cannot be solved by any "discretionary sanction".
591:
3150:
3082:
3062:
3048:
2031:
1995:
1940:
1893:
544:
574:
534:
Requests may be referred to as "case requests" or "RFARs"; once opened, they become "cases". Before requesting arbitration, read the
2805:
2800:
2753:@ArbCom, I'm aware that ArbCom cannot order mediation. They can, however, encourage for such a thing to take place (this was done in
2600:
1187:
1085:
2618:
2511:
2487:
Alertboatbanking, a pretty obvious sock which the resident "sockslayers" don't care about because he supports the result they want.
2409:
resolvable by using the word 'claim' for both parties in (A). (B) should not be in the lead since it is based on a highly dubious
3220:, applied in good faith by editors striving to reach a neutral statement describing a contested reality, is supposed to prevail.
2392:
Israel’s largest city (since the assertion includes East Jerusalem which in international law is outside of the state of Israel).
3916:
committee and the community, and thus prefer to repeat what has worked, rather than try and invent a substantially new remedy.
3476:
The community is asked to hold a discussion that will establish a definitive consensus on what will be included in the article
3203:
as a full case, though I support a motion ordering a binding RFC, and agree a motion is necessary to actually make it binding.
3012:
2680:
2188:
1139:
1043:
947:
899:
749:
598:
466:
669:
531:
lists the other, escalating processes that should be used before arbitration. The committee will decline premature requests.
1630:
1477:
1283:
1235:
995:
590:). This includes your replies to other users. To request an extension, either make the request in your statement section or
2638:
1322:
851:
797:
101:
47:
1981:
Binding mediation would be a good idea. I dont think an RFC would be a good idea for this, its too involved an issue for *
3937:
3155:
2318:
2037:
1772:
1364:
615:
134:
3111:
3120:
3067:
2870:
2493:
I assume ZScarpia will be here shortly to try to chill his opponents with threats, and we'll have a perfect microcosm.
1924:
1181:
1418:
3011:
subsequently updated its style guide so that it no longer calls Tel Aviv Israel´s capital, instaed just stating that
2785:
2574:
1109:
691:
637:
328:
1328:
2670:
2652:
2324:
corrective punishment Tariq's outline seems to suggest. Arbcom's remit is not to fix impossibly compromised pages.
1655:, both of which suggested no change (n.b. those were even before the October 2010 change), put this matter to rest.
1115:
158:
90:
36:
3658:
rather than at the end, however I have no idea what mechanism we wish to use. To we open the floor to volunteers?
3306:
going to wait on more statements, but I do have a few questions for those posting statements to provide input on:
1376:
2996:
2247:
2220:
1541:
1133:
1103:
1097:
1037:
941:
893:
703:
164:
3007:
stating that Tel Aviv is the capital of Israel. The Commission ruled that there had been no breach of its code (
779:
3703:
3444:
2605:
2543:
2540:
2537:
2534:
2481:
behavioral issue is with Tariq responding to his being a DICK and not with him being a dick in the first place.
2069:
I arrived lately in the discussion but per my understanding, mediators refused to take the mediation in charge.
1960:
1956:
1952:
1948:
1840:
5) An ideal outcome could be that a clearer vision is communicated with regard to civility and stonewalling. --
1574:
1562:
1557:
1550:
1547:
1544:
1538:
1535:
1532:
1370:
1358:
1346:
1340:
1277:
1229:
989:
773:
721:
709:
21:
2149:
could the arbitrators suggest/chose 3 editors that would close the case ? I am confident that this would help.
1388:
1382:
1352:
827:
767:
648:
510:
Use this page to request the committee open an arbitration case. To be accepted, an arbitration request needs
177:
3495:
3490:
2498:
1334:
1079:
845:
697:
186:
1211:
815:
3499:
3278:. As a result, only a content dispute is left, which this committee can merely pass back to the community.
3127:
1543:). There have been claims that those supporting the current wording are just pushing the Israeli POV (e.g.
1396:
821:
761:
715:
587:
2733:, then followed by an RFC that is binding. It would create a more productive discussion. Please consider.
1819:
1815:
1811:
1807:
1803:
1799:
1703:
1699:
1199:
1163:
1067:
971:
923:
3274:
On reflection, existing conduct issues can be dealt with under the discretionary sanctions provision of
1307:
1259:
1019:
3504:
3482:
1915:
1205:
1151:
1055:
959:
911:
875:
809:
743:
605:
3139:
3133:
3130:
1295:
1247:
1007:
1460:
1456:
1452:
863:
3126:
relating to this subject, without mentioning international dispute in the lead. F.x CIA fact book
3087:
2565:
1637:, which can be cited from a few angles), but these are less conduct issues and more content issues.
1193:
791:
182:
97:
43:
3516:
2272:
3683:
2539:, then when I asked for specific reliable sources that say Jerusalem is the capital of Palestine
1157:
1061:
965:
917:
2995:
One recent demonstration of the disputed status of Jerusalem was at the London Olympics, where
2773:
2740:
2717:
2308:
2286:
2261:
2234:
2205:
1779:
1622:
1515:
1404:
1301:
1253:
1175:
1013:
2579:
There is so little one can add to a discussion so prolix! But I feel two things must be said:
3882:
2088:
There are problems on all articles relatived to the topic of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict
1911:
1145:
1049:
953:
905:
869:
738:
685:
17:
1855:
consensus, giving each argument weight according to its merits, rather than counting votes (
1441:
Knowledge talk:WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration/Jerusalem as the capital of Israel
3632:
2667:
2649:
1289:
1241:
1001:
601:
may refactor or delete statements, e.g. off-topic or unproductive remarks, without warning.
8:
3932:
3783:
3645:
3386:
2818:
2629:
2615:
2561:
2461:
2422:
2174:
2157:
2127:
1879:
1865:
1845:
1788:
1127:
1031:
935:
887:
857:
786:
501:
76:
3512:
2956:
2587:
participate. Which is why, I believe, Tariq chose this forum to move toward a solution.
3949:
3921:
3850:
3812:
3697:
3609:
3438:
3420:
3239:
3225:
3146:
3078:
3058:
3044:
2024:
2006:
1988:
1967:
1933:
1519:
1271:
1223:
983:
494:
486:
3718:
2796:
2768:
2735:
2712:
2691:
2596:
2300:
2278:
2253:
2226:
2197:
2066:
mediation has so far failed to achieve a lasting solution to this dispute ?" (AGK) :
1834:
3) I don't know. AE may be an option, although here we have several involved editors.
