Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case

Requests for arbitration

Arbitration Committee proceedings

• recent changes
• purge this page
• view or discuss this template

Case requests

Request name	Motions	Initiated	Votes
[[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Zionist Occupation Government move request and content disputes|Zionist Occupation Government move request and content disputes]]		1 June 2017	0/1/0

[edit]

Open cases

Case name	Links	Evidence due	Prop. Dec. due
Palestine-Israel articles 5	(t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t)	21 Dec 2024	11 Jan 2025

[edit]

Recently closed cases (Past cases)

No cases have recently been closed (view all closed cases).

Clarification and Amendment requests

Currently, no requests for clarification or amendment are open.

Arbitrator motions

Motion name	Date posted
Arbitrator workflow motions	1 December 2024

Zionist Occupation Government move request and content disputes

Initiated by Franzboas (talk) at 22:58, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Involved parties

• Franzboas (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), filing party
• Rockypedia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Seraphim_System (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Amakuru (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Cuchullain (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• ZackTheCardshark (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• [diff of notification Rockypedia]
• [diff of notification Seraphim_System]
• [diff of notification Amakuru]
• [diff of notification Cuchullain]
• [diff of notification ZackTheCardshark]

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Third_opinion&diff=prev&oldid=781321938
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Zionist_Occupation_Government_conspiracy_theory#On_bias

Statement by Franzboas

I'm okay with this being declined. I misunderstood the dispute resolution process; I'll try other methods first.

The first topic of this request is for a more civilized and objective discussion on my request to move the article Zionist Occupation Government conspiracy theory to Zionist Occupation Government. As a couple of admins pointed out in the original discussion, a lot of people don't like the idea of moving the article or changing its contents, even if the result is less biased and more accurate. I requested a third opinion, after which User:Biografer responded and agreed with me. I also want to be able to make legitimate cited improvements to the article without gratuitously hostile obstruction. The main aggressor has been User:Rockypedia, who has repeatedly reverted my edits and derailed my talk page discussions on the grounds that I am an "anti-semite". I have added several clearly relevant and notable historical examples of the term's use along with citations, but User:Rockypedia has reverted them without making an argument as to why they aren't notable. Alongside generally impugning my motives and being gratuitously hostile, he has repeatedly tried to disregard me because I am a legitimate sock and suggested, for example, that I have a vested interest in "publicizing" a 1996 press release from a small defunct Swedish neo-Nazi group. (That press release quote came from a paper written by one of the most prominent researchers of far-right extremist groups.) I am not trying to inject bias into the article. I am simply trying to make it more accurate by clarifying (with sources) that the term is usually used as a term of disparagement toward Zionist interests and outsize Jewish presence, rather than as a reference to William Pierce's conspiracy theory. See cuckservative for a similar example. Both uses of the term are notable and, if they don't have separate articles, the Zionist Occupation Government article should include both. Franzboas (talk) 22:58, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Rockypedia

The renaming (whose purpose was to add some legitimacy to the ZOG conspiracy theory) was already discussed and opposed by consensus here. This arbitration action appears to be a WP:BATTLEGROUND action to take revenge on me for opposing the move and being the main editor to counterpoint all of Franzboas' circular arguments. He is a sockpuppet who admitted to being a sock only after I pointed out that his new account was obviously that of an experienced editor, then claimed that he was legitimate and refuses to name his original account(s), even privately to an admin. His edit history with this account is primarily concerned with finding Jewish BLPs and labeling the subjects as Jewish, whether or not such information is relevant, such as in this edit, which he summarized by saying the doctor's Jewish heritage was relevant because there is a "preponderance of Jews in his field", a quote which boils down to "there's a lot of Jewish doctors and so I'm labeling this doctor as a Jew." In this edit he argues with a different editor that Wikipedia needs more discussion of "Jewish influence in Western cultures." These are just two small examples of his constant anti-Semitic POV pushing, and frankly I'm amazed that no one has reported him yet for disruptive editing. Rockypedia (talk) 04:08, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

I don't have time for a full response, but a couple of quick factual corrections:

• I was not aware that a legitimate sock had to announce itself as such. I made this immediately clear, and Rockypedia knows this. In fact, I still can't find that requirement in the rules, but I complied when an admin asked me to (see my user page).
• The relevance of Charles Gabriel Seligman's Judaism was his work as an ethnographer/anthropologist, not as a doctor. I find it amusing that you aren't aware of that despite the fact that I clearly described it on the talk page and left three relevant sources on your user talk page.
• Do you believe that there is no such thing as Jewish influence in Western cultures? Do you believe that such influence may or may not exist, but there are no reliable sources describing it? Or do you believe that reliable sources do describe Jewish influence in Western culture, but that Wikipedia should censor it? You seem to inevitably appeal to indignation without feeling obliged to make an argument.

