Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/West Bank - Judea and Samaria/Proposed decision

Arbitrators active on this case

 * To update this listing, [ edit this template] and scroll down until you find the right list of arbitrators.

Unjustified remedies against Nickhh and Pedrito
The remedies against and  are grossly unjustified when read together with the proposed findings. I cannot understand what has motivated the drafting arb to be so indifferent. If an editor has engaged in sustained or repeated edit-warring, without any other evidence of misbehaviour or problem editing that can amount to a finding, then a partial or full topic ban is not the way to go - particularly when that's what is being imposed on users who have findings that include links of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, editwarring, using Wiki as a battleground, incivility, etc. etc. Please make the necessary adjustments, either by adding extra links/diffs, proposing extra findings, or proposing remedies that are less restrictive on these users. Personally, I don't believe a finding nor remedy are necessary if that's all there is on these 2 - the community seems to be dealing with the behaviour in blocks of escalating duration, and there is no need for anything more. If I have somehow managed to miss something, please explain what it is. Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:50, 3 May 2009 (UTC)


 * As pointed out in the principles, edit-warring is not acceptable; everyone who edit-warred here has contributed to dragging out this dispute for months. The point of the remedies is to resolve the dispute (which they will, if only by making sure that none of the parties are capable of continuing it further), not to draw some scale of relative seriousness among different policy violations. Kirill [talk] [pf] 15:53, 3 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Of course it's not acceptable - do you believe that in making this thread that I am advocating that it is? This community has always ensured that wherever possible, there will be no inequitable remedies, and this I'm afraid gives all appearances of going against that. Making different policy violations requires a more sweeping remedy to address all of it as a bundle and resolve the behavioural issues; obviously, merely engaging in one policy violation deserves a remedy that addresses just that behaviour, rather than a presumption of bad faith that the behaviour will extend to other policy violations whereby they should be banned from the area. Now I know there's 4 users where you've proposed a finding of edit-warring; I find insufficient evidence to suggest that these 2 will engage in further problematic behaviour outside of edit-warring, if at all. And then looking at how long ago some of these 'policy violations' have occurred is even more troubling and suggests we have members on the Committee advocating punitive sanctions, which is even worse than the behaviour itself because it goes against the spirit of wiki. So...this is a request for you to propose a remedy to that effect, or to provide the Fofs with more evidence (maybe there's some edit-summaries or comments I'm unaware of) - if you don't have any though, then there's something seriously wrong. How many more cases do we need to go through (let alone tolerate) before we establish the fact that some of the proposed decision making here is atrocious? I would've thought that 'none' would be the ideal answer. Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:15, 4 May 2009 (UTC)


 * No edit warring has taken place since mid-February, and the main focus has consistently been on talk page discussions. There is one reason that the dispute has dragged out for months, and that is the stonewalling of what is by now in all likelihood the best-supported fact in Wikipedia history: that "Judea" and "Samaria" is non-standard, partisan terminology. MeteorMaker (talk) 16:09, 3 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I see no mention of IDIDNTHEARTHAT in the findings. The proposed decision does not suggest that IDIDNTHEARTHAT, stonewalling, disregard for content policies or guidelines and similar talkpage conduct were significant factors here.  Kanguole 00:01, 4 May 2009 (UTC)


 * OK, regardless of the fact that my username has been invoked here, I find this situation very disturbing. We had a dispute over some content/terminology across several articles, which about five different editors saw as a very real problem about WP:NPOV, WP:NCGN, nationalism on wikipedia etc rather than any real content dispute as such. As a result of that there was some limited edit warring and reams of talk page debate. That dispute was brought to ArbCom by one of those editors (User:Pedrito as it happens), in good faith, noting there was a problem and looking for some sort of resolution. At that point the edit wars were pretty much put on hold - by all those involved, mostly - and efforts were also made to come to some sort of collective agreement at WP:IPCOLL and elsewhere about the underlying dispute. Now while ArbCom will not rule directly on content, I did - perhaps naively - assume that there might be some genuine evaluation of what had been going on, and also some attempt to take a constructive approach to the problem, albeit with warnings about past conduct and the threat of future sanctions where necessary. From my point of view that would have involved some fairly harsh judgements about the stonewalling and policy-gaming being undertaken by some editors in favour of what is fairly obviously a minority/partisan terminology, of the sort that would see - and has seen - pretty swift action in any other context on wikipedia; as well as on baseless accusations of ethnic discrimination and anti-semitism. Failing that, at the least, as I say, some forward looking thinking, more concerned with how to resolve problems with content rather than punishing editors en masse, whichever "side" of a dispute they fell on. That would seem to be more important, surely, to those actually concerned with how this place functions as a repository of information.
 * Instead we got a whole load of fairly draconian and blanket proposals on the workshop page, focused solely on allegedly egregious edit warring (seemingly based on little more than a glance at block logs) and suggesting pretty much sweeping topic bans for anyone who had been involved in the dispute, even those whose involvement was relatively limited, and regardless of the underlying issues which had been raised in evidence. Pretty much every one of those proposals, regardless of who they referred to, was met on that page with multiple "opposes" by uninvolved editors and by editors involved on the other "side" of the debate. Yet those proposals pretty much seem to have been cut and pasted here and appear to be heading for unanimous approval by arbitrators. Now forgive me, but who appointed or elected this tribunal to have such domineering executive and judicial powers, which can be exercised against the clear consensus of those other members of the community here who have commented? Why is this being done without any apparent attempt to analyse the problem brought before them, or any attempt to explain the reasoning behind their decisions? Are we talking about a situation where pages are being vandalised and wrecked as they appear to the average reader, which situation will continue without such drastic action? As noted elsewhere this kind of ruling will only deter the more casual and disinterested editors from entering controversial areas and hopefully being able to offer something approaching an outside and objective viewpoint - if you're just going to end up being treated as a troublemaker, undifferentiated from the most involved and extremist partisan, why bother? As I have said elsewhere, I would not miss being bounced out of I-P articles, but a) that's not the entire point; and b) I do not see why I and others should have to edit on other pages with a black mark hanging over us, or constantly wondering whether someone will leap up to claim that the CNN or The Middle East (nightclub) pages are in fact I-P articles. --Nickhh (talk) 01:06, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * ps: I might add that the proposed finding that User:MeteorMaker has used WP as an "ethnic battleground", as well as the suggestion above that all that is needed to "resolve the dispute" for the betterment of this encyclopedia is simply to smother the edit warring by blocking everyone, are both, well, a little dispiriting to say the least, and don't do much to inspire confidence in the process at work here.

Counter-productive effects of the proposed ArbCom decision

 * There is no proposal to have Nishidani indefinitely-blocked. Nishidani can use those attributes you speak of outside this area of the project, and they will be able to return to this topical area in due course. John Vandenberg (chat) 12:10, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Terminology slip-up, my bad. "Block" changed to "topic ban" above, point still stands, since the I/P area is one of Nishidani's main areas of expertise and one in dire need of editors who hold source evaluation in high regard. The terms for lifting the restrictions are significantly more vague than in the original proposal, is that intentional? MeteorMaker (talk) 13:23, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Wording
I wonder whether my comment about the wording "stripped of" wasn't noticed. I believe it's of considerable importance in a situation such as this to avoid wording which can be interpreted as having negative connotations. There are other ways to say it, e.g. "the privileges are removed". It's a matter of considering the feelings of the person concerned. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 14:28, 3 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, the wording is intended to be negative—it's a serious sanction, after all, not a commendation. Kirill [talk] [pf] 15:49, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Indeed, the wording seems intended to embarrass, humiliate and disgrace the subject. Regardless of the actual intention, that is how it seems, and that is how it is going to be perceived by many.  And, as a number of people have pointed out, much of what is being thrown at Jay here has nothing to do with this case.  I think that if this passes (regardless of the specific wording), many will conclude that "wikipolitics" has infected the arbitration process.  6SJ7 (talk) 17:55, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * "Many"? ... Maybe. But I think many more will conclude that the 2009 ArbCom is trying to lessen the effect of previous wikipolitics by removing one of the practitioners who brought the project into serious disrepute. I acknowledge in advance your disagreement, since you're part of the cadre of participants who continue to insist that Jayjg is a hero who has never done anything worthy of sanction. But most people, I suspect, see through that charade. Many of them, I suspect, won't say so as they are scared to actually speak out, having seen how vindictive some wikipartisans can be, but that doesn't mean there isn't a silent majority here that disagrees with you. I should start an anonymous survey or something. ++Lar: t/c 23:51, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Honest to goodness Lar, "most" of us don't give a damn. The deafening silence is apathy and ignorance, not fear.--Tznkai (talk) 00:00, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Hope you're right. Fear you're not. ++Lar: t/c 00:10, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Kirill, for stating so clearly that your "remedies" are sublimated expressions of malice.67.170.86.62 (talk) 22:26, 3 May 2009 (UTC)


 * What most people will see is one functionary (Lar) proudly acknowledging off-wiki canvassing, expressly admitting that his motivation for Jayjg to be stripped of privileges is so that his wiki-battles will become easier, and gloating about it in Wikipedia Review - and getting away with it without so much as a slap on the wrist. If THAT does not bring the project into disrepute, nothing will. NoCal100 (talk) 00:06, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Because that's about the biggest distortion of reality I've seen in quiiiiite some time. ++Lar: t/c 00:10, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * per your request: NoCal100 (talk) 00:14, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, that was a statement by me. You got that part right, anyway. None of the rest followed, though. But as Tznkai said, this is the wrong place for your campaign. ++Lar: t/c 00:43, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Seemed like the right place for your campaign when you started it, didn't it? Do you deny that you acknowledge off-wiki canvassing in that reference? NoCal100 (talk) 00:50, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I asked a number of people I trusted and respected at the time to go take a look at an RfA, read it, and make up their own mind, yes. That was in December 2007. Oddly, no one at that time replied that they felt there was any issue. Now, 16 months later with nary an intervening mention, one of the people I sent that note to decided to leak it to that anon. Wikipolitics. I agree with JoshuaZ when he says the rules on canvassing are inconsistent and need review. ++Lar: t/c 01:00, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok, we're making progress - you don't seem to deny that the reference I provided has you acknowledging off-wiki canvassing. So when you sad 'None of the rest followed', were you absentminded? forgetful? Deliberately misleading? And how is your asking a number of people you trust to go and vote the way you want on an RfA any different from Jayjg asking a number of people he trusts to go and edit the way he wants on an article? That, too, was a long time ago, and not relevant to this case. Yet for some reason, you're walking away scot-free. How do you explain that? NoCal100 (talk) 01:24, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Because, despite attempts by those uncomfortable with the points I raised to recast this, it's not about me. That's why. You're in the wrong venue with this. I invite you to my talk page to continue this discussion if you like. Note (if you are worried you won't get a fair hearing) that unlike the talk pages of some folk who are parties to this case, and their allies, I don't archive my talk page just because discussion gets a little uncomfortable for me, or delete/oversight/hide material and not restore it. So stop by if you like. But I'm done with replying to this here. ++Lar: t/c 16:23, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * NoCal100, Lar did not say that he asked a number of people to vote the way he wanted. He said he asked them to make up their own minds.  One of the criteria in the canvassing policy is neutrality of the message; from what was said here it sounds to me that the message was neutral. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 23:17, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * You're confused, dear anon. ++Lar: t/c 23:51, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * No, he's actually nailed it. NoCal100 (talk) 00:06, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * If you have nothing productive and topic to say, don't say it. Complaints about lar and responses to those complaints belong somewhere else.--Tznkai (talk) 00:12, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

We don't usually use such wording. Even in the worst cases of admin abuse we simply say that they are being "desyssoped". There's no need to use this sort of wording at all unless as one gets from Kirill above that one actively wants to embarass and hurt the user in question. I don't know how to put this more politiely, but the only positive I see in this wording is that it makes it clear to any bystander that this proposal stems from internal political and personal issues and not clear thinking about policy, precedent or what's best for Wikipedia. JoshuaZ (talk) 20:21, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Kirill, that approach to choice of words seems to me to run counter to the spirit of the civility policy and to the principle that we don't use sanctions as punishment. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 23:17, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Topic ban wording
I've got some experience with enforcing topic bans, so let me give you some free advice.
 * Topic bans should be bans on the topic, and should be spelled out as such: Articles on the topic, articles having substantially to do with the topic, policy pages having to do with the topic, edits that are about topic even outside of topic-banned pages , and talk pages of all of those pages.
 * If you want to make an exception for article talk pages, make that a specific exception.
 * Define the topic broadly. Its better to cover some ancillary articles than miss any. In addition, write out specifics before you write "broadly interpreted", "Articles having to do with Arab/Israeli conflict relations, history of any of the involved parties, activism relating the conflict, geographic, border, land, identity disputes and any and all other topics substantially related to the Arab/Israeli conflict"
 * Topic bans have the unfortunate tendency of pushing banned writers to the fringe of the topic, where they are editing articles with lower visibility. Expect edits on Arab/Israeli activists, fictional characters, politicians who've taken money from particular lobby, obscure historical articles if they are not topic banned. No matter how broad the topic ban, articles that have some sort of ancillary relation will be targeted, often as some sort of taunting measure. This is part of the importance of keeping the topic broad, and to all edits, not articles.
 * This is inviting a free for all at AE. Do you have any administrators lined up to help out? A go-to Arbitrator who can clarify the committee's intent? A list of administrators who 'shouldn't be involved?
 * Keep your eye on the prize. The idea is to normalize the editing environment and keep these editors out of that area, but within Wikipedia. Be ready to come to their defense if they're being gamed, and be ready to back up administrators when the banned editors screw up.