1523:
1170:
839:
31:
3508:
2698:
674:
3878:
3773:
3660:
3461:
3398:
3275:
3217:
2050:
1758:
1727:
1708:
1682:
1661:
1601:
1583:
1556:
policy-based arguments for maintaining the current wording, with one saying he has
1489:
680:
657:
3758:
3742:
3628:
3620:
3290:
3263:
3204:
3192:
3182:
3181:
Awaiting statements, though I see the argument that a case would be useful here.
3136:
3109:
2664:
2646:
2085:"Is this misconduct impacting other areas of contention within this topic area?"
1634:
1633:. There are probably several relevant policies that come into this dispute (like
1570:
3654:
Seems like the best way forward. Per Courcelles, we do need to decide on admins
2113:"If this case is accepted, what would you see as an ideal outcome of the case?"
3641:
3526:
3486:
3382:
3162:
2814:
2626:
2612:
2457:
2418:
2405:
2170:
2153:
2123:
1875:
1861:
1841:
1784:
1464:
1408:
1122:
1026:
930:
882:
3326:
If this case is accepted, what would you see as an ideal outcome of the case?
3313:
Is this misconduct impacting other areas of contention within this topic area?
3216:
Awaiting statements, but I'll note that this sort of dispute is exactly where
2844:. This suggests that filing and commenting on Malleus related cases is simply
3942:
3917:
3843:
3823:
3805:
3751:
3735:
3693:
3670:
3605:
3434:
3413:
3357:
3327:
3283:
3256:
3235:
3221:
3142:
3102:
3074:
2841:
2687:
2377:
Put the sentence in propositional form, and you immediately see the problem.
2342:
Put the sentence in propositional form, and you immediately see the problem.
1856:
1266:
1218:
978:
81:
2948:
3822:
If they're able to open an RFC by themselves... why are they here instead?
3522:
3255:
mediation has so far failed to achieve a lasting solution to this dispute.
2792:
2592:
1566:
834:
528:
2912:"Neutral point of view" is one of Knowledge's three core content policies.
2476:
This request is an exact mirror of the problems on the article talk page.
573:
If you must reply to another user's statement, do so in your own section (
3769:
3457:
2583:
decide (or, more likely, don't decide) today will not be right tomorrow.
1412:
3433:
reports of transgressions should be brought to Arbitration Enforcement.
625:
2875:
I'm in the camp which views the current wording as a prolonged case of
2339:
the capital of Israel, though not internationally recognized as such.'
3478:
3353:
3094:
This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).
1659:
be resolved. Maybe you'll even come up with something innovative. --
1508:
1432:
515:
3234:
I'm OK with a binding RfC, if that's the direction we want to go.
2362:(a) is Israel’s POV (b) is the POV of virtually all other states.
1626:
2964:
582:
2550:
1828:
1422:
543:
To request enforcement of an existing arbitration ruling, see
463:
362:
322:
244:
193:
3013:
Jerusalem should not be referred to as the capital of Israel
1429:
Talk:Jerusalem/capital/2010#Compromise on the first sentence
636:. Accepted case requests are opened as cases, and logged at
547:. To clarify or change an existing arbitration ruling, see
3730:
With the understanding that (unlike for the binding RFC in
2074:"What specific allegations of misconduct are you making?"
1898:
As I stated in my previous comments I favor no particular
549:
Knowledge:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment
414:
Clarification request: Conduct in deletion-related editing
390:
Amendment request: Palestine-Israel articles (AE referral)
79:
to this revision, which may differ significantly from the
3530:
under the discretionary sanctions already authorised in
3282:
because, sadly, we can do no more good to this dispute.
2889:"Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts."
1467:: Latest threads on this issue, mostly since August 2012
3051:(hats placed in text -- 12:41, 21 December 2012 (UTC))
2929:
1316:
Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
3171:
Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/7/0/3)
2909:"Indicate the relative prominence of opposing views."
2077:
There are personnal attacks but that is not a problem
3717:". Please revert if you disagree with this change,
3669:Also agree that we should call for volunteers now.
2451:Israel's largest city in both population and area,
2438:Israel's largest city in both population and area,
2370:Israel's largest city in both population and area,
580:
Your section must not contain more than 500 words (
2397:(a) is the Israeli POV (b) is the non-Israeli POV.
618:will vote on accepting or declining the case. The
1798:Here are some examples of behavioral problems:
228:
2932:of 1980 which declared Jerusalem its capital.
2987:Accordingly, the UK government, for example,
634:Knowledge:Arbitration/Index/Declined requests
604:Banned users may request arbitration via the
3003:to the UK Press Complaints Commission about
2980:Example repercussions od UN resolutions ...
567:This page is for statements, not discussion.
2097:will not suffice to resolve this dispute?"
3940:two days before this motion was proposed.
2829:The following discussion has been closed.
2271:Some comments on mediation - According to
1831:article with regard to the same statement.
1471:Knowledge:Requests for mediation/Jerusalem
545:Knowledge:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement
89:Revision as of 19:14, 27 December 2012 by
3320:will not suffice to resolve this dispute?
2045:The referees asked the right questions :
1573:or ArbCom for the alleged "blocking" and
473:No arbitrator motions are currently open.
264:
1419:Talk:Jerusalem/capital/2010#On the Table
57:
3310:seems to focus more on content besides.
3176:Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse/other)
1447:Knowledge:Requests for mediation/Israel
88:
14:
2357:(recognized as) the capital of Israel.
1617:In response to Hersfold's questions:
632:Declined case requests are logged at
54:
35:
1827:2) The same issue is present in the
622:tally counts the arbitrators voting
478:
366:Clarification and Amendment requests
27:
2813:Irrelevant to this case request. --
2273:Knowledge:DR#Last_resort:_Mediation
274:Backlash to diversity and inclusion
155:
124:
3558:Support votes needed for majority
2892:"Avoid stating opinions as facts."