Franzboas (talk) 04:38, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Cuchullain

Just commenting here to respond to Alanscottwalker's comment: yes, I supported the move request, and yes, this was occluded by bad formatting on Rockypedia's part. I doubt this was intentional on their part. I have no other involvement in the article or dispute, and I'm not sure what Arbcom could do in this situation, although some pretty serious behavioral accusations are currently being made.--Cúchullain ^t/c 14:25, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved Softlavender

Franzboas, these all seem like content disputes (which the ArbCom never opines on), and I believe they do not rise to the level of an ArbCom case (even if you got a third opinion), and I believe this case request is going to be rejected by the Committee. You are free to start another Requested Move, and to advertise it neutrally at relevant WikiProject talkpages (and on relevant noticeboards such as the WP:NPOVN). I would advise letting the new RM discussion run for 30 days (not unheard of in cases of conflict or in cases in which the current article title may possibly violate some core policies or guidelines), and making sure that an uninvolved administrator closes it rather than an inexperienced non-admin. I would suggest setting up in advance someone like administrator NeilN to come in and close the new RM after 30 days. Your other concerns are content disputes and need to be settled using some form(s) of dispute resolution such as WP:RfC. You can set up an RfC for any content that you feel is being unfairly removed but which you think is applicable. If after taking the above steps, you still feel that you or your edits are being targeted, take it up at WP:ANI before coming to ArbCom. But I strongly urge you to use neutral content-dispute resolution practices rather than making this a personality conflict. Softlavender (talk) 07:33, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

@Rockypedia: Legitimate alternate accounts are not required to disclose their other/previous account (or even disclose that they are indeed alternate accounts), unless they are editing the same articles and/or subject matters as another currently active account. If you suspect that an editor is an illegitimate WP:SOCKPUPPET of another, specific account (in other words, has two currently active accounts editing in the same articles/subjects, and you have an actual idea of which other specific account the user is currently editing with), the appropriate venue for that report is WP:SPI. It is not appropriate to threaten or confront the user in question. Softlavender (talk) 09:41, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

@Rockypedia: You wrote above: "The renaming (whose purpose was to add some legitimacy to the ZOG conspiracy theory) was already discussed and opposed by consensus here. This arbitration action appears to be a WP:BATTLEGROUND action to take revenge on me for opposing the move ..." (emphasis mine), but you wholeheartedly supported the move, providing an extensive, highly detailed, and lengthy rationale. Softlavender (talk) 10:23, 2 June 2017 (UTC) Never mind. Rockypedia [1], and then the closer as well [2], royally screwed up the layout of that RM so that Rockypedia's signature got attached to Cuchullain's !vote. I have now fixed that: [3]. -- Softlavender (talk) 10:44, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Bottom line: I urge the committee to decline this case request as not ripe for ArbCom, because normal channels for the issues have not been effectively utilized. Softlavender (talk) 10:44, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Note: Franzboas has not notified the various editors he cited as parties to this dispute. I have reminded him of this requirement on his talk page. Softlavender (talk) 16:03, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Alanscottwalker (uninvovled)

Softlavender: There is something currently wrong in that move discusiion that Rockpedia references. In the close (and in the last !vote) there is a mention of User:Cuchullain in support, but it appears their name may have somehow been commented-out in the discussion and replaced by Rockypedia's name for that Support comment. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 10:49, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Never mind, i guess you fixed it while i was commenting, thanks. Alanscottwalker (talk) 10:54, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Statement by {Non-party}

Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the case request or provide additional information.

Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Zionist Occupation Government move request and content disputes: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <0/1/0>

Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse)

• Decline. I perceive nothing in this dispute rising to the level of warranting arbitration. When there is a serious dispute over whether a move discussion was resolved properly, Wikipedia:Move review would be the venue to raise the issue, but there would seem to be no value to doing so in this instance. I will add that I find the filing party's editing pattern, which largely revolves around emphasizing the Jewishness of various cultural figures, to be concerning; and in that context, I am not sure what the choice of username (see Franz Boas) is meant to convey. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:51, 2 June 2017 (UTC)