--Tznkai (talk) 16:05, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I would add to that, if this passes, get ready for some extra stress on the checkuser process... and for a general decrease in "trust" (in an area where trust is already difficult to come by), because checkuser cannot always produce a solid conclusion. If such a large number of active editors are banned from this large topic area, I predict that every "new" editor who shows up in this area will be suspected, by someone, of being a sockpuppet of one of the banned users.  And quite possibly, some will be, but most won't be.  It won't matter.  The opportunities for neo-McCarthyist hysteria on Wikipedia are mind-boggling.  People will be seeing sockpuppets under every bed and around every corner.  6SJ7 (talk) 18:17, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The way I see it is, that these socks won't have allies and long edit histories to hide behind. So the second they disrupt wikipedia, they can just be immediately banned for being disruptive (and whether they actually are socks or not is secondary). This will allow existing experts, such as the folks at WP:IPCOLL, as well as uninvolved editors to edit in a more relaxed environment. --ScWizard (talk) 20:33, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I understand your concern, but you might not be aware that one of those experts has countered the the massive evidence against his position with an ArbCom case proposal that "there is no point in checking sources" and the fact that it violates multiple policies with a proposal that we shouldn't be "sticking to rules and procedures". What I'm afraid will happen now, in the absence of editors in favor of neutral terminology and familiar with the subject, is that the partisan-terminology side sweeps the evidence under the carpet and hijacks the guidelines draft work. This has become a black farce. MeteorMaker (talk) 21:04, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * You're misunderstanding me. When I said "the experts at WP:IPCOLL" what I meant was the many people at the project who aren't parties to this case. I was under the impression that none of the collaborators were parties to this case, but apparently I was wrong.
 * What I'm trying to say, is that there are many editors who are "experts" in this subject. And topic banning everyone who's that they've proposed to topic ban won't "drain the topic of talent" to such a terrible extent. Also there are many many editors who are in favor of "west bank" who aren't parties to this case. You and the few others with that opinion mentioned in this case getting topic banned won't seal a victory for the people on the other side of the content dispute. Instead it will allow the community to come to a consensus. --ScWizard (talk) 21:32, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, suffice it to say that I've lost a few illusions during this case, and I think you're in for a somewhat unpleasant surprise too if you actually believe that. If any neutral-terminology-favoring and policy-compliant editor feels encouraged to step forward and continue the work after seeing what happened to us five, I'll eat my wiki-hat. MeteorMaker (talk) 21:49, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, MeteorMaker, you are one of the few people involved in this case who should be banned. 6SJ7 (talk) 02:32, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * That opinion, fortunately, seems to be peculiar to 6SJ7. MeteorMaker (talk) 07:38, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Guidelines work
As Kirill promised when I voiced my concern that this proposed decision might have the effect that the guidelines draft work will be left entirely without topic-savvy editors in favor of keeping the terminology neutral, a clause has been added that addresses this problem: Editors restricted from participating in certain discussions as a result of this case may apply to have those restrictions temporarily suspended for the exclusive purpose of participating in the discussion of draft guidelines for this area. Since the primary function of these guidelines is to specify the allowed exceptions for J&S from the established principle in WP:NCGN about using the most widely recognized toponym, it's extremely important that the neutral-terminology side isn't excluded from the discussions at this late stage. By adding that clause, the ArbCom has shown a similar concern. I hereby humbly request permission to continue with that work. I also hope the courtesy will be shown to refrain from substantially changing the text of the proposed guidelines from the current version until this request has been considered. MeteorMaker (talk) 07:38, 4 May 2009 (UTC)


 * As a procedural matter, we won't be formally considering any applications until the restrictions which would make them relevant actually pass; but we'll proceed with your application once that occurs. Kirill [talk] [pf] 13:38, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Linking common sense
I know not if we may, or should, make a minor edit, since the arbs are now signing. However, my view is that Proposed Principle Five is insufficiently informative and credible, without the a link where it leads; almost incredible, actually. I understand currently that ‘common sense’ is neither policy nor guideline, but it is where the decision points, and that point exists; without the link, it does not officially say so. The decision is forward-looking, people need the link to see that this undefinable exists. Comments? I can vet a recent good example, should anyone be interested. Regards, CasualObserver&#39;48 (talk) 09:00, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Common sense tells us that resolution of this case was delayed a month by filibustering in order that enough "persuasion" could be brought bear on the adjudicators. Nothing else explains the the result achieved here, with the language of an extreme and condemned minority become main-stream in this place. congratulations all. 92.62.1.5 (talk) 12:39, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Two questions for arbitrators
What role does the workshop actually play in ArbCom decisions? A rough count of the section there where individual topic bans (and further restrictions in one case) were originally proposed, reveals a total of around 45 "opposes" and 2 "supports" (one self-inflicted).

What counts as "extensive and repeated" edit-warring, for which an indefinite topic ban - across an area much broader than the actual specific area under debate - is now suddenly deemed an appropriate punishment? Would six edits in two weeks some six months ago, one of which was an attempted compromise; together with a short related spat three months ago, for which a block has already been imposed and served, fall under that definition?

Just curious as there appears to be a distinct lack of explanation as to what lies behind these fairly severe sanctions. --Nickhh (talk) 15:46, 4 May 2009 (UTC)


 * If the parties could resolve the case themselves, it would not now be before ArbCom. I believe that this dispute is one symptom of a wider an persistent battleground, which has not been resolved in spite of numerous prior attempts. We need to try some stronger medicine.
 * At any rate, the workshop is not a vote&mdash;I tend to look for reasoned opinions from third parties. I tend to discount !votes and partisan commentary, and I especially discount partisan !votes. You will notice that Kirill's suggestion for using FA/GA promotions was roundly rejected by third parties on the workshop, and that it does not appear here. Cool Hand Luke 16:00, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, Kirill's suggestion wasn't put forth. However, a different proposal stating that requests to lift restrictions would be periodicaly evaluated, and which made it much more explicit than the usual wording that quality contributions to the encyclopedia were considered helpful, did make it into the proposed decision, where it seems to be handily passing so far. That seems like the criticism from the community was taken on board and a better, more acceptable proposal, stripped of the explicit targets but still carrying the spirit (that we should all be here to write an encyclopedia), was made. Strikes me as a sign that the arbs do listen to reasoned discussion. ++Lar: t/c 16:19, 4 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree. I think the evolution of that finding was a good use of the workshop page. Cool Hand Luke 18:49, 4 May 2009 (UTC)


 * (Reply to CHL - edit conflict) But there are attempts to resolve this collaboratively, involving the very editors who have been in dispute. In addition there has been virtually no edit warring on the articles involved for about three months, nor was there always a huge amount in the first place. I fail to understand what these retrospective rulings are trying to achieve. And of course edit warring is usually little more than a symptom of another problem - whether it is repeated vandalism, nationalist or fringe POV-pushing, BLP issues or a genuine 50-50 content dispute. None of the remedies do anything to address the underlying causes, which will remain in place even if a few editors who might have briefly edit warred over it in the past are removed from the scene.
 * I totally understand the "not a vote" point, especially were the figures to be close, but equally under what remit is ArbCom effectively dismissing a near unanimous consensus among the wide variety of editors who have commented on the issue? As you point out, they seem to have accepted such a consensus in opposition to the FA/GA promotion proposal. And the comments opposing blocks on individual editors were more or less entirely from either the uninvolved, or from other editors who have in fact tended to clash sometimes in the past, in this particular dispute or elsewhere, with those they were commenting on - precisely the sort you suggest should be taken into account. There were actually hardly any attempts to score partisan points against "opposing" editors, other than perhaps in the case of User:Jayjg - where the proposed findings were in any event toned down half way through the workshop if I recall correctly. --Nickhh (talk) 16:24, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Yet again, I am in the curious position of agreeing wholeheartedly with Nick. As Nick points out, there are plenty of editors crossing “sides” here to support each other. Though some people may feel I have a “side” myself, assuming that were true, I think my support of, for example, Nick himself – an editor I had a pretty bitter exchange with and usually strongly disagree with – should mean more than the support of a mere neutral bystander. I think it’s pretty clear that the community has more or less rejected, in toto, every remedy put forth in the workshop. I am both saddened and troubled that this wide-ranging disapproval merits at best cosmetic changes in a one-size-fits-all blanket condemnation of all parties. This does not help Wikipedia. IronDuke  17:57, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * What do you believe the community would have us do? A selective condemnation? I would honestly like to know. Cool Hand Luke 18:49, 4 May 2009 (UTC)


 * In my ideal world, tell all those who disagree with me to quit with accusations of ethnic discrimination, resign themselves to the fact that WP:NCGN applies here and that the evidence is weighted massively towards the predominance of "West Bank" as the neutral, modern, standard name for the area in question, not "Judea" and "Samaria" in some combination or other. And in an even more ideal world, censure them for continually dodging the evidence that shows this pretty conclusively and for engaging in some fairly unwarranted personal attacks. Now for various reasons, that's not going to fly in its entirety (and even if it were to, I have never asked for anyone involved in this overwrought debate to be blocked or banned, from either "side").
 * However, I do not see why we couldn't have a verdict that say affirmed in principle WP:NCGN and WP:NPOV etc as important rules, that condemned edit warring generally and then ordered the miscreants involved to set about agreeing some standard guidelines which would work out exactly how WP:NCGN would apply in this case, following eg the Macedonia and Ireland naming disputes; perhaps with sanctions to follow if that weren't done by a certain date, or if it were but people then flouted them. As noted people were actually starting to do that anyway (and others, like myself, had kind of got bored and wandered back to the areas here that actually interest them more). At one point it seemed ArbCom was willing to facilitate that, when we were all asked if the case should be put on hold while people worked on those compromises - however suddenly with these proposals, that effort has actually been more or less scuppered, since everyone will need special dispensation to take part in that very process. Thus we have a solution which deals only with the superficial problem (past edit warring) by imposing draconian bans on several editors, however which leaves WP with some fairly ropey and inconsistent content and also simply leaves everyone waiting for another bunch of editors to turn up and engage in the NPOV vs partisan terminology battle over that content all over again in the future. Wrong on every level as far as I can see, as well as personally a little galling for those of us who simply tried to get standard terminology used here. --Nickhh (talk) 19:44, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * You might be right, but we don't rule on content in any case. The theory is that this topic is such a battleground that we can't tell what might be best for these articles in a vacuum. My hope is that once we clear away the warriors, less entrenched editors will enter this topic and establish neutrality. This isn't meant as a punishment to you or anyone else, but these wars have got to stop. If it turns out that you're right and that your terminology is indeed neutral, future editors will hopefully adopt it. Cool Hand Luke 15:56, 5 May 2009 (UTC)


 * (ec @ CHL)Thanks for replying. I would say 1) I’m not sure condemnation is really what should be done here at all. The main focus seems to be edit-warring. Is edit-warring good? No? Deserving of incredibly harsh condemnation? Also no. If those principles/remedies were widely applied, large parts of Wikipedia would shut down overnight. 2) Is it really the case that Canadian Monkey, G-Dett, Jayjg, MeteorMaker, Nickhh, NoCal, & Pedrito have all done the exact same wrong things? Given that the topical remedies are the same for them all, that would stand to reason, and yet, they vary widely… there is incivility by one, extra edit-warring by another, etc. The only difference is that Jay gets all his privileges removed, and that’s only because he has the extra stuff to be taken away. There’s been the suggestion that this case is merely an excuse to get Jay. I don’t know if that’s true, but I know that the treatment of every other editor involved here with remedies that are both very harsh bafflingly generic would only add support to that speculation.


 * What would the community have you do? I don't know; I am not their representative. But I think nuance, balance, and fairness would be something they'd mostly agree on, and that they'd further agree the remedies in this case are almost entirely lacking in it. IronDuke  19:55, 4 May 2009 (UTC)


 * This is not "incredibly harsh condemnation," it's prevention. This broad topic is a no-mans land thanks to this edit wars. It's been the repeated subject of ArbCom cases. The wars must stop, and new editors should feel safe and not caught in the crossfire. The best way I can think of doing this is to move all of the warriors out without picking favorites. Cool Hand Luke 15:32, 5 May 2009 (UTC)


 * That, to me, makes the fundamental error of assuming that the problems are necessarily to do with the editors currently involved there, as opposed to having rather more to do with the topic area itself. I don't see that will change with this remedy, which leaves the underlying content problems in limbo. And what it also says is that the more occasional editors, who have no stake in the underlying real world conflict but who might pop in from time to time to offer some objective views on neutrality from a more international perspective - and yes, maybe revert some edits occasionally - will get whacked along with everyone else if they try to do that. Surely not the message you want to send if you want to stop the area being a "no-mans land"? --Nickhh (talk) 15:54, 5 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Nick puts it well. If I'd never before touched an IP article, there's no way in hell I'd go near one now, regardless of my POV (or lack thereof). If Nick can be topic banhammered for a handful of reverts, why stick my neck out to revert anything on an IP article? I also think it's highly inappropriate to, using Nick again as an example, ban him on the basis of his being one of "the warriors," implying that he has a long and bad history of this across many articles, without evidence he can respond to -- and the same goes for pretty much every other party to the case. IronDuke  17:33, 7 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Sadly, few members of ArbCom are getting into the knitty-gritty, but at least they make us proud. The rest believe that they are helping this encyclopedia when all they are doing is endorsing inequitable remedies that are not in the interests of this encyclopedia or its contributors. If anything, it promotes a sense of unfairness and deters fresh faces from contributing in the area at all. That's precisely why we elected them when it came to these sorts fo disputes - to ensure that doesn't happen. We didn't elect them so that all they do was force participants to spend weeks surrounded by bureaucracy, after which they do what we could've done in 72hours-1week, without wasting time on principles and Fofs. I'm unable to say many arbitrators that are elected onto ArbCom make us proud, because they repeatedly put me in a position where I have to hastily add: that's a very noble dream for fools like us. Should I put a happy face or a sad one? Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:28, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The entire reason that this is here, Ncmvocalist, is that the community has not been able to do this "in 72hours-1week, without wasting time on principles and Fofs". Risker (talk) 16:47, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

"MeteorMaker has attempted to use Wikipedia as a battleground along national, ethnic, or ideological lines"
This accusation point, If I understand it correctly, is based on one single talk page comment: "Abraham D. Sofaer was a member of a Zionist org in his youth . Yes, you are allowed one faux pas in your life, but interestingly, I have not been able to find more than one instance of him using the term "Samaria" either".

Excuse me for failing to see how this line, even if read in extremely bad faith, comes close to be a violation of WP:BATTLE. Holding grudges? Importing personal conflicts? Nurturing hatred or fear? Making personal battles out of Wikipedia discussions? Because I suggested, in passing, that Abraham D. Sofaer might not have regretted his decision to leave an organization he was a member of in his teens, fifty years ago?

Even among the many draconian measures in this proposed final decision, this one stands out as particularly disproportionate. To add insult to injury, it practically invites people to read things into it that aren't stated. I've kept this dispute entirely focused on the facts and can confidently say that beside this misconstrued (but admittedly somewhat flippant) comment, it's impossible to find any indication whatsoever that I have "attempted to use Wikipedia as a battleground along national, ethnic, or ideological lines". MeteorMaker (talk) 21:37, 4 May 2009 (UTC)


 * On the contrary, claiming that membership in a Zionist organization is a faux pas is certain to provoke a negative reaction from any editors who are members of Zionist organizations, and I do not consider it plausible that you were not aware of that when you made this statement. This sort of deliberate needling of other editors along ideological lines is one of the major factors which cause editing disputes in this area to degenerate into partisan battlegrounds. Kirill [talk] [pf] 12:43, 6 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Uhm, not wanting to sound rude or anything, but if there is a pattern of "deliberate needling", can you -- or anybody here -- produce any other example thereof? Cheers,  pedrito  -  talk  - 06.05.2009 12:46


 * Indeed, "needling" implies repetition, and "deliberate" ignores the explanation I've given here of my thinking when I used that term. I have also admitted in retrospect it might have been seen as flippant, but I certainly had no intention to provoke other editors, which would have been entirely counterproductive. The expression "faux pas" may have a slightly different connotation and possibly sound more sinister in English than in my main language. MeteorMaker (talk) 13:24, 6 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Nope, you were right first time. It normally refers to something fairly trivial and minor and is often used as part of a fairly light-hearted accusation, in my understanding of the word - often a perceived breach of etiquette rather than a major blunder of any sort. For example "he admitted to having voted Republican once, but we let him get away with that faux pas". I too still await any examples of "needling", deliberate or otherwise. --Nickhh (talk) 14:41, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I interpret Vassyana's comment here as an indication there might be some confusion as to what part of the diff is claimed as evidence of the alleged infraction. This potential for confusion did not exist in the draft version of the FoF because the exact quote was specified. Could perhaps the "faux pas" line be reinserted to make it clear what the voting is on? MeteorMaker (talk) 05:38, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Couple of questions
In bringing the case, Perditio asserted that it is about WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, edit-warring, WP:POV-pushing and Wiki-Lawyering against consensus, sources and Wikipedia policies. The proposed principles, findings of fact, and remedies concentrate on the easily-diffable edit-warring aspects but make little or no mention of the more nebulous, intractable and, to my mind, serious accusations. I'd like to ask the committee to what extent it considered those other accusations.