2536:, they initially said they would
537:arbitration guide to case requests
156:
3966:
3138:even in sports and entertainment
2885:Knowledge:Neutral point of view:
2404:Those who are unhappy at the way
2049:Sort of dispute is exactly where
1395:Confirmation that other steps in
638:Knowledge:Arbitration/Index/Cases
438:Amendment request: PIA Canvassing
75:. The present address (URL) is a
3318:existing discretionary sanctions
2840:The problem is obviously one of
2472:Statement by No More Mr Nice Guy
2095:existing discretionary sanctions
1449:(deleted): Rejected January 2010
1431:: Source of current phrasing in
1421:: Source of current phrasing in
3950:
3851:
3813:
3659:
3600:As proposer. Adopted from the
3421:
3397:
2940:Example UN resolution text ...
2774:
2769:
2759:. I also point out that in the
2741:
2736:
2718:
2713:
2025:
2007:
1989:
1968:
1934:
1407:: Numerous threads (taken from
110:
62:
3161:Tariq, and you The Committee.
2863:20:27, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
2767:
2734:
2711:
608:; don't try to edit this page.
221:
13:
1:
3955:18:45, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
3926:05:26, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
3887:21:54, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
3856:10:21, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
3836:19:09, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
3818:23:12, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
3803:were an ArbCom directed RfC.
3787:00:51, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
3778:05:26, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
3761:20:45, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
3752:
3750:benefit from their services.
3745:21:32, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
3736:
3726:20:44, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
3708:18:53, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
3688:17:14, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
3665:17:02, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
3650:16:52, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
3637:13:58, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
3624:07:38, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
3614:07:19, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
3466:22:14, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
3449:13:26, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
3426:01:00, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
3403:14:59, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
3391:09:53, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
3370:03:01, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
3340:01:55, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
3293:23:25, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
3284:
3266:01:34, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
3257:
3244:07:03, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
3230:01:20, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
3208:20:15, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
3196:18:22, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
3186:23:11, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
3166:14:15, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
3151:12:28, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
3112:23:29, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
3103:
3083:01:46, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
3063:13:01, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
3049:12:03, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
2823:20:57, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
2801:08:14, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
2780:05:54, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
2747:23:48, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
2724:14:09, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
2675:20:20, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
2657:08:28, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
2633:02:49, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
2619:08:26, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
2601:06:43, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
2570:01:03, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
2503:18:20, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
2466:14:41, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
2427:17:47, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
2314:20:07, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
2292:15:17, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
2267:18:47, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
2240:16:16, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
2211:13:17, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
2179:08:22, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
2162:07:30, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
2132:10:16, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
2032:21:24, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
2014:19:33, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
1996:07:08, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
1975:19:05, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
1959:. Instead you only said that
1941:05:54, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
1920:03:20, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
1894:Statement by Alertboatbanking
1884:09:38, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
1870:23:09, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
1850:16:23, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
1793:22:33, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
1768:19:20, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
1759:
1737:04:35, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
1728:
1718:18:56, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
1709:
1692:13:06, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
1683:
1671:03:57, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
1662:
1625:stance, with labels such as "
1611:20:12, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
1602:
1593:20:12, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
1584:
1499:19:20, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
1490:
670:19:38, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
658:
2806:Statement by Volunteer Marek
2374:East Jerusalem is included.
2301:
2279:
2254:
2227:
2198:
1762:
1731:
1712:
1686:
1665:
1631:agreeing to it two years ago
1605:
1587:
1493:
661:
7:
3768:they've already declined.
2512:Statement by BritishWatcher
2442:East Jerusalem is included.
2167:Question to the arbitrators
2093:"#Is there some reason why
1425:lead, January-February 2010
592:email the clerks email list
558:File an arbitration request
34:of this page, as edited by
10:
3971:
3938:offered to assist in a RfC
3472:Motion regarding Jerusalem
2688:which sounds very familiar
2142:Request to the arbitrators
614:After a request is filed,
484:
108:
60:
3661:Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs
3399:Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs
3316:Is there some reason why
2681:Statement by Steven Zhang
2447:Per WP:NPOV,'(Jerusalem)
2189:Statement by Sean.hoyland
1955:to answer any questions,
1903:little more can be done.
1778:there may be significant
1461:Talk:Jerusalem/Archive 19
1457:Talk:Jerusalem/Archive 18
1453:Talk:Jerusalem/Archive 17
383:
380:
377:
374:
342:
339:
263:
260:
257:
254:
214:
211:
208:
205:
3129:National Geography and
2955:As another example, see
2832:Please do not modify it.
1575:accusations of ownership
1478:Statement by Tariqabjotu
1473:: Rejected December 2012
514:votes to "accept" (or a
159:Requests for arbitration
2731:verifiability mediation
2639:Statement by Rschen7754
1511:article has a problem.
55:19:14, 27 December 2012
3156:Statement by Jehochman
2965:Positions on Jerusalem
2710:case may be required.
2350:the capital of Israel.
2319:Statement by Nishidani
2038:Statement by Pluto2012
1773:Statement by Dailycare
1565:of bringing people to
1558:"consensus by default"
1405:Talk:Jerusalem/capital
606:committee contact page
325:Recently closed cases
3527:neutral point of view
3121:Statement by Tritomex
3068:Statement by formerip
2871:Statement by ZScarpia
2557:the positions we do.
2385:Israel’s largest city
1925:Statement by Nableezy
1415:) since October 2003
1363:No More Mr Nice Guy:
165:Arbitration Committee
18:Knowledge:Arbitration
2947:As one example, see
2786:Statement by cptnono
2575:Statement by Ravpapa
1961:it would be reverted
1700:put into the article
350:Historical elections
118:opened and suspended
70:opened and suspended
3933:Knowledge:Consensus
3910:Arbitrator comments
3551:
2989:takes the position
2901:Further Clauses ...
2495:No More Mr Nice Guy
1075:No More Mr Nice Guy
131:← Previous revision
3546:
3251:comment regarding
3041:(more to follow)
2699:rejected a request
1756:giving a shit. --
1653:a January 2010 RfC
1649:an August 2009 RfC
1520:State of Palestine
1435:lead, October 2010
1397:dispute resolution
1389:20:19, December 16
1383:20:19, December 16
1377:20:19, December 16
1371:20:18, December 16
1365:20:18, December 16
1359:20:17, December 16
1353:20:17, December 16
1347:20:16, December 16
1341:20:16, December 16
1335:20:15, December 16
1329:20:14, December 16
1323:01:44, December 17
1321:Alertboatbanking:
467:Arbitrator motions
456:30 September 2024
432:30 September 2024
3686:
3586:
3585:
3523:reliable sourcing
3177:
3020:
3019:
2972:
2971:
2924:
2923:
2868:
2867:
2606:Statement by Heim
2312:
2290:
2265:
2238:
2209:
2034:
2016:
1998:
1977:
1943:
1744:
1743:
1531:resolution (e.g.
