Because of the likely nature and size of this case, Rlevse, the primary clerk, is being assisted by Coren. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:39, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've started working on evidence, but due to the nature of this case, it's become apparent that I may not be able to say much of substance in 1,000 words. In my view, the crux of this case is the use of subtle but corrosive WP:GAME-ing tactics in order to block consensus. I'm not sure I can show that with a flurry of diffs. I don't know. How is "evidence" usually presented? <eleland/talkedits> 02:38, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd suggest looking at the cases listed at Wikipedia:General sanctions for pointers. Also take a look at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/How to present a case, which is pretty useful. -- ChrisO (talk) 02:49, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I too have begun compiling evidence in a sub-page at User:Tiamut/Evidence, if anyone is interested in taking a look. It's a draft in progess right now, and I'd appreciate comments or feedback, since it's the first I present formally in an Arbcomm. Tiamut 10:34, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Subpages have been used in the past. Try to stay focused and to the point too. Since this is a large, complex case, you can go over the limits if you really need to. For now let's say 1500 words and 150 diffs. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:08, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

However, keep in mind, the more you write, the less we read. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 18:32, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, I was going to go the other way. It's pretty clear that some form of broad discretionary sanctions (article probation at the least) will be put in place. I'm not sure I would bother adding evidence at all, unless I wanted Arbcom to consider more serious sanctions against specific editors for gross disruption, and then I would keep my evidence tightly focused on a small number of very bad editors, rather than making a broad presentation showing that many editors have been a bit of an ass. Thatcher 18:51, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thatcher and jpgordon make good points, but I also feel valid evidence shouldn't be stifled. The trick is in finding balance btwn size, focus, presentation, and not dropping off valid evidence. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:39, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm mystified now, I thought we'd been told that the ArbCom most definitely wouldn't sanction anyone anyway, so I figured it was a waste of time presenting anything.

Furthermore, I've had a disturbing report of possible abusive sock-puppetry - it seems reasonable to expect parties to this Arbitration to come out and deny they've been doing this. Well, unless they have been doing it, of course, in which case it's very important they come clean. Leaving this allegation dangling in the air is the worst possible thing to happen - but certainly tends to persuade me that the project is not currently ready to sort out manifest problems. PR^talk 22:37, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You can file a sock report at WP:SSP, possible WP:RFCU if warranted, or send to the arbs email list - arbcom-l[at]lists.wikimedia.org, be sure to mention it's related to this case. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:42, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, PR, that's not exactly what was said, and two Arbitrators do not constitute a majority. Historically, Arbcom generally finds itself unable to hand out individual sanctions in cases involving large numbers of editors all behaving badly in more or less the same way. At least one factor in those cases is that the evidence and workshop pages invariably turn into grudge matches with accusations flying left and right and every minor indiscretion from 6 months before treated as if it was the end of civilization. While Arbcom may yet entirely punt this case to WP:AE, it is also possible that they could consider individual sanctions if you can make a good concise case against one or two editors as being the worst of the group. Thatcher 23:41, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PR (and all others too)- "good concise case..." means stay focused, civil, and present hard facts, not conjecture. Supply good diffs. The more concise and to the point, the better your case will come across. Readers tend to gloss over things that are unnecessarily wordy. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:40, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a defined time frame for this case? I'm especially concerned with List of massacres committed during the Second Intifada, where a POV war began around 1 October, peaked around 20 November, and subsided after 29 November. <eleland/talkedits> 21:42, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh well, I posted it. Looks like I blew my whole evidence budget there, too. <eleland/talkedits> 23:29, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Watch the proposed decisions page (you can't edit it). When most of the voting is down, it'll close soon. Right now, this case is not close to closing. — Rlevse • Talk • 14:26, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for info about WP:Game. That's what's going on. It's a waste of time unless one is getting paid for it... or has a nice pension and nothing better to do. And of course the brazenness is NOT likely to stop here or anywhere else. But you know what they say about fighting for liberty and truth. Nevertheless I do feel my time better spent creating pages that just will come up higher than wikipedia on search engines and let other people fight these edit wars :-) Of course, I can see the temptation to just play around with their edits, not expecting to win but just to waste their time. So this is just a VERY destructive situation for wikipedia. If one takes out one's frustrations by going into other related articles and asking for fact cites or deleting obviously unsourced and POV material, at least it's constructive use of frustration. Carol Moore 22:29, 13 January 2008 (UTC)CarolMooreDC talk

I just want to emphasize my neutrality and goodwill here. I didn't want to present evidence and will gladly strikethrough my statement if PR withdraws his accusations against me. Since this was the second time it happened, and it was submitted formally, I had to respond. This is all a minor misunderstanding, as far as I'm concerned, and it's understandable with so much bad blood surrounding the dispute.

I'm still glad to collaborate in uncontroversial areas of Palestinian or Israeli culture. Respectfully, Durova^Charge! 18:47, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another problem with people doing WP:Game is when someone comes along who is just a little nitpicky and actually wiki-correct their acts can be construed as part of the "tag team" activity. I was about to list one person myself, but decided to give them the benefit of the doubt since their two or three small deletions were things I myself might delete in some other article.

Carol Moore 21:59, 14 January 2008 (UTC)CarolMooreDC talk

I don't understand how this relates to my offer of collaboration. Sometimes when there's a contentious topic it helps to find an uncontroversial area where people can collaborate and establish rapport. That's what my offer is about. I'll be over at Palestinian costumes and (I hope) helping to start an article about Biblical clothing laws. Best wishes, Durova^Charge! 22:08, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]