I'd also like to ask whether the committee feels that the encyclopedia is damaged when a group of editors exhibit an implacable determination that their POV will be reflected in an article, regardless of a mountain of evidence that their POV is not the NPOV; whether they feel that that happened in this case; and whether it is appropriate that they take such behaviour into consideration during their deliberations.

Finally, I'd like to ask whether the decision in this case "not to draw some scale of relative seriousness among different policy violations" is a general principle to which the committee adheres. I have to say that as a relative newbie I find that idea kinda boggling, and that it seems to me to run counter to every notion of justice.--MoreThings (talk) 22:04, 4 May 2009 (UTC)


 * My sentiment exactly. There is no finding regarding WP:NCGN or the adherence thereto. As stated quite succinctly in the post below, I think the arbs are only dealing with the symptoms, not the root cause. Cheers,  pedrito  -  talk  - 05.05.2009 06:23


 * Well, quite. I'd have thought that after bringing the case, the least that you could expect is that each of your concerns would be addressed in the findings.


 * I feel that the central issue of this case, the one conspicuously absent from the findings, is exactly the one outlined by Vassyana here. Not only does the proposed decision fail to address that issue, it fails even to mention it.  The decision hands out equal sanctions all around for edit-warring yet refuses to take a stance against behaviour which, as Vassyana states, "breaks the wiki process at its root". What kind of message does that send to the community? What does it say about what you can and can't get away with, about which charges the committee will investigate and which it won't?


 * This a sensitive area, but a brave decision was required; if the committee won't address the problem in a case as clear-cut as this, when will it ever? --MoreThings (talk) 19:53, 5 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Because arbcomm has failed to correctly identify the issues at stake here, it practically assures the wikipedia community with have to deal with ididnthearthat, stonewalling, and pov editing for years to come. Just take a look at this "discussion" on the reliable sources noticeboard. Look at the arguments being made by many editors who are parties to or who have commented on this case. It is crystal clear who is engaging in stonewalling, ididnthearthat and soapboxing and who is serious and consistent in their invocation and application of core policies. Arbcomm shows a distinct lack of curiousity about the effects of these very serious conduct issues, which make a laughingstock of consensus by using it as a tool to prevent the introduction of facts some editors simply do not like. 87.68.46.224 (talk) 15:15, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Looks like the arbs had enough of the continued conflicts at the I/P articles
I get the distinct feeling that the arbs finally had enough of the ongoing battles at the I/P articles, and they come down with a pretty strong and clear message regarding this. I think it was long overdue, and I see the usual suspects barking against aspects, generally those who have to loose most if they cannot use wikipedia as a battleground any more because it will be so much easier to apply the spirit of this ruling to each and every other editor who thinks he can cpntinue like they did until now. Kudos! -- Kim van der Linde at venus 22:38, 4 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I've refrained from commenting on this case before now, and I won't comment on the specific findings, but I will make one point. The arbs appear to be taking a blank slate approach - clearing away a generation of deadlocked, quarrelling editors to make way for fresh blood. While this might quieten things down in the short term, I wonder how effective this will be in the long term. The I/P conflict is a protean affair - there undoubtedly be a new generation of edit warriors before long to replace those topic-banned in this arbitration. It's not just a matter of a few editors who can't get along with each other; the on-wiki conflicts are merely a reflection of a long-running off-wiki dispute. How long will it be before the next arbitration case on this issue? -- ChrisO (talk) 23:25, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I am forced to emphatically agree with Chris. Go a step further: ban everyone who has ever reverted any (non vandalistic) edit on any IP subject. As Chris says, things will quiet down, and a new crop will come in to war over the same issues. Not only is this not better, it is considerably worse. Editors who are longtime contributors here have something to lose by pushing their POV or flouting rules too relentlessly: standing and respect. Editors who have sprung up overnight have nothing to lose. There’s always another account waiting around the corner. The thing that this case’s remedies are ostensibly meant to prevent – edit-warring on IP articles – will only increase in frequency, malevolence, and brainlessness. And what then? Beg the editors who have been carelessly tossed aside to come back and ride herd on the new crop? Good luck with that. IronDuke  23:53, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * If you look at the findings, there are some remedies that point to a 'way back'. A constructive approach would be to undertake them rather than complain. It really needn't be a battlefield on wiki. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:25, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, after a sort of ritual humiliation/abasement, editors with damaged credibility will be grudgingly allowed back. I doubt very much anyone will take you up on this, on either side (not to mention the fact that Jay doesn't get his tools back after 6 months, does he?). Annoying as IP articles can someftimes be, a mechanism exists for correcting it. This case's remedies not only do not correct it, but they run a good chance of making this area far more chaotic and extreme than it already is. IronDuke  00:48, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Why wouldn't editors not want to help out with producing some featured content? What is humiliating about that?  I personally find participation in that kind of work in Wikipedia extremely rewarding.  I suggest that you try it if you haven't already.  Also, Jayjg doesn't appear to be desysopped, so he'll still have some "tools" if that's important to him and you.  Furthermore, this case gives broad discretion to admins to apply these sanctions to other offending editors in that topic area, if necessary in order to prevent "chaos" from breaking out.  Finally, what Casliber said. Cla68 (talk) 00:56, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * It is difficult for me to believe you cannot understand what I mean. IronDuke  02:47, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh, look who shows up in the middle of the political hatchet-job that this arbitration has become: Kim, who has been trying to "get" Jay for years. As has ChrisO, but I have to admit that Chris seems appropriately nervous about the results of this arbitration. He must realize that he dodged a bullet, yet again. He is far more guilty of making the Israel/Palestinian area a battleground than many of those being banned. 6SJ7 (talk) 03:32, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * There are certainly some aggressively belligerent individuals who should have been topic-banned, and it's a pity they haven't been included in the decision. -- ChrisO (talk) 07:07, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Would you object to naming those users? Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:09, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I think they know who I mean, but as I've said before, I'm not going to get involved in this case. I suggest that it would be best for everyone - on all sides of the dispute - to reflect on the outcome of this case and learn the appropriate lessons. -- ChrisO (talk) 07:22, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * What needs to be understood here is that when ChrisO calls someone "aggressively belligerent", what he means is someone who disagrees with his POV and has the temerity not to crumble under his tactics of intimidation and threats. 6SJ7 (talk) 01:09, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * 6SJ7, No Personal Attacks still apply to you, even here at this talk page. As for Jay, he has been sanctioned a remarkable many times by now, so I think he is very well capable of digging his own grave. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 13:32, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Kim, you come here to dance on peoples' graves, and you lecture me about civility? What a joke.  Needless to say, I don't think you have any lessons about behavior to offer anyone.  6SJ7 (talk) 00:57, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * 6SJ7, you are so predictable! So, but let me repeat, No Personal Attacks still apply to you. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 02:26, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Kim, I don't think what you're doing is helpful. This is a painful case for people on all sides of this issue. IronDuke  02:49, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Do you think that 6SJ7's No Personal Attacks are helpfull? -- Kim van der Linde at venus 02:51, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think any personal attacks are helpful. That said, I think your contribution here could reasonably be interpreted as gloating, even if you didn't mean it that way. IronDuke  03:23, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Good, thank you for agreeing with me on the personal attacks. As for the second part, maybe you should assume good faith before you starting to assume why I do specific things. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 13:14, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * You do not seem to have grasped what I'm saying at all. IronDuke  15:55, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Really? So, why do you not try to explain it to me without resorting to assumptions of bad faith etc. My point is that certain groups of editors very quickly resort to bad faith accusations and personal attacks just to bully some people in shutting up. Proof me wrong please. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 16:53, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, I suppose I can prove the last part of what you wrote is wrong easily enough: virtually never have I seen a pro-Palestinian editor able to make a pro-Israeli editor shut up just by “bullying” them, nor have I seen the reverse of that. If there’s one thing they all have in common, it’s a strong desire to be heard and pretty thick skins. Also, I haven’t resorted to assumptions about anything concerning you, just pointing out how your remarks could be perceived. You appear to be choosing not to hear that, which is your right. Oh -- and, as for AGF, though it’s humorous, you might check out this essay. IronDuke  17:20, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, you are wrong on your first assumption. For example, I am one of the editors that left for a long time after I was harassed by primarily, but not exclusively, pro-Israel editors. It was quite amusing how I was accused being pro and anti Israel, depending in who did the arguing. And tell me, why do you tell me what I am doing is not helpful, can be seen a gloating, etc, while at the same time, you do not say ANYTHING directly to 6SJ7 who resorted to personal attacks? That is in my book double standards, which shows that you do not assume good faith to me! -- Kim van der Linde at venus 21:08, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * "I am one of the editors that left for a long time after I was harassed..." Well, you got me there. I wasn’t thinking of you… I had thought the arbcom decision against you is what made you stop, but I could easily be wrong. Just for curiosity’s sake, when did anyone ever say you were pro-Israel? (You can put it on my talk page, if you like, don’t want to clog this page too much). I’m telling you what you’re doing can be construed as gloating because it quite easily can. Do you think I’m wrong about that? And whether 6S7J is acting in a perfectly acceptable manner or should be instabanned right now for his comments: none of that changes what your behavior has been, does it? You’re a scientist, you probably have vastly greater skills at breaking down a problem to its logical, constituent parts than I do, so I feel like you’ve got to see this. And even if it were demonstrably true that I was using a double standard: again, that doesn’t change a single thing about what you did or didn’t do on this page. But, since you insist… 6S7J, you could make your same point in a gentler fashion. Kim might be more responsive if you did. Maybe worth a try?
 * Kim, I don’t know if you read the essay I linked to, but I think perhaps you misunderstand what AGF means. It doesn’t mean I have to assume you, or anyone else, is always right, which is what you seem to be implying. I don’t think you are right in this instance, not even a little bit. That doesn’t mean I think you are acting in bad faith, it means I think you were hurt and frustrated in the past and now you are acting in a manner that is not helpful as a direct result of that. Doesn’t make you a bad person or a bad editor (or a person acting in bad faith), but it isn’t something you should keep doing. I could be wrong about your motives, but I emphasize: it isn’t about you having or not having good faith. IronDuke  22:27, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, and one more thing: before you start popping open champagne bottles, consider how this “remedy” will affect you personally: if you decide to get active on IP articles again and like, say, Nickhh, make even a handful of reverts, you could well be formally banned from all IP articles, without any regard for whether your reversions made the articles in question better or worse. Partisan politics aside, you really think that’s good for WP? IronDuke  22:39, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Ever gotten a letter in the mail from a credit card company that starts by saying "In order to serve you better..." while the fine print states they're raising your interest rate? The 'way back' remedy codifies existing practice on less favorable terms. Editors who have been sanctioned have customarily appealed their remedies by demonstrating positive content contributions. The only thing new about it is that it generates a schedule for the Committee's convenience to reduce the frequency of appeals. Now there may be good reasons for making that change, just as there can be good reasons for a credit card company to raise its interest rate. But the people on the receiving end don't appreciate getting the news as if they're being done some sort of favor. Imagine for a moment that you had also been double billed for a purchase and were having trouble getting the charge corrected, so you phoned the customer service desk. If the representative refused to address your points regarding the billing error and instead told you how happy you should be with the interest rate hike, you'd be frustrated and insulted. Especially if it looked like your credit history would remain damaged after half a year of effort to correct the overcharge. Is that a fair analogy? Durova Charge! 04:21, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Interesting point, Durova. How often do others think that editors should be able to request that their topic bans be reviewed? Weekly? Monthly? Once a year? I thought a pretty well guaranteed twice a year review was pretty fair, but perhaps there are other suggestions that should be taken into consideration. Risker (talk) 04:57, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * As stated above, there may be good reasons to institute that change. Not only for this case but as arbitration policy.  But to present that as if it were done for the convenience of people who believe they're being sanctioned incorrectly?  Not good form.  Durova  Charge! 05:18, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I am sure the vast majority of editors who have been blocked or sanctioned think they have not done anything wrong. That is sort of off the point really. Collaborative editing is a pretty basic building block of WP and the lack thereof has been demonstrated quite clearly in this case. Thus a need to show this is a way back. We could equally not bother with the way back remedy too, however these type of remedies have been used elsewhere - eg SA and editing wikisource, and other banned editors editing elsewhere. Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:04, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The vast majority are probably right. I don't see too many contributors running the kinds of attack pages routinely found here in their userspace. Your committee is an ongoing violation of policy, both in letter and in spirit.
 * "Comment on content, not contributor."
 * "No personal attacks."
 * "Wikipedia is not a battleground."
 * "Assume good faith."
 * "Neutral point of view."
 * Do you pretend that your evidence page, workshop and proposed decision comply with any of these? You've no right to take anyone else to task for what you epically violate yourselves.67.170.104.86 (talk) 09:20, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Above all, this is a victory for stonewalling as an argumentation technique. The ArbCom has sent two messages to the community: MeteorMaker (talk) 11:41, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Stonewalling works. Turn a deaf ear to your opponent in discussions, pretend his evidence does not exist no matter how compelling, go to edit war if he tries to enter information you dislike, no matter how well-sourced. Ignore every content policy if it suits you, and ignore the resulting objections from other editors. Nobody will lay a finger on you.
 * Stonewalling is encouraged. Don't worry, the ArbCom will deal swiftly and harshly with anybody foolish enough to take you there for it. Wiki-suicide is not an option for most editors, so stonewalling can go on with impunity forever.
 * You're missing the main point here, MeteorMaker, probably because you haven't been around here long enough. The main point here is to humiliate and oust Jayjg for reasons completely unrelated to the discussion at hand. "Collateral damage" here, rather than being avoided, is actually sought and desired as camouflage. You and your arguments mean nothing to these people; you are the unwitting mushroom between them and the centipede. Have any of them engaged this content at all? We still don't even have a decision as to when it is (or isn't) okay to use the terms "Judea," "Samaria," or "Judea and Samaria." They don't care.67.170.104.86 (talk) 12:06, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm aware Pedrito, Nickhh, Nishidani, G-Dett and I are probably the victims of a huge compromise edit involving Jayjg here, and in my active 9 months here I've seen enough of his bad editing practices to feel it might be worth the sacrifice, but that was not my point. What I'm genuinely concerned with is the prospect that this decision will be seen as a de facto legitimization of stonewalling. Jayjg may be gone (at least for 6 months), but his legacy remains — with endorsement from the ArbCom. MeteorMaker (talk) 16:53, 5 May 2009 (UTC)