646:
645:
522:Arbitration is a
460:
459:
446:
422:
359:
358:
319:
318:
309:
241:
240:
234:16 December 2012
3962:
3951:
3945:
3852:
3846:
3814:
3808:
3756:
3740:
3723:
3682:
3663:
3552:
3545:
3541:
3520:
3502:
3422:
3416:
3401:
3288:
3261:
3175:
3107:
3061:
3047:
2976:
2975:
2936:
2935:
2897:
2896:
2862:
2859:
2834:
2810:
2809:
2778:
2776:
2771:
2745:
2743:
2738:
2722:
2720:
2715:
2627:Heimstern Läufer
2613:Heimstern Läufer
2366:B. '(Jerusalem)
2303:
2298:
2281:
2276:
2256:
2251:
2229:
2224:
2200:
2195:
2027:
2022:
2009:
2004:
1991:
1986:
1970:
1965:
1936:
1931:
1912:Alertboatbanking
1764:
1761:
1733:
1730:
1714:
1711:
1704:reverted back in
1688:
1685:
1667:
1664:
1607:
1604:
1589:
1586:
1495:
1492:
1487:Withdrawing. --
1483:
1482:
1327:BritishWatcher:
1311:
1284:deleted contribs
1263:
1236:deleted contribs
1215:
1188:deleted contribs
1167:
1140:deleted contribs
1119:
1092:deleted contribs
1071:
1044:deleted contribs
1023:
996:deleted contribs
975:
948:deleted contribs
927:
900:deleted contribs
879:
852:deleted contribs
831:
804:deleted contribs
783:
756:deleted contribs
739:Alertboatbanking
731:
675:Involved parties
663:
660:
585:
575:more information
569:
561:
559:
504:
497:
479:
445:
442:
421:
418:
372:
371:
337:
336:
332:
279:
266:
252:
251:
203:
202:
143:Newer revision →
121:
119:
114:
105:
84:
82:current revision
74:
73:
71:
66:
56:
52:
51:
3970:
3969:
3965:
3964:
3963:
3961:
3960:
3959:
3943:
3844:
3806:
3732:Muhammad images
3719:
3715:this topic area
3602:Muhammad images
3539:
3532:this topic area
3493:
3477:
3474:
3414:
3173:
3158:
3123:
3090:
3070:
3056:
3042:
3021:
2981:
2973:
2941:
2925:
2902:
2873:
2860:
2857:
2830:
2808:
2788:
2683:
2641:
2608:
2577:
2514:
2474:
2346:(a) Jerusalem
2321:
2191:
2040:
1927:
1896:
1780:WP:Stonewalling
1775:
1745:
1501:
1480:
1443:: May-July 2008
1399:have been tried
1269:
1221:
1173:
1125:
1077:
1029:
981:
933:
885:
837:
789:
741:
683:
677:
651:
624:accept/decline/
616:the arbitrators
597:Arbitrators or
588:internal gadget
583:Word Count Tool
581:
565:
557:
555:
508:
507:
500:
493:
489:
477:
476:
475:
470:
469:
462:
461:
443:
419:
408:17 August 2024
369:
368:
361:
360:
334:
333:
326:
321:
320:
249:
248:
243:
242:
200:
199:
192:
178:purge this page
168:
161:
154:
153:
152:
151:
150:
135:Latest revision
123:
122:
109:
106:
95:
93:
80:
61:
58:
41:
39:
24:
12:
11:
5:
3968:
3958:
3957:
3928:
3913:
3912:
3911:
3905:
3904:
3903:
3902:
3899:
3898:
3892:
3891:
3890:
3889:
3875:
3874:
3867:
3865:
3864:
3863:
3862:
3861:
3860:
3859:
3858:
3831:
3828:
3799:
3798:
3792:
3791:
3790:
3789:
3780:
3765:
3764:
3763:
3728:
3710:
3692:Worth trying.
3690:
3678:
3675:
3667:
3652:
3639:
3626:
3616:
3597:
3596:
3584:
3583:
3580:
3576:
3575:
3572:
3568:
3567:
3564:
3560:
3559:
3556:
3544:
3543:
3473:
3470:
3469:
3468:
3451:
3428:
3405:
3393:
3376:
3375:
3374:
3373:
3372:
3365:
3362:
3343:
3342:
3335:
3332:
3324:
3321:
3314:
3311:
3298:
3297:
3296:
3295:
3269:
3268:
3248:
3247:
3246:
3214:
3213:
3212:
3211:
3210:
3172:
3169:
3157:
3154:
3122:
3119:
3117:
3115:
3114:
3097:
3096:
3089:
3086:
3069:
3066:
3018:
3017:
3001:complaint made
2997:the BBC listed
2983:
2982:
2979:
2974:
2970:
2969:
2957:Resolution 267
2949:Resolution 478
2943:
2942:
2939:
2934:
2922:
2921:
2920:
2919:
2916:
2913:
2910:
2904:
2903:
2900:
2895:
2894:
2893:
2890:
2872:
2869:
2866:
2865:
2836:
2835:
2826:
2825:
2807:
2804:
2787:
2784:
2783:
2782:
2750:
2749:
2682:
2679:
2678:
2677:
2640:
2637:
2636:
2635:
2607:
2604:
2576:
2573:
2562:BritishWatcher
2513:
2510:
2508:
2506:
2505:
2491:
2488:
2485:
2482:
2473:
2470:
2469:
2468:
2445:
2444:
2443:
2399:
2398:
2394:
2393:
2388:(b) Jerusalem
2386:
2381:(a) Jerusalem
2364:
2363:
2359:
2358:
2353:(b) Jerusalem
2351:
2335:A. 'Jerusalem
2320:
2317:
2243:
2242:
2190:
2187:
2186:
2185:
2184:
2183:
2182:
2181:
2164:
2150:
2121:
2120:
2119:
2118:
2111:
2110:
2109:
2103:
2102:
2101:
2091:
2090:
2089:
2083:
2082:
2081:
2078:
2072:
2071:
2070:
2060:
2059:
2058:
2039:
2036:
2018:
2017:
1979:
1978:
1951:, however you
1926:
1923:
1900:final solution
1895:
1892:
1891:
1890:
1889:
1888:
1887:
1886:
1838:
1835:
1832:
1824:
1823:
1774:
1771:
1742:
1741:
1740:
1739:
1721:
1720:
1695:
1694:
1676:
1675:
1674:
1673:
1656:
1644:
1641:
1638:
1614:
1613:
1503:
1502:
1486:
1481:
1479:
1476:
1475:
1474:
1468:
1465:Talk:Jerusalem
1450:
1444:
1438:
1437:
1436:
1426:
1409:Talk:Jerusalem
1401:
1400:
1392:
1391:
1385:
1379:
1375:Sean.hoyland:
1373:
1367:
1361:
1355:
1349:
1343:
1337:
1331:
1325:
1318:
1317:
1313:
1312:
1264:
1216:
1168:
1120:
1072:
1024:
976:
928:
880:
832:
787:BritishWatcher
784:
736:
676:
673:
650:
647:
644:
643:
642:
641:
630:
620:<0/0/0: -->
612:
609:
602:
595:
578:
563:
562:
506:
505:
498:
490:
485:
482:
471:
465:
464:
458:
457:
454:
447:
440:
434:
433:
430:
423:
416:
410:
409:
406:
399:
392:
386:
385:
382:
379:
376:
370:
364:
363:
357:
356:
353:
345:
344:
341:
335:
324:
323:
317:
316:
313:
310:
277:
269:
268:
262:
259:
256:
250:
246:
245:
239:
238:
235:
232:
225:
217:
216:
213:
210:
207:
201:
195:
194:
191:
190:
180:
175:
173:recent changes
169:
163:
162:
160:
157:
92:AlexandrDmitri
91:
77:permanent link
38:AlexandrDmitri
37:
26:
25:
15:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
3967:
3956:
3953:
3952:
3947:
3946:
3939:
3934:
3929:
3927:
3923:
3919:
3914:
3909:
3908:
3907:
3906:
3901:
3900:
3896:
3895:
3894:
3893:
3888:
3884:
3880:
3877:
3876:
3872:
3871:
3870:
3869:
3868:
3857:
3854:
3853:
3848:
3847:
3839:
3838:
3837:
3834:
3833:
3832:
3829:
3826:
3821:
3820:
3819:
3816:
3815:
3810:
3809:
3801:
3800:
3796:
3795:
3794:
3793:
3788:
3785:
3782:Fair enough.
3781:
3779:
3775:
3771:
3766:
3762:
3759:
3757:
3755:
3748:
3747:
3746:
3743:
3741:
3739:
3733:
3729:
3727:
3724:
3722:
3716:
3711:
3709:
3705:
3702:
3699:
3695:
3691:
3689:
3685:
3681:
3680:
3679:
3676:
3673:
3668:
3666:
3662:
3657:
3653:
3651:
3647:
3643:
3640:
3638:
3634:
3630:
3627:
3625:
3622:
3617:
3615:
3611:
3607:
3603:
3599:
3598:
3594:
3593:
3592:
3591:
3590:
3589:
3581:
3578:
3577:
3573:
3570:
3569:
3565:
3562:
3561:
3557:
3554:
3553:
3549:
3542:
3537:
3536:
3535:
3533:
3528:
3524:
3518:
3514:
3510:
3506:
3501:
3497:
3492:
3488:
3484:
3480:
3467:
3463:
3459:
3455:
3452:
3450:
3446:
3443:
3440:
3436:
3432:
3429:
3427:
3424:
3423:
3418:
3417:
3409:
3406:
3404:
3400:
3394:
3392:
3388:
3384:
3380:
3377:
3371:
3368:
3367:
3366:
3363:
3360:
3355:
3350:
3347:
3346:
3345:
3344:
3341:
3338:
3337:
3336:
3333:
3330:
3325:
3322:
3319:
3315:
3312:
3308:
3307:
3305:
3300:
3299:
3294:
3291:
3289:
3287:
3281:
3277:
3273:
3272:
3271:
3270:
3267:
3264:
3262:
3260:
3254:
3249:
3245:
3241:
3237:
3233:
3232:
3231:
3227:
3223:
3219:
3215:
3209:
3206:
3202:
3199:
3198:
3197:
3194:
3189:
3188:
3187:
3184:
3180:
3179:
3178:
3168:
3167:
3164:
3153:
3152:
3148:
3144:
3140:
3137:
3134:
3131:
3128:
3118:
3113:
3110:
3108:
3106:
3099:
3098:
3095:
3092:
3091:
3085:
3084:
3080:
3076:
3065:
3064:
3060:
3052:
3050:
3046:
3039:
3036:
3031:
3025:
3016:
3014:
3010:
3006:
3002:
2998:
2994:
2990:
2985:
2984:
2978:
2977:
2968:
2966:
2963:(see article
2962:
2958:
2954:
2950:
2945:
2944:
2938:
2937:
2933:
2931:
2917:
2914:
2911:
2908:
2907:
2906:
2905:
2899:
2898:
2891:
2888:
2887:
2886:
2883:
2880:
2878:
2864:
2853:
2849:
2847:
2843:
2842:excess demand
2838:
2837:
2833:
2828:
2827:
2824:
2820:
2816:
2812:
2811:
2803:
2802:
2798:
2794:
2781:
2777:
2772:
2764:
2763:
2758:
2757:
2752:
2751:
2748:
2744:
2739:
2732:
2728:
2727:
2726:
2725:
2721:
2716:
2709:
2703:
2700:
2696:
2694:
2689:
2676:
2673:
2672:
2669:
2666:
2661:
2660:
2659:
2658:
2655:
2654:
2651:
2648:
2634:
2631:
2628:
2623:
2622:
2621:
2620:
2617:
2614:
2603:
2602:
2598:
2594:
2588:
2584:
2580:
2572:
2571:
2567:
2563:
2558:
2554:
2552:
2546:
2544:
2541:
2538:
2535:
2530:
2526:
2522:
2518:
2509:
2504:
2500:
2496:
2492:
2489:
2486:
2483:
2479:
2478:
2477:
2467:
2463:
2459:
2454:
2450:
2446:
2441:
2437:
2434:'(Jerusalem)
2433:
2432:
2431:
2430:
2429:
2428:
2424:
2420:
2416:
2412:
2407:
2402:
2396:
2395:
2391:
2387:
2384:
2380:
2379:
2378:
2375:
2373:
2369:
2361:
2360:
2356:
2352:
2349:
2345:
2344:
2343:
2340:
2338:
2333:
2329:
2325:
2316:
2315:
2311:
2310:
2305:
2304:
2294:
2293:
2289:
2288:
2283:
2282:
2274:
2269:
2268:
2264:
2263:
2258:
2257:
2249:
2241:
2237:
2236:
2231:
2230:
2222:
2218:
2217:
2216:
2213:
2212:
2208:
2207:
2202:
2201:
2180:
2176:
2172:
2168:
2165:
2163:
2159:
2155:
2147:
2143:
2140:
2139:
2138:
2137:
2136:
2135:
2134:
2133:
2129:
2125:
2115:
2114:
2112:
2107:
2106:
2104:
2099:
2098:
2096:
2092:
2087:
2086:
2084:
2079:
2076:
2075:
2073:
2068:
2067:
2065:
2061:
2055:
2054:
2052:
2048:
2047:
2046:
2043:
2035:
2033:
2029:
2028:
2015:
2011:
2010:
2001:
2000:
1999:
1997:
1993:
1992:
1984:
1976:
1972:
1971:
1962:
1958:
1954:
1950:
1946:
1945:
1944:
1942:
1938:
1937:
1922:
1921:
1917:
1913:
1907:
1904:
1901:
1885:
1881:
1877:
1873:
1872:
1871:
1867:
1863:
1860:mediation. --
1858:
1853:
1852:
1851:
1847:
1843:
1839:
1836:
1833:
1830:
1826:
1825:
1821:
1817:
1813:
1809:
1805:
1801:
1797:
1796:
1795:
1794:
1790:
1786:
1781:
1770:
1769:
1766:
1765:
1755:
1749:
1738:
1735:
1734:
1723:
1722:
1719:
1716:
1715:
1705:
1701:
1697:
1696:
1693:
1690:
1689:
1678:
1677:
1672:
1669:
1668:
1657:
1654:
1650:
1645:
1642:
1639:
1636:
1632:
1628:
1624:
1619:
1618:
1616:
1615:
1612:
1609:
1608:
1597:
1596:
1595:
1594:
1591:
1590:
1578:
1576:
1572:
1568:
1564:
1559:
1553:
1551:
1548:
1545:
1542:
1539:
1536:
1533:
1528:
1525:
1521:
1517:
1512:
1510:
1505:
1504:
1500:
1497:
1496:
1485:
1484:
1472:
1469:
1466:
1462:
1458:
1454:
1451:
1448:
1445:
1442:
1439:
1434:
1430:
1427:
1424:
1420:
1417:
1416:
1414:
1410:
1406:
1403:
1402:
1398:
1394:
1393:
1390:
1386:
1384:
1380:
1378:
1374:
1372:
1368:
1366:
1362:
1360:
1356:
1354:
1350:
1348:
1344:
1342:
1338:
1336:
1332:
1330:
1326:
1324:
1320:
1319:
1315:
1314:
1309:
1306:
1303:
1300:
1297:
1294:
1291:
1288:
1285:
1282:
1279:
1276:
1273:
1268:
1265:
1261:
1258:
1255:
1252:
1249:
1246:
1243:
1240:
1237:
1234:
1231:
1228:
1225:
1220:
1217:
1213:
1210:
1207:
1204:
1201:
1198:
1195:
1192:
1189:
1186:
1183:
1180:
1177:
1172:
1169:
1165:
1162:
1159:
1156:
1153:
1150:
1147:
1144:
1141:
1138:
1135:
1132:
1129:
1124:
1121:
1117:
1114:
1111:
1108:
1105:
1102:
1099:
1096:
1093:
1090:
1087:
1084:
1081:
1076:
1073:
1069:
1066:
1063:
1060:
1057:
1054:
1051:
1048:
1045:
1042:
1039:
1036:
1033:
1028:
1025:
1021:
1018:
1015:
1012:
1009:
1006:
1003:
1000:
997:
994:
991:
988:
985:
980:
977:
973:
970:
967:
964:
961:
958:
955:
952:
949:
946:
943:
940:
937:
932:
929:
925:
922:
919:
916:
913:
910:
907:
904:
901:
898:
895:
892:
889:
884:
881:
877:
874:
871:
868:
865:
862:
859:
856:
853:
850:
847:
844:
841:
836:
833:
829:
826:
823:
820:
817:
814:
811:
808:
805:
802:
799:
796:
793:
788:
785:
781:
778:
775:
772:
769:
766:
763:
760:
757:
754:
751:
748:
745:
740:
737:
735:
729:
726:
723:
720:
717:
714:
711:
708:
705:
702:
699:
696:
693:
690:
687:
682:
679:
678:
672:
671:
668:
665:
664:
655:
654:Initiated by
639:
635:
631:
628:
627:
621:
617:
613:
610:
607:
603:
600:
596:
593:
589:
584:
579:
576:
572:
571:
570:
568:
560:
554:
553:
552:
550:
546:
541:
539:
538:
532:
530:
527:
525:
519:
517:
513:
503:
499:
496:
492:
491:
488:
483:
481:
480:
474:
468:
455:
452:
448:
441:
439:
436:
435:
431:
428:
424:
417:
415:
412:
411:
407:
404:
400:
398:
397:
393:
391:
388:
387:
375:Request name
373:
367:
354:
352:
351:
347:
346:
338:
330:
314:
311:
307:
303:
299:
295:
291:
287:
283:
278:
276:
275:
271:
270:
261:Evidence due
253:
236:
233:
231:
230:
226:
224:
223:
219:
218:
206:Request name
204:
198:
197:Case requests
189:this template
188:
184:
181:
179:
176:
174:
171:
170:
166:
148:
144:
140:
136:
132:
128:
117:
112:
103:
99:
94:
87:
86:
83:
78:
69:
64:
49:
45:
40:
33:
23:
19:
3948:
3941:
3866:
3849:
3842:
3825:
3824:
3811:
3804:
3753:
3737:
3731:
3721:Roger Davies
3720:
3700:
3672:
3671:
3655:
3588:
3587:
3555:Abstentions
3538:
3475:
3453:
3441:
3430:
3419:
3412:
3407:
3378:
3359:
3358:
3348:
3329:
3328:
3303:
3285:
3279:
3258:
3252:
3200:
3174:
3159:
3135:Index mundi
3124:
3116:
3104:
3093:
3071:
3053:
3040:
3034:
3029:
3026:
3022:
3009:The Guardian
3008:
3005:The Guardian
3004:
2992:
2986:
2960:
2952:
2946:
2926:
2884:
2881:
2876:
2874:
2854:
2850:
2845:
2839:
2831:
2789:
2761:
2756:Prem Rawat 2
2755:
2707:
2704:
2692:
2684:
2663:
2645:
2642:
2609:
2589:
2585:
2581:
2578:
2559:
2555:
2547:
2531:
2527:
2523:
2519:
2515:
2507:
2475:
2452:
2448:
2439:
2435:
2414:
2410:
2403:
2400:
2389:
2382:
2376:
2371:
2367:
2365:
2354:
2347:
2341:
2336:
2334:
2330:
2326:
2322:
2307:
2302:Sean.hoyland
2299:
2295:
2285:
2280:Sean.hoyland
2277:
2270:
2260:
2255:Sean.hoyland
2252:
2244:
2233:
2228:Sean.hoyland
2225:
2214:
2204:
2199:Sean.hoyland
2196:
2192:
2166:
2145:
2141:
2122:
2063:
2044:
2041:
2023:
2019:
2005:
1987:
1982:
1980:
1966:
1932:
1928:
1908:
1905:
1899:
1897:
1776:
1757:
1753:
1750:
1746:
1726:
1707:
1681:
1660:
1623:battleground
1600:
1582:
1579:
1554:
1529:
1513:
1506:
1488:
1304:
1298:
1292:
1286:
1280:
1274:
1256:
1250:
1244:
1238:
1232:
1226:
1208:
1202:
1196:
1190:
1184:
1178:
1171:Sean.hoyland
1160:
1154:
1148:
1142:
1136:
1130:
1112:
1106:
1100:
1094:
1088:
1082:
1064:
1058:
1052:
1046:
1040:
1034:
1016:
1010:
1004:
998:
992:
986:
968:
962:
956:
950:
944:
938:
920:
914:
908:
902:
896:
890:
872:
866:
860:
854:
848:
842:
824:
818:
812:
806:
800:
794:
776:
770:
764:
758:
752:
746:
734:filing party
733:
724:
718:
712:
706:
700:
694:
688:
666:
656:
653:
652:
640:once closed.
623:
619:
566:
564:
542:
535:
533:
523:
521:
520:
509:
472:
394:
355:13 Sep 2024
348:
315:24 Oct 2024
312:10 Oct 2024
272:
237:{{{votes}}}
227:
220:
196:
111:→SchuminWeb
63:→SchuminWeb
32:old revision
29:
28:
3879:Newyorkbrad
3088:Clerk notes
2877:prima facie
2708:Scientology
2248:in the diff
1413:Talk:Israel
1369:Pluto2012:
1357:Nishidani:
1345:Hertz1888:
1339:Dailycare:
704:protections
681:Tariqabjotu
524:last resort
167:proceedings
30:This is an
3629:PhilKnight
3621:Courcelles
3550:reference
3205:Courcelles
3193:Courcelles
3183:Courcelles
2553:article.
1957:repeatedly
1627:hasbarists
1524:a footnote
1516:nine years
1387:ZScarpia:
1381:Tritomex:
1351:Nableezy:
1302:block user
1296:filter log
1254:block user
1248:filter log
1206:block user
1200:filter log
1158:block user
1152:filter log
1110:block user
1104:filter log
1062:block user
1056:filter log
1014:block user
1008:filter log
966:block user
960:filter log
918:block user
912:filter log
870:block user
864:filter log
822:block user
816:filter log
774:block user
768:filter log
716:page moves
451:orig. case
427:orig. case
403:orig. case
340:Case name
329:Past cases
265:Prop. Dec.
255:Case name
247:Open cases
212:Initiated
3684:non-admin
3642:SirFozzie
3479:Jerusalem
3383:SirFozzie
3354:Jerusalem
3276:WP:ARBPIA
3218:WP:YESPOV
3163:Jehochman
3024:article.
2959:of 1969:
2951:of 1980:
2930:Basic Law
2858:Volunteer
2846:too cheap
2815:Lord Roem
2458:Nishidani
2419:Nishidani
2171:Pluto2012
2154:Pluto2012
2124:Pluto2012
2051:WP:YESPOV
1949:yesterday
1876:Dailycare
1862:Dailycare
1842:Dailycare
1785:Dailycare
1509:Jerusalem
1433:Jerusalem
1333:Cptnono:
1308:block log
1260:block log
1212:block log
1164:block log
1123:Pluto2012
1116:block log
1068:block log
1027:Nishidani
1020:block log
972:block log
931:Hertz1888
924:block log
883:Dailycare
876:block log
828:block log
780:block log
710:deletions
649:Jerusalem
487:Shortcuts
222:Jerusalem
3944:SilkTork
3918:Jclemens
3845:SilkTork
3807:SilkTork
3704:contribs
3694:Casliber
3606:Jclemens
3548:Majority
3445:contribs
3435:Casliber
3415:SilkTork
3236:Jclemens
3222:Jclemens
3143:Tritomex
3075:Formerip
3059:ZScarpia
3045:ZScarpia
2762:Abortion
2693:Abortion
2449:would be
2221:see diff
2026:nableezy
2008:nableezy
1990:nableezy
1969:nableezy
1935:nableezy
1635:WP:UNDUE
1571:WP:RfC/U
1278:contribs
1267:ZScarpia
1230:contribs
1219:Tritomex
1182:contribs
1134:contribs
1086:contribs
1038:contribs
990:contribs
979:Nableezy
942:contribs
894:contribs
846:contribs
798:contribs
750:contribs
692:contribs
516:majority
502:WP:A/R/C
378:Motions
209:Motions
102:contribs
48:contribs
22:Requests
20: |
3595:Support
3496:protect
3491:history
3454:Decline
3431:Decline
3408:Decline
3379:Decline
3349:Decline
3280:Decline
3201:Decline
2793:Cptnono
2593:Ravpapa
2560:Thanks
2406:WP:NPOV
1983:Support
1953:refused
1563:threats
835:Cptnono
384:Posted
343:Closed
229:Motions
187:discuss
3873:Recuse
3797:Oppose
3784:Kirill
3770:Risker
3604:case.
