Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement: Difference between revisions - Wikipedia

Line 442:

:'''1)''' On reflection, the term "Zionist Lobby" was probably unecessarily inflammatory. I think "Hardline pro-Israeli contingent" would have been more appropriate and accurate. I apologize for the wording and will strike if requested. I would point out that I was simply repeating Vexorg's wording.

:'''2)''' I've been involved in battling for what I see as NPOV on a number of articles (e.g. against Global warming conspiracy theories on [[Climatic Research Unit email controversy]]), and I have to say, I have never met a group so ready to bring debates to arbitration as pro-Israel editors. I've been falsely arbitrated against for everything from 3RR to Sockpuppetry over editting Israel-Palestine articles. Frankly, I think much of this arbitration is frivilous. It is just a group of editors trying to throw a bunch of accussations around to see if anything sticks. It would save allot of peoples time and energy if there were a means to protect against this kind of shinanigans.

:'''3)''' I would point out that on a number of occassionsoccasions I've worked to remove what I precievedperceived as NPOV material biased against Israel (e.g. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Assassination_of_Mahmoud_al-Mabhouh#will_someone_please_remove_postings_about_israeli_public_or_media_taking_responsibility. this]). I think the editors filing this complaint would be hard pressed to provide examples of times they've fought for content which was critical of Israel.

:'''4)''' As to "Severely violates [[WP:Personal attacks]], [[WP:Assume good faith]], [[WP:Incivility]]" - I would point out that the comments that caused this complaint weren't directed at any specific editor(s) and hence aren't [[WP:Personal attacks]]. I would also point out that simply saying that editors exist who support almost any given cause is self-evident and should violate [[WP:Assume good faith]]. As to [[WP:Incivility]], haven't read this policy in detail, but I'm guessing it's one of those vague ambiguous ones that acts as a "catch-all" for this kind of arbitration.

:'''5)''' If anyone is was offended by my wording, please let me know on my talk page. Taking things straight to arbitration is counterproductive. I'm usually willing to explain and/or strike my comments.

:Best, [[User:NickCT|NickCT]] ([[User talk:NickCT|talk]]) 14:25, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

*'''Statement by Vexorg:''' Well it looks like this is the latest of a series of houndings by a bunch of politically motivated editors who are trying to remove anyone from editing articles in a manner which doesn't conform to their political agenda. In fact ironically this report by Plotspoiler violates [[Wikipedia:ARBPIA#Principles]] as does [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents/Vexorg this report by Mbz1]] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#4_editors_turning_WP_into_a_Battlefield this one by Stellarkid]. Administrator [[User:Georgewilliamherbert|Georgewilliamherbert]] called for [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Enough enough here]. And I agree. And whether you call it a Zionist Lobby, pro-Israel Lobby or just a Lobby, it's still a Lobby. And a Lobby which is transparently trying to get certain editors like myself banned from editing topics which fall within their political agenda. This report is the continuation of disruptiveness by this bunch of editors including [[user:Mbz1]], [[user:Stellarkid]] an now [[user:Plotspoiler]. Their political motivations ore obvious despite theirs claims of victimisation and I'm not going to waste any more time on this nonsense, save defend myself against false accusations. [[User:Vexorg|Vexorg]] ([[User talk:Vexorg|talk]]) 15:27, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

====Comments by others about the request concerning [[User:Supreme Deliciousness]], [[User:Vexorg]], [[User:NickCT]] ====