 * MeteorMaker, the general method used in the I/P articles for years is to use a numeric majority of meat-puppets to block any serious progress, backed by several admins who will block and ban everybody who is in their way. This would be very much organized off-wiki. If they could not enforce their will numerically, a change would be made after which changiung it back would be stonewalled behind policy, especially consensus, while the would relentlessly go after the people who are in their way. You can see this happening here at thos page, I post one thing and within hours, the personal attacks are posted by the obvious candidates. It is all so predictable. Cue for more personal attacks on me....... -- Kim van der Linde at venus 13:49, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I hope to see 6SJ7 as a party to the next ArbCom case. Now, Kim, the situation you describe has not changed at all with this decision. It's a systemic thing — the one who commands the largest army of revert goons will win any content dispute, and the I/P talk pages have been reduced to a sideshow whose sole purpose is to serve as a backyard garden where AGF and CIV violations can be harvested. The ArbCom has sent a clear message that it will ignore the underlying issues and only act on the superficial symptoms of the problem. Good luck with taking your issue here before it has degenerated into edit warring, and god help you if you're suicidal enough to try afterwards. Remember that some of the blocks handed out here were for less than ten reverts.
 * Apart from getting rid of Jayjg and the bad influence he had on other editors (including me, I was stupid enough to model my revert behavior on his), this decision is spectacularly unproductive. It's doubly unfortunate, since this was a unique opportunity to put the foot down and make clear that stonewalling and wikilawyering are unacceptable — and the ArbCom dropped the ball. MeteorMaker (talk) 16:53, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Just breaking into the thread here, since MeteorMaker mentioned me specifically. MM, I have to say I am impressed, at least you are honest about your blind hatred of those with whom you disagree, unlike many others involved in this case.   6SJ7 (talk) 01:05, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * All decisions of the ArbCom that do not address the real issues are very unproductive. The main issue is that they can only address conduct, not content. Until we get a content arbCom, which can address content issues, nothing is going to change. I have been involved a long time ago, and I will stay away because what you have experienced is what I already knew. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 17:13, 5 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I can understand your deep disappointment and frustration, MM. I don't think, however, you should take it out on Arbcom members, who are bound by a rule that automatically meant this would end the way it did, i.e., one doesn't make content decisions. Think of the structure of the British Empire which, like wiki, was governed by a minuscule number of officials, ruling over, at its height, 70% of the globe. The key difference is that those in London at the apex of the administrative echelon had a bureaucracy that in turn mulled over field reports. If a Foreign Secretary like Lord Curzon had to make a decision, he could count on paper crossing his desk that summed up some obscure tension in the periphery, directly or indirectly assessed by the Leonard Woolfs or Allenbys there. This filtering of field reports up the hierarchy ensured that judgements were made with some concrete purchase on the realities on the ground as they were assessed and interpreted by local field officers, who were familiar with the terrain, the languages and the intricate tribal, clan or political histories of their districts.
 * Such a mechanism does not exist in wiki. These guys are given, direct from the field, native reports, haphazard, selective highly partisan agglomerations of decontextualized diffs, by the interested parties themselves, who are being called to order. They have no way of determining, other than by 'going native themselves' (which would mean leaving London to spend years in the wilderness on each case, in which case there would be no one to run the Empire, and chaos would ensue), things like 'cause and effect', post hoc ergo propter hoc, the nuances of aggression, the games clans play, the subtle ganging up of tribal elders against a family, duly reported for some breach of law, though a field officer might have clarified that, behind it all, lay a legitimate defence by that family of a right to property influential locals aspired to wrest from them, etc. They cannot, as a field officer would know, even begin to comprehend the complex realities behind some reported slap, some long history of attrition and humiliation provoked someone to lash out, or run amok.


 * Order must reign, if the Empire is to function, irrespective of the individual merits (content) of the case, and the sanction is applied to whoever is found out to be guilty of a technical infraction, even if this means that one is constrained to guess what a picture looks like by examining a few shattered slivers of a prismatic mirror. Ultimately what unites both empires is the law of numbers. Individuals come and go, but the eventual aims of globality are secured by the endless recruitment of new people into the system. Justice is not the issue, the burden lies on the natives to hew to the system whatever their motivations, causes, things which head office cannot take into account. Etc. One should step in here fully aware of this, that it is that oddest of things, an open democratic society working on what Henri Bergson would have called the formalist principles of a closed tribal society. That is paradoxical, but that is the way it is. I hope things go well for you. Logicians within a closed society, if not killed, often rise to change the 'l'ordre des choses et des mots'. Best Nishidani (talk) 17:56, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Astute analogy. Beautifully written. It's a sad irony that your refusal to conform with Wikipedia's dull, robotic prose ideal became your undoing. MeteorMaker (talk) 19:29, 5 May 2009 (UTC)


 * KimvdLinde: Stonewalling is a conduct issue, and prohibited. It's frankly appalling that the ArbCom has chosen to look the other way and focus on the symptoms, and on microscopic infractions that weren't noticed even in Jayjg's and the others' extremely myopic scrutinization of every diff and talk page comment. MeteorMaker (talk) 17:32, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * You are right, stonewalling is an conduct issue. How do you proof that that is the issue? -- Kim van der Linde at venus 18:03, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I think reading just one of the relevant talk pages, for instance this one, especially the second half, would have been sufficient. Particularly now that this proposal seems to have been accepted. It's not rocket science: if one side has 80 eminently reliable sources and the other has none, yet refuses to accept the fact stated, it's a textbook example of stonewalling. MeteorMaker (talk) 19:29, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with you, I think it was stonewalling. But the other side will argue that it as a content dispute, revolving around WP:RS. How do you proof that it was stonewalling and not merely a content dispute? -- Kim van der Linde at venus 21:06, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I naïvely thought the Arbs would find it as self-evident as you. Wonder if they ever saw those talk pages for all the diffs. MeteorMaker (talk) 21:41, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Maybe. I would assume also that the arbs are smarter than that, and willing to actually resolve issues instead of just handing down bans, but my experiences over the years have been pretty bad with regard to the more subtle problems. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 21:55, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Getting back to Casliber's points a few posts above, even if someone actually is being sanctioned correctly it is not productive to tell them it is for their benefit that appeals are becoming more difficult to lodge. Especially when that change affects only a small set of sanctioned editors rather than as new standard practice for all arbitration appeals. SA's editing at Wikisource was not part of any formal remedy; instead it has contributed to two formal arbitration enforcement complaints against him and may result indirectly in getting his siteban extended. But to get to the real issue, everyone agrees that the Committee is taking a new direction this year (this is the case where the most people are noticing, but it's also happening elsewhere). Is the new course wise? Are all these sanctions correct, necessary, and appropriate? A number of people here worry that some of these remedies are insufficiently substantiated. There is an appearance of indiscriminate sanctions, and particularly an appearance of undue harshness against respected editors who have spent years contributing productively to many aspects of this website. It is unsettling to see the 'way back' proposal asserted as a response to those concerns; it doesn't answer the worries--it doesn't even acknowledge them. There has long been a shortage of administrative attention at this dispute. This decision could create a chilling effect that drives productive editors away from the subject. And that chill could spread to other subjects that are likely to enter arbitration. Durova Charge! 14:59, 5 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, a start would be this, which I see is already taking place at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Israel_Palestine_Collaboration - only problem is it is not sufficiently formatted to allow a large number of editors to vote, which I think is a necessity. I agree we can't leave a vacuum on the actual content decision underlying this. This maybe should be set up as a formal, formatted RfC. Casliber (talk · contribs) 15:07, 5 May 2009 (UTC)


 * For the record, I consider the "road back" remedy to essentially be a bit of common sense. In whatever form, the sanctioned editors have helped create a hostile and unproductive editing environment. The experienced editors being sanctioned helped perpetuate and worsen that climate. In my eyes, a fair bit of good/featured work (writing and/or reviewing) and/or helping out with the various dispute resolution projects (most of which could usually use a few more volunteers) just seems like a rational way to demonstrate a proper course while bettering the project. I'd consider anything similarly helpful to the wiki in the same positive light when reviewing an appeal. For example, there are tons of maintenance categories (unreferenced articles, BLPs tagged for issues, etc) that could use some love and attention. At the least, that's my perspective (and you're always welcome to grains of salt). --Vassyana (talk) 15:20, 5 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Forgive me, but "you hadn't seen this page before", "you haven't got a clue on what consensus there is"? Fair enough perhaps, there's an awful lot of text floating around on this topic in a lot of different places (and a lot more of that even than there was edit warring, btw), but could we get some more information on what exactly ArbCom members have (or have not) seen or looked at in terms of detailed evidence or background before imposing block bans on everyone involved? Did anyone on the committee actually analyse for example precisely what edit warring had been taking place (as noted elsewhere, my total count of article edits on these Samaria etc issues for example, for which I have been censured for "repeated and extensive edit warring", was 14 over a period of four months from November 2008 to February 2009, not all of which were straight reverts, and with none at all in the last three months). The calls on Nishidani for incivility and Meteormaker for using WP as an "ethnic" or "ideological" battleground, as well as the apparent glossing over of the underlying problems, of which occasional edit-warring is but a mildly irritating symptom rather than anything utterly destructive, also suggest fairly superficial glances at what was actually happening.
 * As for the way back stuff, the "well if you do good work as approved by us, you're welcome to come back in" has multiple problems, as others have pointed out, in the context of a "community" where there are assumptions about good faith, even for those who may suffer lapses from time to time, and where everyone is supposed to be entitled to contribute equally, whether they want to fix a comma every three days or spend five hours a day here writing entire FAs. I'd also be intrigued to see how similar issues about standard and minority/nationalist terminology are dealt with at the Macedonia case. --Nickhh (talk) 15:45, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

We're all agreed on the basic idea, let's hope, that a route back to good standing for reformers is a good idea. The devil is in the details. The current proposal in the decision is a substantial improvement over the version that floated in workshop. It's interesting to see how the proposed decision has taken shape: first an explicit iteration of existing standard practice, then a suggestion for modification which is reasonable on its own terms, but the result is that an open invitation for something that's usually unspoken instead becomes a codified reduction of the usual unspoken practice. Committees of all sorts often function this way: modificiations get tacked onto things under active discussion rather than implemented globally, with unintended results: Re: Casliber: as mentor for one of the disputants I limit my contributions on Israeli and Palestinian subjects to uncontroversial cultural material, and have contributed featured work for both sides. So an RfC seems like a very good idea. I'd recuse from it though. Durova Charge! 19:17, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) The Committee needs to reduce its workload; limiting frivolous motions is a good idea.  But by implementing a limitation in this case only rather than as arbitration policy the Committee won't contain that problem as much as it could.
 * 2) Rather than the encouragement the Committee intends to extend, the proposal impresses observers as a new and unique barrier.
 * 3) Discussion on the disjuncture between intention and effect obscures a more substantial issue: the Committee has undertaken more aggressive remedies than usual in this case.  Along with the usual complaints from editors under scrutiny and their partisan supporters, there are other voices that say the pendulum has swung too far (or at least swung indiscriminately).  It's never easy for that third set of voices to be heard above the first two.

Nishidani's supposed incivility
I was very surprised to see this link added as proof of 's supposed incivility. Somebody has not been doing their homework, as this had been thoroughly debunked already.

I ask all arbs who based their decision on the aforementioned diff to please re-consider.

Cheers and thanks,  pedrito  -  talk  - 05.05.2009 12:16
 * How do you remonstrate impatiently with a good mate and editor up on charges, especially if he's English and used to the barracks, except with humour? But, Pedrito, the incivility, while not in that blackly comic joust, lay in posting it on the AN/I page, instead of on Ashley's. It was in no way uncivil to Ashley, but it caused Jehochman a good deal of embarrassment when, unaware of our relations, he suspended me and then suffered recriminations, when his only concern was to keep what looked to him like cruel teasing of another editor who was just about to be suspended, off that page. So there is some point in using this against me. I don't think I am uncivil, but I've never been able to master to appropriate language of curt address, on-edit focus, that passes for civility, and probably never will, much like our dear G-Dett. It's a character, or stylistic defect, and, probably not suitable to the kind of ideal regarded as a sine qua non for wiki editors. It's their world, not mine. The rules here don't allow for content judgements, and therefore one can hardly challenge judgements which, by the force of circumstances and in-wiki traditions, merely apply rules that reduce all conflict to formal infractions of discursive correctness. I don't mind the sanction, and won't protest it. The sensible thing would be just to make Jayjg and myself wear the major responsibility for setting, inadvertently or otherwise, a less than perfect example, when a little effort on either side was all that was needed to avoid this chaos. I hope some discrimination will be exercised with the rest of you.Nishidani (talk) 13:05, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

In regards to IPs posting here to hide their Wikipedian identity
In opposition to the previously AC-stated requirement that people cannot sock on RFAR, I have posted this request for AC policy change and enforcement. rootology ( C )( T ) 15:07, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Number of active arbs may need clarification
Requests for arbitration/West Bank - Judea and Samaria/Proposed decision says "For this case, there are 13 active Arbitrators (excluding 2 who are recused), so 7 votes are a majority.". But the list at the top of the page shows 14, meaning the majority would be 8. Some tweaking somewhere may be needed. ++Lar: t/c 15:49, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Risker moved herself back to active on this case the other day, so the number of active arbs should be 14 again. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:50, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Ethnic battleground finding
In FoF 9, MeteorMaker is said to have tried to use the encyclopedia as a battleground along ethnic lines, which is an extremely serious accusation. Where is the evidence for it? Kanguole 07:39, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Though I am on the whole very impressed with Arbcom's approach here to a difficult, even intractable situation, I too am deeply puzzled by this particular finding. I've always thought MeteorMaker ought simply to have rejected Jay's cherry-picked primary sources en toto, since he was using them to make a counter-argument against what the secondary sources explicitly say (that Judea and Samaria are controversial religio-nationalist terms used "by Israel," "by Israelis, and so on).  As Jay himself has pointed out in other contexts, "that's the very essence of original research, constructing a counter-argument using primary sources."  But MeteorMaker's decision to address the logical fallacy of using Israeli and/or nationalist primary sources to demonstrate non-Israeli, non-nationalist use of disputed terms – rather than emphasizing the fundamental problem of using primary sources to construct counter-arguments against secondary sources – was a tactical error, not an ethical or behavioral one.--G-Dett (talk) 14:23, 6 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Already being discussed above, and causing similar concerns btw. --Nickhh (talk) 14:46, 6 May 2009 (UTC)


 * True, but my additional concern was the specific "ethnic" part of the finding. Kanguole 14:54, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Good observation. That had in fact slipped under my radar, I was too focused on trying to call attention to the questionable evidence for the "ideological" bit. "Has attempted to use Wikipedia as a battleground along national, ethnic, or ideological lines" is indeed an extremely serious accusation, for which no evidence exists. MeteorMaker (talk) 15:17, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * It would have been a 'tactical' error only if MM had been displaying an approach to argument and evidence in terms of the eristic logic exhibited by his interlocutor. My impression is that he showed an extraordinary patience with patently spurious arguments, something which testifies to his very strict reading of WP:AGF, something a few of us, less capable of inexasperated equanimity, occasionally dropped.