3500:delete
3458:Risker
3191:etc.)
2991:that:
2770:Steven
2737:Steven
2714:Steven
2630:(talk)
2616:(talk)
2551:Israel
2390:is not
2355:is not
2057:solve.
1857:WP:RFC
1829:Israel
1763:abjotu
1732:abjotu
1713:abjotu
1687:abjotu
1666:abjotu
1606:abjotu
1588:abjotu
1494:abjotu
1463:, and
1423:Israel
722:rights
698:blocks
662:abjotu
626:recuse
599:clerks
495:WP:ARC
396:Motion
258:Links
215:Votes
3897:Other
3517:views
3509:watch
3505:links
3411:RfC.
2861:Marek
2775:Zhang
2742:Zhang
2719:Zhang
1760:tariq
1729:tariq
1710:tariq
1702:(and
1684:tariq
1663:tariq
1603:tariq
1585:tariq
1567:WP:AE
1491:tariq
659:tariq
529:WP:DR
512:4 net
381:Case
16:<
3922:talk
3883:talk
3830:fold
3827:Hers
3774:talk
3698:talk
3677:fold
3674:Hers
3646:talk
3633:talk
3610:talk
3579:4–5
3571:2–3
3563:0–1
3525:and
3513:logs
3487:talk
3483:edit
3462:talk
3439:talk
3387:talk
3364:fold
3361:Hers
3334:fold
3331:Hers
3304:also
3240:talk
3226:talk
3147:talk
3132:and
3079:talk
2819:talk
2797:talk
2671:7754
2668:chen
2653:7754
2650:chen
2597:talk
2566:talk
2499:talk
2462:talk
2453:were
2423:talk
2309:talk
2287:talk
2262:talk
2235:talk
2206:talk
2175:talk
2158:talk
2128:talk
1916:talk
1880:talk
1866:talk
1846:talk
1810:and
1789:talk
1754:ever
1651:nor
1514:For
1507:The
1411:and
1290:logs
1272:talk
1242:logs
1224:talk
1194:logs
1176:talk
1146:logs
1128:talk
1098:logs
1080:talk
1050:logs
1032:talk
1002:logs
984:talk
954:logs
936:talk
906:logs
888:talk
858:logs
840:talk
810:logs
792:talk
762:logs
744:talk
686:talk
551:.
444:none
420:none
267:due
183:view
147:diff
141:) |
139:diff
127:diff
116:case
98:talk
68:case
44:talk
3754:AGK
3738:AGK
3656:now
3456:.
3286:AGK
3259:AGK
3253:why
3105:AGK
3057:←
3043:←
3015:).
2856:it.
2695:RFC
2064:why
1569:or
1537:,
728:RfA
518:).
300:) (
292:) (
284:) (
185:or
53:at
3924:)
3885:)
3776:)
3706:)
3648:)
3635:)
3612:)
3582:5
3574:6
3566:7
3515:|
3511:|
3507:|
3503:|
3498:|
3494:|
3489:|
3485:|
3464:)
3447:)
3389:)
3242:)
3228:)
3149:)
3081:)
3035:is
3030:is
2967:)
2821:)
2799:)
2665:Rs
2647:Rs
2644:--
2599:)
2568:)
2501:)
2464:)
2440:if
2436:is
2425:)
2417:).
2415:is
2411:if
2383:is
2372:if
2368:is
2348:is
2337:is
2306:-
2284:-
2259:-
2232:-
2203:-
2177:)
2160:)
2144::
2130:)
2030:-
2012:-
1994:-
1985:.
1973:-
1939:-
1918:)
1882:)
1868:)
1848:)
1818:,
1814:,
1806:,
1802:,
1791:)
1783:--
1577:.
1549:,
1546:,
1540:,
1534:,
1459:,
1455:,
732:,
667:at
586:;
577:).
453:)
429:)
405:)
304:/
302:pd
296:/
294:ws
288:/
286:ev
133:|
129:)
113::
100:|
65::
46:|
3920:(
3881:(
3772:(
3701:·
3696:(
3644:(
3631:(
3608:(
3519:)
3481:(
3460:(
3442:·
3437:(
3385:(
3238:(
3224:(
3145:(
3077:(
2817:(
2795:(
2686:(
2595:(
2564:(
2497:(
2460:(
2421:(
2173:(
2156:(
2146:2
2126:(
2062:"
1914:(
1878:(
1864:(
1844:(
1820:3
1816:2
1812:1
1808:3
1804:2
1800:1
1787:(
1310:)
1305:·
1299:·
1293:·
1287:·
1281:·
1275:·
1270:(
1262:)
1257:·
1251:·
1245:·
1239:·
1233:·
1227:·
1222:(
1214:)
1209:·
1203:·
1197:·
1191:·
1185:·
1179:·
1174:(
1166:)
1161:·
1155:·
1149:·
1143:·
1137:·
1131:·
1126:(
1118:)
1113:·
1107:·
1101:·
1095:·
1089:·
1083:·
1078:(
1070:)
1065:·
1059:·
1053:·
1047:·
1041:·
1035:·
1030:(
1022:)
1017:·
1011:·
1005:·
999:·
993:·
987:·
982:(
974:)
969:·
963:·
957:·
951:·
945:·
939:·
934:(
926:)
921:·
915:·
909:·
903:·
897:·
891:·
886:(
878:)
873:·
867:·
861:·
855:·
849:·
843:·
838:(
830:)
825:·
819:·
813:·
807:·
801:·
795:·
790:(
782:)
777:·
771:·
765:·
759:·
753:·
747:·
742:(
730:)
725:·
719:·
713:·
707:·
701:·
695:·
689:·
684:(
629:.
594:.
526:.
449:(
425:(
401:(
331:)
327:(
308:)
306:t
298:t
290:t
282:t
280:(
149:)
145:(
137:(
125:(
120:)
107:(
104:)
96:(
85:.
72:)
59:(
50:)
42:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.