 * He, and if I may allow myself a word (not in my defence but for the record), myself were labouring under the impression that the system required consensus, that consensus was achieved by the scrupulous examination of evidence, in which WP:RS protocols governing secondary sources certainly said we were correct, but, consensus in the face of determined opposition meant that no stone should be left unturned (or was it 'no tern left unstoned' as Ogden Nash suggested?) even with regard to possible arguments from primary evidence, in order to 'seal' the case. It would have of course been helpful to have known of this crucial diff, but may not have changed much. As I showed on the evidence page, Jayjg customarily rigs the rules, altering their interpretation from strict to lax, according to the exigencies of context. Nishidani (talk) 15:38, 6 May 2009 (UTC)


 * 謝謝, 看過了先生 Nishidani (talk) 21:37, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Kudos and differences
With the highest respect for letting the system work, the decisions definitely appear to be heading in the right direction, albeit with too broad a brush. There are however, distinct differences between what they were arguing, how they were arguing, and what they were trying to say. I perceive what many were arguing as being in violation of the Purpose of Wikipedia due to “advocacy or propaganda” and “furtherance of outside conflicts.”  At the same time, I doubt whether a truly neutral editor could possibly be free from the prohibited “original research, and political or ideological struggle”. Frankly, NPOV editing is, itself, a political and ideological editorial struggle…. for consensus and inclusion of all sides. In this arena and in my experience, it would certainly be alleged, and likely by both sides. This section is the arbs best work, yet only a strong re-statement of what WP is, and is not. Be aware however, that it can be a double-edged sword; for example, is striving for NPOV ideological editing or is it editing ideologically?

Violations of how they were arguing is covered within the rest of the decisions, based on the diffs, and resulting from their own typing, truely and purely. Others involved in the arena, but not yet included in the arb action, were variously wise, restrained or just uninterested or unaware; within the I/P arena, there are other battlegrounds to develop. I see one on the horizon, mainly resulting from this very decision; it may be characterized as the elephant in the room. It may well be disruptive, but it is not based on that intent; it is based on NPOV. This decision will hopefully limit such a high future body-count, but only if is recognized and enforced early.

What they were trying to say was somewhat individually different and to differing degrees of something broader; all were pushing too hard and that has been nearly decided and remedied. These comments deal more with them typing themselves out of those holes, if so inclined. Many were pushing their opposite or competing povs, others were pushing for both those somewhere in the middle and closer to NPOV, and some were pushing for a better ref’d implementation of the argument itself. These differences among the individual editors should be considered in a relative light. How all pushed against policy is wrong, but whether they pushed a specific pov, or pushed for a more inclusive acceptance and NPOV seem to be real mitigating factors. I see the NPOV as being moderating, and will close on one common sense observation. In any given argument, moderates will lose almost always, against hard-liners. The answer why is simple moderates are, well, moderate (and accepting). Within WP and its I/P battleground, the only real savior that moderates have is consensus of those open and knowledgeably involved. Regards, CasualObserver&#39;48 (talk) 08:50, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Proposed additional finding
Based on this, perhaps the Committee might consider a finding in this proposed decision about. The conduct in question does appear to be related to the I/P conflict. Cla68 (talk) 23:42, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * ...and the witch hunt continues...  6SJ7 (talk) 01:54, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Not that it matters at this stage, but...
The remedy on Nishidani is a bit of a joke. Two edits that are absolutely mild in comparison to the volume of personal attacks and actual incivility common to both sides of the dispute, and one edit that was wildly misinterpreted by an admin who first issued a block and later retracted it when the misunderstanding became clear. That the Committee missed the subsequent discussion and clarification is understandable - that the drafter dismissed or ignored the correction is not. I won't repeat the comments I made at the workshop but I will say I'm sorry they've been ignored. Nathan  T (formerly Avruch) 00:35, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * If Nishidani (or anyone else) is being unfairly penalized -- and I'm not saying he is, let's just suppose he is for purposes of discussion -- he wouldn't be the only one in this case. That doesn't make it right -- just inevitable.  What happened here is that someone set off a mob, with torches and pitchforks, to go out on a witch hunt.  If some innocent people get massacred along with the guilty, well that is probably true of every witch hunt in history.  Why should this one be any different?  The problem with this case is not about any one person -- the problem is with the whole case.  6SJ7 (talk) 02:06, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * 6SJ7. I don't know either who is/would be un/fairly penalized. But we are civilized and no more at the time of the witch hunts. We don't burn innocents. And so, if there is 1, 2 or 100% innocent, they should not be penalized, in any way. Ceedjee (talk) 05:29, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * In a metaphorical sense, which is how I am using it (see Witch Hunt, witch hunts are not a thing of the past. And again in a metaphorical sense, the idea that "We don't burn innocents" is highly questionable.  In any event, the idea that Nishidani is "innocent" is questionable as well.  6SJ7 (talk) 19:19, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Out of curiosity, how is the idea that "We don't burn innocents" highly questionable? It's kind of the credo of the modern judicial system after all. MeteorMaker (talk) 20:06, 9 May 2009 (UTC)


 * As it was at the time of the McCarthy era, for example. The system -- any system -- doesn't always work the way it is supposed to.  This case would be an example.


 * Just in case there's no misunderstanding, I am not advocating witch hunts and kangaroo courts. What I am saying is that given the genesis of this case, the conversion of a content dispute into a behavioral dispute, and the evident political motivation to punish one person above all others, while at the same time trying to seem fair, it is inevitable that almost everybody can find something in this result that they think is highly unfair.  6SJ7 (talk) 20:29, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Maybe "circumventable" is a better word. For once I agree with you, this decision managed to achieve the double objective of pissing everybody off and solving absolutely nothing of the basic stonewalling problem. Given Jayjg's documented bad conduct which the ArbCom chose to ignore, and the fact that he has been warned six times already, there were sufficient grounds to reprimand him with a short topic ban, and eventually indef him if he persisted with the bad conduct. I agree with you that the verdict on him (and everybody else, needless to say) was too harsh. MeteorMaker (talk) 20:51, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Remedy 10.1
Noting that the concern raised by Cool Hand Luke was to avoid any suggestion that the de-functionary-isation of Jayjg is due to misuse of CU and OS tools, I'd note that "behavior inconsistent with holding a position of high trust" can still be interpreted as relating to tool use. So, I'd like to suggest an alternative wording which I believe is unambiguous.

---

10.2) Whilst Jayjg's years of service are recognised and appreciated and no misuse of the tools to which he had access is alleged, his behavior at times has been inconsistent with his continuing to hold a position of high trust. Consequently,  is stripped of his status as a functionary and any and all associated privileged access; namely:
 * (a) His access to the CheckUser tool and the checkuser-l mailing list;
 * (b) His access to the Oversight tool and the oversight-l mailing list; and
 * (c) His access to the functionaries-en mailing list.

---

Just a suggestion. EdChem (talk) 02:01, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Suggestion: NPOV enforcement
This is maybe a crazy suggestion, I don't know.

These topic bans aren't really going to work. There's a certain dynamic on these articles, and what the bans do is remove some of the most knowledgeable editors on the subject who, taken as a whole, were often able to produce balanced articles, though with much more drama than should ever be the case. The proposed bans also fail to solve the problem of editors returning with socks, and the whole thing starting up again.

Instead of topic bans, would the ArbCom consider this? That, from now on, every editor who wants to edit Israel-Palestine articles must agree to do so from an entirely neutral point of view.

It's impossible to make sure that every edit is neutral, because when adding content, some of it inevitably favours one side or the other. But editors on Israel-Palestine articles would have to agree that, overall, their contributions to articles and on talk pages will be demonstrably even-handed between the two sides. And not in a mealy-mouthed way, with one or two minor edits for the other "side" from time to time. Pro-Israel editors must consistently add material favourable to the Palestinian, as well as to the Israeli, perspective, and vice versa; or else must ensure that their edits favour neither side.

Any editor not willing to agree to this is de facto topic-banned. Prominent notices to this effect could be posted on talk pages.

A group of experienced, uninvolved editors could be appointed by ArbCom to keep an eye on this -- say, by looking at each editors' contribs from time to time, or responding to complaints from other editors -- and would be given wide latitude to decide whether a given editor is sticking to the agreement. If they're not, they're topic banned.

NPOV enforcement would get round the issue of old editors creating new accounts. The enforcement would apply to all accounts editing in the Israel-Palestine area, no matter who's behind them. It also solves the problem of outside groups like CAMERA organizing a lobby, because anyone turning up would be subject to the NPOV rule.

If, after an experimental period, NPOV enforcement is seen to work, in the sense of keeping behaviour under control without sacrificing article creation and quality, it could be extended to other intractable disputes.

Would this work? SlimVirgin talk| contribs 02:44, 8 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I think the pros of topic bans are that they act as a deterrent to unproductive behavior and require less administrative overhead (except perhaps, checkusers trying to keep banned editors from socking). The pros of SV's suggestion is that it makes an honest attempt to redirect the energies of openly POV editors into more productive collaboration. Cla68 (talk) 03:01, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Without any real thought yet, I think this idea has merit. (full disclosure, I'm a TPS of Cla68).  There are I think substantial things to discuss, but some perhaps more formal way of redirecting the tremendous energy this topic area takes up into the creation of neutral articles on the subject would be of HUGE benifit to the project.  --Rocksanddirt (talk) 03:24, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I like this idea. If it works here, it could be applied to a lot of areas in desperate need of one group of editors inappropriately owning the topic. In theory... and this may be a stretch--this could be the easiest way to break and destroy content/POV cliques on everything from the Middle East to Eastern Europe to Ireland/England to various major political hotspots to 9/11 to just about anything. In theory, it could be used as a simple tool to destroy any clique of editors from owning anything. That would not be a bad thing.

One question -- lets say I show up to push a flagrantly Israeli or Palestinian POV, neither of which is allowed anyway on Wikipedia. Let's say that someone does the sort of very clear and concise editing analysis like Cool Hand Luke has produced in the past, that shows 60%, or 80%, or 99% of my edits are pro-one side or the other. After a certain point, there is no value for me being allowed to edit these articles. Does this group then have the authority to topic ban me? Where would hypothetical appeals go? How would they go? What if a group of Israeli or Palestinian editors or some group like the unhelpful CAMERA people, or their counterparts from the other side (I forget the other group's name) invade again? I like the idea a lot, but I also love the simple hypothetical examples of "How it may go." :) rootology ( C )( T ) 03:39, 8 May 2009 (UTC)


 * If the overseeing group of editors (let's call them NPOV enforcers) decide that your contribs, on balance, are too favourable to one side (and this applies to talk-page comments too), they'd have the authority to topic-ban you. You could return with a sock, of course, but that sock would also be subject to the NPOV enforcement. So although, strictly speaking, you are topic banned and in violation of that ban, it wouldn't really matter, because the new account would still be expected to be NPOV. Similarly, CAMERA or whoever can invade as much as they want: all the accounts would have to show that, on balance, their contribs were even-handed. If CAMERA is willing to make pro-Palestinian edits, let them invade.


 * As for appeals, I would say there would have to be a very strong case before an appeal could be allowed, in which case it would go to ArbCom. But by and large, the group of editors overseeing this would be given the latitude to interpret broadly, and enforce rigorously. And editors should be told that, not only must they be NPOV, they must be seen to be it i.e. it would be their responsibility to show they were being neutral. There could be one warning issued, and if the account doesn't shape up in demonstrable and unambiguous terms, it's out.


 * I also suggest we choose experienced editors for this group, whether they're admins or not. The group would need only one admin to enforce with the tools if necessary, at the request of members who aren't admins. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 03:56, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Based on this expansion, I don't just like this idea, I dig this idea. You wouldn't even need a single admin on the party. Once a decision is made, and then violated, the 'group' could post a request to AN or wherever for action. But, senior often=admin, so... I dig this. rootology ( C )( T ) 04:02, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree that banning a bunch of editors seems like a strong step, but in fact is a short-term remedy that will see the area populated by new editors far less familiar with the norms and expectations of Wikipedia - and in the mean time, it will be much easier for new SPAs or sockmasters to twist these articles into POV death traps. On the other hand, I don't think getting people to agree to NPOV editing will do much good - everyone will have a different idea of what "NPOV editing" actually is. Maybe a better solution is to implement some version of FlaggedRevisions on these articles - essentially permanent protection on the more contentious articles, with all edits made by editprotected. I hate to see good editors leave, particularly when it is simply human nature and the nature of the conflict that leads to passionate feelings and sometimes intemperate conduct. Some other solution, that keeps the editors but shuts down the problem, must exist and we should find it. Nathan  T (formerly Avruch) 03:59, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Banning editors from topic areas for abuse of NPOV is a strong step, but not much else has worked on too many topic areas. We're secondary to the content, aren't we (which I know is oxymoronic to say, but...). rootology ( C )( T ) 04:02, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Year long topic bans strike me as outlandish. I remember reading JWales at one time saying something like 2 weeks was a really long time and only for the most egregious behavior.  To SV's suggestion, I like the thought but the idea of enforced neutrality is simply not going to work. One man's neutral is another man's bias.  Perhaps we should put all the involved editors in a room together, and as their penance, they need to work out how wiki can best achieve NPOV in this area.  When they come up with a solution they can all agree on, they can come back in.  They are the most experienced with the intractibility of the butting of heads of both sides.  Lock them in a room together and have them develop compromise policy.  Tundrabuggy (talk) 04:52, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * When Wales wrote that, it was what, 2003? Two weeks is nothing today. And see this, where at the moment you posted this, I posting something nearly the same. rootology ( C )( T ) 04:54, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

[ec]Then they can return to the community having developed some useful generalizations from their arguments over specifics, as well as honed their communication and collegial skills. Of course I wonder if they would accept this in lieu of a year-long topic ban or not. It would be interesting to know. (Now I will go take a look at your link) Tundrabuggy (talk) 04:59, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Rootology you are a genius. Now, about the 2 weeks-- if one makes progressively longer sentences what will it be in 2020?  Tundrabuggy (talk) 05:10, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. To answer your question: ∞ and beyond. rootology ( C )( T ) 05:14, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Rather than flagged revisions, one could use Full Protection. Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:16, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

My other idea was the merger of WP:Israel and WP:Palestine into WP:IPCOLL as there are so many geographical and historical articles which are covered by both. And that all guidelines must be hammered out there. Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:18, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Hm. ''A group of experienced, uninvolved editors could be appointed by ArbCom to keep an eye on this -- say, by looking at each editors' contribs from time to time, or responding to complaints from other editors -- and would be given wide latitude to decide whether a given editor is sticking to the agreement. If they're not, they're topic banned.'' So who bells the cat? Who watches the watchers? It is very very challenging to follow one difficult editor's contributions with the necessary degree of care, let alone a dozen or twenty. The attempt envisioned here--even if spread across a panel of knowledgeable and patient and incorruptible people--would essentially preclude all other contributions by that panel. The likely end is that the panel will be overwhelmed and experienced POV pushers from one or both sides will either discover the panel's blind spots and manipulate them, or else (if the panel is good) the POV pushers will set about ruining the panel members' wiki-reputations to get rid of them. This suggestion is essentially a warmed-over version of the 'supervised editing' the Committee tried to foist upon me in Fringe Science, which I couldn't possibly fulfill even if I had wanted to. But instead of a 1:1 ratio of supervisor to supervised, what would the ratio be here? 1:5? 1:8?  We had 3:1 with Privatemusings, who wasn't very active. Yet the mentors poured a great deal of effort only to find ourselves the subject of a formal arbitration clarification request filed by other parties, then were subjected to open accusations of malfeasance in mentoring when conduct RfC followed our resignation. No thank you Durova  Charge! 06:04, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I really like the idea, in theory. I've been thinking about its applicability to areas such as fringe science. Durova's comments, though, give me major cause for concern about the applicability of the idea in practice. It's very helpful to be pointed to prior experiences with this sort of approach - thanks, Durova - and it sounds like a mechanism to prevent damage to the reputations of the panel of uninvolved editors would be necessary. I have no idea how that is practicably unachievable, unfortunately. EdChem (talk) 06:25, 8 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi,
 * SlimVirgin asked me to come and comment this proposal on my talk page :.
 * This solution is definitely worth analysing.
 * It is an evolution and the application to a very precise case of the WP:Write for the enemy.
 * It is clear that the only way to write neutral articles is to stop fighting to "defend one pov" but to "add wp:rs material from both sides". We have to live with that material. Each editor should be able to do both and should step by step adopt this behaviour. Even better, an editor with a pro-Israli empathy should only add material from the pro-Palestinian side and vice versa.
 * Focusing on content and development, looking for wp:rs sources should decrease the number of fights and exhausting conflicts.
 * This is the solution. The problem is to implement this and that the editors feel confident in the solution. That is why :
 * a *supervising/advincing* committee with people with *different empathies*, having some *knowledge and experience on the topic*, *knowledge and experience on wp:principles*, a limited *capability to take sanction (topic ban or temporarely topic ban)* will have the tools that are required to implement this.
 * I am convinced that there are extremelly few pov-pushers on wp. Main concern of editors having empathy for one-side is that the articles are not too much pov-ed in favour of the other side. Usually, people react to vividly, judging on their personnal know-how but don't take care to go and read different reliable versions of the events. Asking people to add both pov will require they read and study the topics they want to deal with.
 * Ceedjee (talk) 06:26, 8 May 2009 (UTC)


 * @Durova : it think you focus too much on the 2nd part with the "committe" and not enough on the 1st part of the proposal : finding a way to convince people to introduce both pov's in all articles.
 * Anyway, you are right. Who would check these people ? But I add "How to find them ?", "how to replace them ?", ... The "founding fathers" of wikipedia always asked for the highest care when it was suggested to put some editors above others for what concerns issues. They are wise. But it is also true that they are never there when content disputes frustrate editors. And that is what we face today.
 * SV's idea is constructive and wise too. The problem is the way to implement this. One clear thing is that there will never have a consensus around the idea of having editors with a "super power". So, this committee must be consultative. The other main point is that if that committee has absolutely no "sanction power", it will be useless.
 * The "mentor" solution failed.
 * So, we need to go one-step further. A mentor could suggest a temporar ban. Why not giving the "little" power to give temporarely topic ban ?
 * Ceedjee (talk) 06:50, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Excuse me. Please avail yourself of the background more thoroughly before attempting that kind of summary.  Mentorship worked in Privatemusings's case, the first time--before the Committee politicized it.  While he was sitebanned for three months from en:wiki at the beginning of last year I mentored him quite successfully at Commons.  Second time around the Committee tried to structure the undertaking and it fell apart.  The committee tried to 'empower' me at Fringe Science: that empowerment exactly what I objected to.  The role only had a chance at being viable as long as it stayed separate from politics.  I very nearly resigned from all mentorships in protest against the attempt to turn me into a traffic cop.  As much as I want nothing to do with this, it's simply intolerable to see the actual history turned on its head with that sort of meme.  Durova  Charge! 16:31, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * This is indeed known as "writing for the enemy" (thanks Ceedjee for providing the link to that essay) and I'm very much in favour of such solutions. Enforcement could be a problem, but unless it is tried, we won't know whether this will work or not. Carcharoth (talk) 06:58, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I've started a policy proposal at Neutrality enforcement. SlimVirgin talk| contribs 07:16, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I think there are some appealing aspects to this proposal. Rather than banning the person this proposal bans the behavior. Editors wouldn't be able to justify adding one-sided materual by saying it's someone else's responsibility to add the other side of the story. While it will require some careful enforcement it won't require sock hunting so the enforcement effort may not be any greater.   Will Beback    talk    09:43, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I strongly support SlimVirgin's idea, and I have long seconded the idea Ceedjee mentions, only I don't like the word 'enemy'. In fact in the latter regard, I've tried several times to ask colleagues 'on the other side' to make very simple edits deleting things done in patent violation of policy, at both Shuafat and Beit HaShalom, without success. This disappoints, since I've tried to edit along these lines on many occasions. As a long term 'pro-Palestinian' editor of the Hebron page, where originally it was very tilted to a settler perspective, I came across late in the piece, a very good source for the view that this town had a long tradition of hostility to Jews. I'd read that but only in settler POV pieces. As soon as I saw this strongly sourced, I put the information in. Whether it is true over history or not, I don't know. But writing towards encyclopedic ends requires one to make such edits whatever the consequences.
 * A second point. What upsets an editor who comes to a page, reads it, then does several days or weeks research on the background, and then, on beginning to edit, suddenly finds the dead page swarming, and POV challenges dragging one from the page into huge discussions on the companionate talk page, what upsets one is that the pure pleasure of working a page is ruined by tutorials to many people who may appear deaf, but who seem to be googling around their favourite POV sites for 'counter-information'. I call this the swarming effect. It evinces the lack of another value required here, tact. Tact would require that the reviewing eye go closely through the sources being used, and read up on the subject before editing. For most squabbles arise from someone not doing the elementary background reading required for any article, in an eagerness to jump in medias res. If one sees a page being built, or an old page under comprehensive review, the sensible thing is to keep one's comments in reserve, while following the page, until the main editor or a couple of editors are done with their major draft. There is a strong sense that everything must be battled from woe to go, and the result is that it is very hard, once this antagonistic or adversarial frame of mind takes root, to actually redeem any I/P article from the sorry state they are mostly in.
 * A little creative thinking, along the lines suggested by SlimVirgin and Ceedjee would obviously do wonders for a rather rundown area of the encyclopedia. From an administrative point of view, the induction of some stricter requirements of editors (my own favourite is far tighter rules of evidence privileging quality secondary sources where possible) might seem to add a burden or further workload. To the contrary, by making a ramshackle and rather chaotic field subject to tougher rules (a) recourse to endless administrative challenges, squabbles, which lends itself to gaming, and outing editors one dislikes would probably diminish and (b) many editors who either enter the 'arena' with diffidence or shy from it because it has required insane levels of patience and tenacity often just to edit in a word or two, would probably jump at the chance to finally enter the I/P area, if its editing environment were less conflictual, its rules tighter, and the chances of making rapid progress far higher than they are at present. Nishidani (talk) 09:40, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

This is similar to what FayssalF and I did in the Sri Lanka disputes and it worked rather well. I plan to meld all this into my ongoing ARBMAC2 remedies.  — Rlevse • Talk  • 10:44, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I’m not sure that requiring neutral editors is a practical or theoretical possibility. With articles, neutrality is based on reliable sources and determining how well our content matches up. With editors it is a whole different set of problems -- what makes an individual neutral, how do you determine what is political, which issues have what competing sides that need to be balanced, are we really going to analyze editors for whether their edits (despite compliance with content policies) favor a particular position too much? ArbCom can evaluate compliance with behavioral policies, and with a little more work it has evaluated compliance with content policies, but I find it hard to imagine a productive or successful attempt to evaluate the overall neutrality of individuals.

One thing I have to agree with is that an across the board topic ban will probably not be productive. My best suggestion besides what has been proposed is that the committee do a Newyorkbrad: list the editors, list what they’ve done wrong, sanction them accordingly, and tell them that if they do more of the same it will be worse. Say that similar actions from other editors in the area will also be sanctioned. The only problem is you have to be as well-informed and insightful as Brad would be, which is not easy. If it were done, however, then continuing problems could be brought directly to the committee for quick action.

General warnings have not been effective, but such specific warnings have been. If Jayjg has engaged in advocacy, or stonewalling, or has been unnecessarily abrupt, it needs to be said, like it needs to be said if G-Dett has inappropriately targeted him. Then at least other editors have something to go on next time. If there has been revert warring, then put editors on revert parole. Keeping in mind that in doing this it really is all about getting it right, and not just coming up with more systemic solutions, I think it is the type of approach that many have expected or hoped for. Mackan79 (talk) 10:54, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * This is an interesting idea. I think it might be worth exploring how it would work, and trying in a limited test. But I don't think it would in any way take the place of remedies in this case. It would just be a new tool to use in future. ++Lar: t/c 15:58, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, if the proposal were accepted by ArbCom, it would take the place of remedies in this case. In the description of the proposal, it says "Instead of topic bans..."  Maybe you don't think that should be done, but that is what the proposal is.  (I am not expressing an opinion on the proposal itself, yet.)  6SJ7 (talk) 16:28, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * You're right. OK... I don't think it SHOULD take the place of any remedies in this case, other than, perhaps, topic bans. ++Lar: t/c 16:36, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

A most interesting idea but it strikes me as overkill. I would be much keener to see an Arbcom empowered to confront stonewalling and gamesmanship than an Arbcom empowered to be the final judge of neutrality. Another way of putting this is that I'd prefer to see its heavier hand on talk-pages than in the articles themselves.--G-Dett (talk) 19:40, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I am very pleased to see that SlimVirgin and several others still retain such a utopian view of Wikipedia dispute resolution. Realistically, we do not have a lot of administrators or editors who appear to be all that interested in working on dispute resolution. Arbitration enforcement is routinely backlogged; few editors volunteer to do block reviews on unblock-en-L; user RFCs seldom receive commentary from neutral parties; admins and editors who initially agree to participate in managing circumscribed dispute resolution procedures burn out or decide to move on, and finding replacements for them can be a significant challenge. Disputes that have been raging for months, or in some cases years (such as this one), are unlikely to draw the interest or investment of time and energy of truly neutral editors and admins. This strikes me as something that might work at an early level of dispute resolution, but is unlikely to succeed when a dispute has reached the level that the Arbitration Committee needs to intervene. When a dispute has been before the Arbitration Committee on multiple occasions in some form, as this particular one has, this kind of program has little hope of resolving the problem. I cannot imagine where we would find a dozen editors and admins who have such a burning interest in dispute resolution and an equally neutral perspective on this topic area who would be willing to devote a very significant amount of their wiki-time to policing an area where editorial behaviour has been so problematic for so long. Risker (talk) 18:23, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree with Risker. This idea is not practical as a long term solution. Additionally, I think that when the Community and the Committee are no longer able to AGF about an users contributions then the only real option is a topic ban or a site ban. At this point the content contributor that got sanctioned in this case can not longer participate in this area because the Committee has determined that they display problematic conduct when they edit on this topic. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 18:59, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The idea is not intended to give control over content to the ArbCom, but to empower a group of experienced editors to monitor that fine line between content and behaviour. The group would operate quite independently of ArbCom. That could be made explicit in their mandate to avoid the ArbCom/content confusion. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 19:53, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I should say I do think it's a productive suggestion. But it does seem to put the proposed enforcement committee in the position of evaluating neutrality (as mapped by the editing histories of individuals, rather than within articles).  I think this is very tricky and very gameable.   It might work, but it seems likely to me that the gaming will simply become more baroque. Out with checkers; in with chess.


 * I think it would be easier to apply a I-know-it-when-I-see-it standard to stonewalling than to neutrality.--G-Dett (talk) 20:16, 8 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, it could be gamed, but only with enormous hassle to the gamers, which rules out most reasonable people -- and no system can handle the truly determined.


 * I also agree that a "I know it when I see it" approach re: stonewalling would work too, but people won't apply it. No, that's a content dispute, they say, when an editor removes demonstrably crucial content from the lead just because he doesn't like it. Or removes an academic source. Or adds the views of a blogger. Or puts the page up for deletion. Or tries to have it redirected to make it disappear. Yes, it is a content dispute, triggered by some really bad and highly partisan editing. This proposal says no to all of that, from any editor, from either side, for whatever reason, because nothing else has worked. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 20:42, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think that adversarial debate is inherently a Bad Thing; after all, it's the foundation of many justice systems. And it may genuinely be difficult for involved parties initially to discern exactly where the NPOV lies. The problem comes when it's glaringly obvious that the debate is over, yet one party refuses to stop talking.


 * I don't feel we need go so far as to oblige Gerry Adams to put the case for Ian Paisley. It just needs somebody willing to stand up and say: this is no longer a content dispute, you're no longer debating in an effort to achieve census around the NPOV, you're now simply arguing in favour of your own point of view. IMO, that's what was needed here. Shoot 'em all might appear strong and just to some. To me it appears to be exactly the opposite.--MoreThings (talk) 00:27, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand this proposal at all; non-neutral editors usually think their edits are neutral, and can't edit any other way no matter what they agree to. Also, where do we draw the line on this kind of reasoning/remedy? In the date delinking case, the proposal is looking like it's heading towards us losing the most highly valuable editors across the Manual of Style, while some other editors will be left to run wild there and continue to undermine MoS simply because no one presented evidence against them; should they also be let off in this way? How extensively would a remedy like this be applied ? Sandy Georgia (Talk) 04:05, 9 May 2009 (UTC)


 * First, the proposal applies only to the I/P conflict, and is regarded as experimental. I don't see how it could be applied to disputes like the MoS.


 * Secondly, it needn't be used as a way of letting anyone off in an ArbCom case. The ArbCom might choose to use it this way, or might not. It would be just another tool to deal with long-term disputes where other methods of dispute resolution have failed.


 * Also, I'm not sure I agree that non-neutral editors think they're being neutral. I think they think they're right, and therefore care less about neutrality. In the I/P conflict, the stakes in the real world are high, so there's a certain emotional investment in each little factoid on Wikipedia that gains some benefit for one side. When one group of editors starts behaving that way, it can produce the same behaviour in anyone trying to counter it. Extremism begets more of the same. This proposal is an attempt to break that dynamic. And, as I said, it's being proposed only as an experiment on one set of articles for a limited period of time. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 04:16, 9 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Interesting idea, SlimVirgin. Thank you. I've proposed a modified version of the proposal here. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 22:47, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

A permanent content sub-ArbCom?
Ok, after reading this proposal, it feels to me as just enacting another layer of bureaucracy, now with ArbCom appointed Admins who effectively have the same powers as the ArbCom, but limited to a narrow field, and most importantly, power to decide what is Neutral Content. If we want a content Arbcom, make one, but not underhand through the side-door. The second issue is that the "Neutral Admins" will be judged not neutral as soon as they make a decision that is objected to by some of the participants. This has routinely happened to each and every editor who has tried to mediate. Just look at the comments at this page about how arbs won't be re-elected (not that most want anyway after 3 years) because of the ruling the are making. The admins will be subject to endless bickering, just as the bickering at the talk pages now, with stone walling, and whatever that goes on. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 18:40, 8 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, that might happen, but isn't it worth a try? There is no other way that I can see to break the logjam. Trying to do any serious work on I/P articles has always been a nightmare. You and I have both experienced this; we were on opposite "sides," but we both experienced the fall-out. People are sick of it, both inside and outside the I/P conflict, because it impacts on other areas too. It leaves broken relationships in its wake that are never entirely repaired, and for the most part, it leaves the articles in poor shape.


 * The beauty of this proposal is that any editor not willing to edit in an entirely neutral way, to the best of his ability, is de facto topic-banned. We would be throwing a protective ring around these articles, allowing only editing of the best faith. The group of appointed editors (note: editors, not necessarily admins) will not decide content; will not interfere in the editing process; will not get involved on the talk page. All they will do is quietly monitor that no I/P editor is consistently engaged in partisan editing.


 * They would be chosen for their experience in editing and their ability to remain neutral, and I think the community would support them through the difficult decisions they might have to make. On the other hand, if the I/P editors know this group is actively watching, perhaps they wouldn't have to topic-ban anyone, because the observation in itself will improve the behaviour. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 19:26, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I think the (understandable) scepticism about the possibility of neutral editors overlooks a simple practical fact. Most highly reliable sources in the area of history, the primary material for many of these articles, are written by scholars obliged to confront the complexities of evidence, and evaluate it in a way that will stand criticism from their colleagues with a different take or POV. Use these sources and one is almost invariably obliged to take in material pro and contra, for any argument, as conserved in sources of the best quality. An editor who takes the goal of encyclopedicity and NPOV as important, if he does his job in reading the best available material, is automatically exposed to what leading scholars from both sides of the POV divide think about a particular incident, episode, event or historical moment.  SV is simply asking that in an area so fraught with bad editing, careless of good sourcing, and prone to ideological questing for POV material in support of one of two POVs, this obligation to study the best sources, show an awareness of the picture from both angles most best sources reveal, should be, in some way, formalized. To do nothing that improves the operational dysfunctionalism of this area, and simply legislate exemplary punishments, is to skirt the fundamental issue, which is not one of individual editors, but of either ignoring the responsibilities to edit towards the goals of Wikipedia, or using its rules to impede people who have that in mind from pulling these numerous articles up to minimal standards.Nishidani (talk) 10:24, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * No, it will. This has happened to each and everybody who was neutral and entered the I/P field in whatever capacity. Even some editors who really tried are now going to be banned. I still found it comical that at the same day, I was accused of being pro-Israel and anti-Israel. That says enough about this issue. (Cue the accusations that I was indeed anti-Israel). The only way to break the logjam is to ban each and everybody who does not edit in NPOV or stonewalls or edit wars or whatever is not functional. One time Warning, two times month topic ban, three times permanent topic ban. That would thin out the amount of editors very very quickly, and soon only the real neutral editors will remain. About 6 weeks to weed out most of the bad apples. The focus has to be on behavior, not neutrality, as neutrality is subjective, one of the main issues we have a problem in this area.-- Kim van der Linde at venus 21:23, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry... who was it that said you were Pro-Israel? Hope you don't mind my asking you to dig back for it. IronDuke  21:34, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * That was years ago, and no, I am not willing to dig through many many diffs to satisfy you. The fact is that I am actually pro-Israel, but not uncritically. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 21:58, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay... do you not remember who it was? I just find it a little puzzling why you wouldn't want to say. IronDuke  22:23, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * No clue anymore, it is roughly 2 years ago. If I remembered, I would say. So, why the suspicion that I do not want to say it? At the time, so many accusations were made, so many people took part in the harassment of editors, I just remember that I often was amused about the cheer idiocy of many editors with regard to those accusations, one more exotic than the next.-- Kim van der Linde at venus 22:43, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * No problem, though it does make a bit of difference who's saying what. Sorry if I sounded suspicious. IronDuke  04:04, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

That is getting a bit toward Wikipedia Committees, an idea that has gone idle. <span style="color:#0D670D; font-family:Georgia, Helvetica;">rootology ( C )( T ) 19:40, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

RfC on functionary impeachment
In response to Casliber's comments "I have been thinking about this, especially given Functionary's appearance, which tells me we're really moving into uncharted territory. As such, it is (possibly) not a given that the proposal is in line with community wishes (although likely). Maybe this is worth a separate RfC and is more apt for the community to decide than us." I have started an RfC to get the community to express its views. I think this goes wider than this particular case.

Requests for comment/Impeachment of Functionaries

I'm not sure where to list this, maybe someone can help?--Scott Mac (Doc) 17:17, 8 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Doubt my suggestion is helpful, but I think it would be listed wherever the first ArbCom RfC was listed - the problem is I can't recall where that was. Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:04, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Jayjg stripped of status and privileges.
Regarding proposed remedy (10.1): appending "Jayjg is also thanked for his years of service" strikes me as out-of-place in a proposal stripping a functionary of his permissions. Essentially, the proposal first denounces his conduct, then strips him of his permissions, and lastly, in an almost passive-aggressive, spiteful addition, 'thanks' him.

I am aware it couldn't be farther from the Committee's intention to come across in that manner; but, from my reading of the proposed decision, it seems to.

AGK 17:35, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Except for the speculation about the "intention" of the arbitrators, about which I lack sufficient information to speculate, I agree with this. When I first saw option 10.1, it occurred to me that the arbitrators were now giving themselves a choice between chopping Jay's head off, and chopping Jay's head off but telling him why and thanking him at the same time.  I think Wikipedia would be better served by a third, less bloody alternative.  6SJ7 (talk) 19:11, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * That was actually a pretty funny metaphor, almost worthy of G-Dett. MeteorMaker (talk) 19:27, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * No comment on whether the proposals are warranted or not; but that metaphor quite nicely outlines what I was attempting to say. :-) AGK 20:51, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I strongly feel that any decision here would be flawed if it did not recognise the excellent work that Jayjg has done over the course of several years on Wikipedia. To go no further than to say "Jayjg is stripped of his elevated privileges" would give an unfair impression of him.  Personally, I would have worded the resolution differently.  My choice would have been to say
 * Over the course of several years as a member of the Arbitration Committee and as a user holding the Oversight and CheckUser privileges, Jayjg has served the Wikipedia community with integrity and ability. The Committee thanks him for these years of service.
 * However, owing to behaviour in other areas that has been inconsistent with holding a position of high trust, these privileges (namely, his access to the CheckUser and Oversight functions and to the functionaries-en mailing list) are removed.
 * I have not read the case in enough detail to know whether I would support such a motion; nevertheless, I feel it corrects the peculiar balance than AGK notes, and sounds a lot less vindictive. In particular, removing the heavily loaded word "strip" makes a difference.
 * [[Sam Korn ]] (smoddy) 22:03, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * An excellent point. My objection, I suppose, was to the appending of words to the effect of "oh, by the way, thanks for your excellent service" to a proposal that otherwise outlined some major failings in Jay's conduct and took steps to respond to them (by means of a removal of privileged functions).
 * Such is the power of language: fiddling with something as often insignificant as word order can drastically alter the effect of a statement.
 * AGK 22:11, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * My earlier suggestion to remove the other ambiguity in this finding also moves the recognition of Jayjg. As with Sam's comments, I have no idea (not having followed the case) whether the remedy is justified but in any event if the Committee is to pass such a remedy some redrafting is needed. EdChem (talk) 22:26, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I hadn't seen your proposal when I authored my complaint, but yes, your earlier suggestion would probably adequately improve the wording. AGK 22:28, 9 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Annoyingly, an entire re-vote would be needed to pass a proposal that improved the wording of the remedies that remove Jay's permissions. Then again, we'd all prefer a case that gets everything right and closes a few days later than a case to one which passes poorly-worded remedies and closes a few days earlier. AGK 22:31, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * There's nothing wrong with a delay, in fact the ArbCom should take the time to reconsider the entire case. If they're not going to reconsider the remedy itself, who really cares about the wording?  When the victim's head is on the chopping block and the axe is falling, the words being spoken as the blade descends are of secondary, if not trivial, importance.  6SJ7 (talk) 03:23, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
 * True; the effect of a remedy is a hundred times more important than its wording. But the importance of the wording is not negligible, and I'm not complaining about the content of the remedy—but its wording. AGK 17:37, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, I think the clumsiness of the wording of the remedy that has been passed is probably appropriate, in a way. It seems to reflect the discomfort of at least a few of the arbitrators with the substance of the remedy itself.  Having decided to go along with the "get Jay" mob, they try to make themselves feel better with a few oddly-placed words of appreciation.  Maybe I should look on the bright side, and see the cup as one-eleventh full, instead of ten-elevenths empty, as Sam Blacketer has had the courage not to go along with the mob.  6SJ7 (talk) 02:06, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Two-elevenths full, now. AGK 15:52, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Or nine-elevenths empty. :)   6SJ7 (talk) 18:39, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Tsk; eternally the pessimist, 6SJ7. :-) AGK 15:30, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

On justice (so to speak) vs. a holistic solution
I'm on the record as supporting Arbcom's approach, but my one post explaining my reasons may have sounded so flippant or zany that some may assume that my position amounts to nothing more than a sleep-deprived mixture of equanimity and exasperation. That's not really the case.

If the goal is justice, broad-brush topic-bans would of course be a calamity. Nick has barely edit-warred; Nishidani is guilty of little more than polite, erudite, occasionally delightful soapboxing; MeteorMaker should be commended, not punished, for his tenacity in reining in nationalist chutzpah in what has been from the word go a policy/content no-brainer. Meanwhile, said nationalist chutzpah has given rise to behaviors that would merit not only topic-banning but indef-banning – again, if justice were the goal.

If the goal, however, is to create conditions conducive to productive editing, I think Arbcom's approach may be very effective indeed. Here are my reasons why: By the way, #1 above is precisely why I'm wary of Slim's proposal, Kirill's proposal, and Nishidani/IronDuke's proposal. Anything that raises the bar as to who can edit I/P articles is going to select for motivated editors. Motivated editors be damned.--G-Dett (talk) 22:48, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Several critics have argued that this solution eliminates the most "productive" editors. For productive I read motivated, and I don't think highly motivated editing has been a very good thing for this part of the encyclopedia.  The most serious problem of course has been editing motivated by nationalism.  But my "side" is motivated, too.  There's not much nationalism among what Nishidani has taken to calling the "gang of five," but there are other sorts of motivations: an eagerness to defend a principle, perhaps, even if the stakes are seemingly low; a tenacity that deepens and entrenches in the face of intimidation, rather than backing off; maybe even a strain of civic-minded muckraking.  I confess to these things in myself, and I think I see similar traits in my "allies."  The net result being that the I/P corner of Wikipedia has been dominated by tense standoffs between nationalist gangsters and citizen-activists; meanwhile mild-mannered editors who want to build a house or open a store go elsewhere.  Is my metaphor making any sense?  Editors like Mackan79, Avraham, and ChrisO do not edit much in this area, and I can't help but think it's because they (and the many editors like them) lack either of these two big categories of motivation: they're not here to burnish the image of a particular state, and they're not here to confront corruption or speak truth to power.  My feeling is that there is a whole sea of such editors out there: mild-mannered, intellectually curious, and productive in a basically disinterested way (by "disinterested" I don't mean neutral or unbiased or blessed by rare objectivity with regards to Israel-Palestine – I just mean they're not actively trying to convince anyone of anything in particular).  I think if both the nationalists and the citizen-activists are cleared off the corner and locked up somewhere (the nationalists in dank, sunless stone dungeons, the citizen-activists in cheerful accommodations with tennis courts and television and Taco Tuesdays), these other, more boring khaki-clad productive types might come and build something decent and interesting.
 * If, heaven help us, a new generation of would-be edit-warriors arises, they might at least be moved to walk on egg shells.


 * Well, sweetie, I've just been damned, and indeed was motivated, I can't stand 'nationalism' of any description. But, the deplorable thing is that your deliciously diversely motivated editing has also been damned. A matter of throwing out the barf with the warderbabe. I think we are, to make a vague literary allusion, village people, whatever our respective arrière-pensées be. Best wishes, G-Dett. I'll miss that gifted wit and laconic acumen of phrase and thought. But I guess I no longer need to be humoured that way to keep my spirits up, not reading here anymore! Nishidani (talk) 22:54, 9 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Wouldn't neutrality enforcement precisely rule out highly-motivated editors, where the motivation is to get in a particular POV (whether of a nationalist or "truth to power" kind)? We want people whose motivation is simply to write three-dimensional, well-sourced articles. I think they'd be precisely the ones attracted to pages where good-faith attempts to be neutral were being enforced.


 * As things stand, just about anyone involved in the I/P area is at high risk of a topic ban, no matter the quality of their contribs. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 23:07, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * As to your opening question, I should clarify that I didn't mean "truth to power" in terms of real-world politics (solidarity with the Palestinians or whatever). My meaning was entirely intra-wiki; I was talking about editors who regularly confront nationalist block-voting, policy-gaming, and so on, no matter how connected and influential the culprits happen to be.  In terms of my analogy, the "citizen-activists" are fighting for the rights of the mild-mannered types to come and edit freely; but these mild-mannered disinterested types, while they might quietly deplore the nationalist gangsters, don't much take to the squawking of the critics, and are maybe more interested in adding content than defending neutrality per se, so they wander on to quieter neighborhoods.  Alright enough of my ridiculous metaphor.--G-Dett (talk) 23:14, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I think once the preferred name is hammered out, then there is one less variable. We can take this a step at a time. The advantage of a solution in this case is it a well-circumscribed issue that needs sorting. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:18, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Dunno. Like everyone else, I'm a huge fan. But from up here in the Peanut Gallery your approbation of the decision is perplexing. You went gentle, and I don't really understand why. IMO, a decision which extirpates you, Nishidani et al., essentially for defending the NPOV, is one which is deeply damaging to the encyclopedia on two or three different levels. You'd need to confess to something more than being eager to defend a principle, becoming tenacious in the face of intimidation, and civic-minded muckraking before I'd consent to your execution in my name.--MoreThings (talk) 23:17, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Symmetrical treatment of editors

 * Some of my earliest posts to wikiEN-l were about the 2005 ArbCom's symmetrical treatment of editors, and how problematic it was e.g.  The issue wasn't topic bans, but temporary bans during cases, and incivility rulings for the slightest thing. It was definitely putting people off approaching ArbCom for fear that all parties would be sanctioned, with little attention paid to what they'd actually done. I wrote, March 2005:


 * "there is a perception (as is clearly shown by this thread) that there is a philosophy of seeking to punish both sides regardless of the issues, in an effort to bend over backwards to be fair - which I argue is actually leading to unfairness in some cases. It is this philosophy that is worrying, and the issue of tempbanning everyone is simply one example of it.'"


 * I'm concerned that we're back here again, four years later. I sympathize to some extent with ArbCom, because I can only imagine the nightmare of checking every diff, then trying to work out the context in which people did what they did. It's much easier to say that everyone involved in a situation should be sanctioned. But it's not justice, and justice does matter. Even though ArbCom makes clear that it's not modelled on a court of law, if the laws of natural justice don't apply, then what we have is arbitrary governance. I'm certain none of the ArbCom intends that, but it's what is implied nonetheless. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 23:31, 9 May 2009 (UTC)


 * And which way would that pendulum swing Slim (re natural justice)? We've had criticisms from both sides, so there will be unhappiness whichever way it goes/has gone/etc. I also know of many editors who have never edit warred. this is an extremely tricky case to negotiate and we have highlighted a way back, which given the contributions of many of the parties is not a tall order. The sooner the name gets hammered out the better. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:36, 9 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I'd say the pendulum should always swing in favour of justice for individuals, not for groups. That involves a careful reading of all the diffs. I've been doing that and truly, there is no reason to ban some of the people I've looked at. I don't want to give names, because I'm trying to argue a principle only, but I have to say I'm very surprised by Nishidani's ban. This seems to be the evidence against him on the evidence page:


 * He is accused of a straw-man argument.
 * He points out the obvious truth that vocabulary has become distorted in Israel-Palestine disputes (not just onwiki but everywhere).
 * He declines to compromise on some point, but requests evidence and NPOV.
 * He makes a point that maps convey subliminal messages about land ownership.
 * He makes a joke, with an editor he is friendly with, about disembowelment.
 * He makes a point about selective editing.
 * He writes that some Wikipedians may have been raised with propaganda about Israel.


 * Am I missing something, or is that really it? If the former, my apologies; if the latter, could someone explain why he's topic-banned? SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 00:53, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
 * yes, you're missing the very first line of the FoF regarding Nishidani, which is that he has extensively edit warred (with diffs) - just like the other parties to this case (and every other wiki editor, for that matter). NoCal100 (talk) 01:51, 10 May 2009 (UTC)


 * The FoF shows:
 * That Nishidani has been blocked four times in 20 months, two of which were overturned after discussion on AN/I. One of those discussions is here, and seems to show that the block was uncalled for. The second overturned block was for his disembowelment joke that Jehochman appears to have taken seriously by mistake; every admin who commented (so far as I see) argued in Nishidani's favour and it was overturned.


 * That he reverted on Israeli settlement eight times in six weeks in Nov/Dec last year, and not thereafter.


 * The other links on the FoF show three of the diffs I gave above, including (again) the by-now-infamous disembowelment joke. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 02:15, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, you missed this, and I could provide more examples of recent edit warring. But in general, I agree with you, while noting that this is pretty much the same level of evidence presented against all parties to this case. I reverted the same number of times on Israeli settlement, have been blocked fewer times and for shorter durations than Nishidani, and face the same ban. NoCal100 (talk) 02:39, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Improvements already
It seems we have progress since this decision has started to take shape, if this section on the Samaria talk page itself is anything to go by, or this serious - and utterly incorrect - accusation that a noted academic is a "holocaust denier". And this latest flare-up. Rampant POV-pushing, BLP violations and edit-warring carry on, with some of those fortunate (?) enough to escape being scooped up on this occasion even seemingly taking the decision as some sort of perverse licence to push even harder on the Samaria/Judea issue, and on other mainstream vs minority terminology questions. I would hate of course to suggest that this is the somewhat inevitable consequence of battering those who - whatever else they might have very occasionally done wrong - actually tried to import some neutral objectivity into matters here. --Nickhh (talk) 20:43, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Indeed, looks like this ruling is definably going to resolve all issues.... :-( -- Kim van der Linde at venus 21:08, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Nick, who "tried to import some neutral objectivity into matters here"? You? G-Dett and Nishidani? I've seen a lot of your editing, and I wouldn't describe it that way. In my opinion, you are all POV-pushers. (I don't know enough about the editing of the others to pass judgment.) Whether anyone should have been indefinitely topic-banned in this case is another question. I will say this, first, having read the article about your so-called "noted academic" and having Googled the subject and found a wide range of material on the question of his views on the Holocaust, the accusation that he is a Holocaust denier is not "utterly incorrect". I don't know whether he is one or not, but there seems to be sufficient evidence to make it reasonable to conclude that he is either a "Holocaust denier" or at least a "Holocaust minimizer", which many view as the same thing. Or, you can conclude the opposite, but neither conclusion is "correct" or "incorrect." And, second, I know you will disagree, but Wikipedia has been significantly slanted against Israel. If this latest event improves that situation, so much the better. I doubt it will. You seem think it already has, although you of course phrase it in different terms. And the beat goes on. 6SJ7 (talk) 22:14, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Norman Finkelstein is no more a Holocaust denier or minimizer than you are, 6SJ7. In fact he's never done any research on or presented any findings whatsoever about the facts of the Holocaust.  As he's stated numerous times, he regards as definitive the account given by Raul Hilberg in his classic three-volume work, The Destruction of the European Jews.  This is the problem with editing based on what one has "googled up."  One ends up editing ignorantly, saying deeply offensive and stupid things, and libeling living people.--G-Dett (talk) 22:52, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * If NF isn't a Holocaust minimizer, he seems comfortable being taken for one; his comments are, and are meant to be, provocative. I don't think you can blame people for being provoked by them. IronDuke  23:22, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Norman Finkelstein, whatever else anyone might - entirely legitimately of course - wish to think of him, is not a Holocaust denier or "minimiser". Anyone who seriously suggests that he is, or that he is "comfortable being taken for one", is telling us more about themselves and/or the limited sources they choose to read up on than anything else, while at the same time exposing some fundamental problems with the way information gets accredited in this place. Which process, by the way, is not generally something that leads to any "anti-Israel" bias. And while I'm here 6SJ7, I'd also be intrigued to learn what POV I supposedly stand for in the middle of this mess. Other than the decidedly odd "nationalist" one you tried to pin on me recently. --Nickhh (talk) 00:42, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Nick, c'mon: you really don't think you're on a "side" here? Really? IronDuke  00:49, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Um, no actually. Really. Not in the real world sense, anyway. Here, I'll take any side that reveals genuine detachment and objectivity, and justifies what it is trying to do in respect of content. --Nickhh (talk) 01:05, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Welcome to reality, in which you are automatically lumped with the other side if you do not agree with the party line of the correct side. As a neutral editor, the rsult is that you get bounced from side to side depending with who you are talking. Nothing new here. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 04:16, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay... I don't agree, and I think most neutral observers wouldn't either. But I guess we can agree to disagree. IronDuke  01:40, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * "Most neutral observers"? Who they? And which "side" am I on, anyway? This seems to be quite a fundamental point - that editors like myself, who genuinely have no side, no stake in the underlying conflict and no political engagement in it, are bundled up with everyone else. --Nickhh (talk) 02:06, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, you're fair to call me out on the neutral observers bit. I think if it came to an RfC, I'd be vindicated in that, but that notional RfC isn't proof, of course. You are pro-Palestinian. AFAICT, you always have been on WP. That bothers me, by the way, not one whit. But it's a fact about your editing. As always, I am open to challenge, and if I am wrong, will say so. Do you think you've made any edits that could be construed as, for example, pro-Israel?  IronDuke  02:15, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * All very fascinating stuff, to be sure. Just a reminder for those reading this far that Finkelstein is not regarded as a Holocaust denier/minimizer by any serious literate person on the planet.--G-Dett (talk) 02:24, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The above is clearly false. We can argue if F really is a Holocaust denier/minimizer, but its pointless to claim he's not regarded as such by numerous individuals, several of whom hold or held academic positions, and thus presumably qualify as "literate person". NoCal100 (talk) 02:46, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, no we can't argue if F really is a Holocaust denier/minimizer. We can discuss whether you have any idea what you're talking about, whether you've read anything Finkelstein has written, whether you, NoCal, have any historical acquaintance whatsoever with the industrial extermination of Jews, whether it's something you could possibly be moved to care about, whether your ignorance itself counts as "minimization," etc.  Those are fair topics all.  But no, without seriously degrading ourselves, we can't argue if F really is a Holocaust denier/minimizer.--G-Dett (talk) 02:57, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * These gratuitous insults and personal attacks are exactly the reason why you are getting topic banned, a ban that, frankly, should extend to all Wikipedia articles. I have some reservations about the banning of several of the parties to this case, including some of my opponents, but none whatsoever with regards to you - you are not here to write an encyclopedia, you are here to personally attack those wo disagree with you. NoCal100 (talk) 03:22, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * NoCal, you've violated BLP in an egregious way. Don't pin the problem on me.  Just take care to acquaint yourself with topics – especially big ones, like the Holocaust, which can be very sensitive for survivors and their children – before weighing in with such spectacular ignorance.--G-Dett (talk) 03:30, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd say you're inching ever closer to a total community ban. NoCal100 (talk) 03:35, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * For example, Hans Mommsen wrote Finkelstein's work was "a most trivial book, which appeals to easily aroused anti-Semitic prejudices." Is Mommsen a serious, literate person? I know you're PO'ed, G-Dett, with absolutely every right to be, but... IronDuke  02:51, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * For example? Sorry, what do Mommsen's comments have to do with Holocaust denial or minimization?--G-Dett (talk) 03:08, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Maybe you can tell me. What was Mommsen referring to? IronDuke  03:14, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Weird question. But yes, if Mommsen thinks Finkelstein and Raul Hilberg are Holocaust minimizers, then yes, he does have a literacy problem.--G-Dett (talk) 03:21, 12 May 2009 (UTC)


 * For example, a Steven Plaut, a professor on the faculty of the Graduate School of Business Administration at the University of Haifa writes, explicitly, that 'Finkelstein is almost universally regarded as a Holocaust Denier'. He may be right or wrong, but it is undeniable that he is an academic,a seriously literate person, who holds that position. Before you reply with some predictable comments deriding his literacy, you are reminded that WP:BLP applies on every page of this project, and that that claiming that a professional academic is illiterate is without a doubt an actionable libelous claim. NoCal100 (talk) 03:22, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Wow. Which, to your, mind, is more serious, claiming that a professional academic is illiterate, or claiming that someone who doesn't deny or minimize the Holocaust denies or minimizes the Holocaust?--G-Dett (talk) 03:39, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * My opinion on which is "more serious" is not important here. Plaut is not a Wiki editor, and the publication he made that statement in is not subject to our rules. You are. He is an academic, a literate person, who holds the position you claimed no literate person holds. You were simply wrong. Acknowledge it, rephrase your claim if you'd like, and move on. NoCal100 (talk) 03:56, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * "Serious literate person," NoCal; and no, of course, Plaut, a convicted libeler and an intellectual incompetent, isn't one.--G-Dett (talk) 04:08, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The Electronic Intifada issued a piece on Norman Finkelstein and the charge of Holocaust revision some time ago. Not a neutral source, obviously, but still good for context.


 * I also seem to remember that the Canadian journalist Ezra Levant wrote a piece on Finkelstein a while back, wherein he claimed that NF "denie[d] that six million Jews died in the Holocaust" (quoted here). I can only imagine that Levant was thinking of Finkelstein's decision to use Raoul Hilberg's estimate of 5.1 million killed rather than the standard estimate of six million.  Mind you, Levant didn't go out of his way to clarify this point in his article, and an uninformed reader might easily have reached a different interpretation.


 * In any event, this is what Finkelstein himself wrote in a tribute piece to Hilberg:


 * [...] [Hilberg] reckoned the total number of Jewish victims at closer to 5.1 million. The third volume contains a 20-page appendix detailing his complex calculations of Jewish dead. In contrast Dawidowicz gives a figure for each country and then totals the number, as if this calculation were simply an addition problem whereas, as Hilberg notes, “the raw data are seldom self-explanatory, and…their interpretation often requires the use of voluminous background materials that have to be analyzed in turn.”


 * It should go without saying that whether the figure is closer to five than six million is of zero moral significance - except for a moral cretin, who could utter “only five million”? - although Hilberg believed it was of historical significance. Even if it weren’t he almost certainly would still have insisted on the 5.1 million figure if his research showed it was closer to the truth. “Always in my life,” Hilberg wrote unaffectedly in his memoir, “I had wanted the truth about myself.” This was also how he approached the study of the Nazi holocaust.


 * Whatever faults Finkelstein might have, he isn't a Holocaust denier. CJCurrie (talk) 03:35, 12 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Some of you all appear to be taking this a little too seriously if your personal feelings about a topic are intense enough to be offended by what others say about the sources used or if you feel you need to make some great effort to discredit a particular source. Wikipedia is supposed to be fun.  A hobby.  A pasttime where you help construct NPOV articles, in an NPOV way, about subjects that interest you.  If you can't do that in the I/P area, then please choose another topic to work on.  Hopefully no one here is seriously trying to save Israel or Palestine, because I don't think, if true, that that's a very productive motivation or attitude to have when working in that topic. Cla68 (talk) 02:45, 12 May 2009 (UTC)


 * This isn't the place. Everybody please stop now. &mdash;Ashley Y 03:36, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Editors may well be wondering what the hell is going on. Finkelstein is a political scientist whose book The Holocaust Industry alleged that (a) the historical fact of the Holocaust has, since 1967, been exploited within American political discourse for reasons related to Israel/Palestine; and (b) that institutional parties have exaggerated the number of living survivors today (not original survivors, not the scale of the Holocaust itself) for the purposes of reparations lawsuits, monies from which do not, according to Finkelstein, reach actual survivors (like his parents) but instead line the pockets of lawyers and other institutional actors. (These arguments have been supported by Raul Hilberg, who calls them "100% correct.") Largely due to his opposition to Israeli policies vis-á-vis the Palestinians, and his support for radical Arab movements like Hezbollah, unscrupulous individuals have claimed that he is a "Holocaust denier," and intellectually incompetent and/or illiterate individuals have believed them.--G-Dett (talk) 04:02, 12 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Um, that's great, but take it to Talk:Norman Finkelstein. &mdash;Ashley Y 04:05, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * You're right, of course; sorry. Ugh.  Topic-ban me already.--G-Dett (talk) 04:11, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Wow, I didn't mean to set off such a firestorm. I guess there's some hero-worship of this guy, probably due to his criticism of Israel. Based on reading the article about him, he's hardly worth all the fuss. He seems to be a former assistant professor who has bounced around from school to school. Who cares what he thinks about anything? If he didn't bash Israel all the time, he wouldn't be considered notable enough for an article, much less all this hysteria when his opinions are discussed. So, I take it all back: He's not significant enough to talk about. 6SJ7 (talk) 04:19, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Actual Improvement
well i, for one, am glad to see a certain ban-evading sock has finally been discovered. hopefully some of her bffs will take this opportunity to save face and denounce this brazen disruption, but i fear we will only hear crickets. untwirl (talk) 04:29, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

a thought
I think that the community had needed a decision here folks, on the specific content issues. I'm sorry that no such decision appears to have been provided. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 21:18, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Arbcom cannot rule on content. Viridae Talk 21:49, 14 May 2009 (UTC)