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

My two cents
The Committee, in my opinion, cannot and probably should not make a formal decision on the underlying content dispute, that is, whether Samaria and Judea are acceptable terms for use as disputed in the relevant articles. What the committee can do is determine which editors have hindered the editorial decision-making, consensus-building process and therefore prevented normal talk page resolution of this issue, and eject those editors from the debate through topic or general bans. Cla68 (talk) 01:08, 13 March 2009 (UTC)


 * That's what I tend to assume as well, but as noted previously I'm of the view that this isn't really a proper content dispute as such, but rather a blatant attempt to push for the retention of fringe/minority use and politically loaded terminology across multiple articles, which has been represented as a content dispute by those in favour of using that terminology, who have in turn relied on endless stonewalling and pettifogging (and worse) across multiple articles in a bid to avoid proper NPOV/UNDUE principles being applied. My proposals include a finding of fact on this underlying point, because I consider it a "no-brainer" (indeed that's why I've been so insistent on this issues, even though it's only a couple of words) - if we were talking about flat-earthism, would it really be stretching ArbCom too far to ask them to determine that the earth is indeed round(ish), even if only for the sake of clarity? But equally I accept that this may not be taken up.--Nickhh (talk) 16:24, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, I think one side has made a compelling argument that their position is better supported by the sources. The thing is, the Committee's charter, as I understand it, doesn't allow them to rule on content disputes.  That being said, the members can probably look at the evidence and decide which parties are acting in better faith, based on the rationales supporting their opinion on the content question they present, and who isn't. Cla68 (talk) 03:49, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Surely the committee's brief includes clarifying what interpretation of the relevant rules is appropriate? WP:RS, WP:NPOV, WP:Undue, and a few others have all been systematically ignored by one party, and that is a behavioural problem, certainly. If, exceptionally, in a two-nation conflict, we are, uniquely in the I/P area, to allow one nation's preferred terminology to become the default terminology, geographically or otherwise, while the other party's terminology has never been mentioned, then it sets a dangerous precedent. Had the application of those elementary rules been applied, we should never have had this absurd altercation, nor would we find ourselves troubling Arbcom. Nishidani (talk) 12:54, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Precisely. And it bears repeating again - this is not a content dispute between "Israeli" language/terminology and "Palestinian" language/terminology. This is about whether we use the terms overwhelmingly favoured by every English language media, academic and government source around the world, or whether we replace them with the preferred terms of one part of one side to that conflict (or even add those terms in on top of the standard ones). This would simply not be tolerated in articles about any other real-world conflict here, and would indeed set an appalling precedent. --Nickhh (talk) 18:01, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Hopefully, someday Wikipedia will have a "content" committee who can act as a final arbiter (is that a word?) on content disputes. In the meantime, content disputes are still decided by editor discussion, mediation, and RfCs, all geared towards trying to facilitate compromise and consensus.  I believe that Roger Davies' comments on the evidence talk page indicate that the Committee wants to put some mechanism in place to help facilitate better resolution of content disputes by the involved editors.  Perhaps one way to accomplish this is to identify those editors who consistently refuse to compromise or act reasonably and ban them from the articles in question.  That may help to a certain extent.  The underlying dispute, however, may still continue and I imagine that the committee would like to put something in place to help more disputes get resolved before they end up here in RfAR again in the future. Cla68 (talk) 23:54, 15 March 2009 (UTC)


 * The problem here is that I do not see what solution will work if the underlying content point is not addressed, at least in some way. Either we are left with retro-active sanctions for "misbehaving" editors, which I'm not sure I'm in favour of, even though there has been some pretty poor behaviour here, especially in terms of the allegations of racism and anti-semitism; or some kind of 1RR restriction on the articles in question, which is, quite simply, the worst "solution" for instances where (allegedly) dodgy, minority or even fringe material is being added to pages, or its removal being fought. It just allows the endless accretion of that material, and no other editors can do anything about it. See Muhammad al-Durrah - now stable and "balanced", but not as WP:UNDUE would recognise that latter word, given over as 50% of it now is to a bizarre conspiracy theory promoted by a few internet activists and right-wing columnists.
 * Equally, if we say "if you can find a source that says X, it can go in, even if it's a minority, partisan and loaded geographical or political term" we are opening the floodgates. It is a totally false compromise, which would have pretty terrible consequences. In this case, everything will also be noted as being "in eastern Palestine"; Sikh separatists will be able to add that various towns in northern India are "in Khalistan"; English regionalists will be able to add that towns in the Midlands are "in Mercia"; German irredentists will be able to insert the claim that places in the northeastern Czech Republic are also "in the Sudetenland" etc etc. Surely not? What other serious encyclopedia invents and deploys hybridised terminology of this sort to appease nationalisms? Where we have a neutral, standard and internationally-recognised term for an area, let's simply use that term when we refer to that place in other articles; while at the same time noting that there are alternatives, say in a terminology section of the main article about the actual place, or in an article devoted to the minority term itself. Like most topic areas here currently do, like every other mainstream source does and like WP:NCGN suggests we do. --Nickhh (talk) 12:47, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

WP:NCGN
Is it valid?

I think ARBCOM should probably rule on this. If it is dead letter, as this controversy suggests, then it should say so. If not, editors who consistently ignore it are being pointy, and hence should be dealt with by ARBCOM.--Cerejota (talk) 23:22, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * This case is not about the validity of the naming conventions, but rather about how they are to be applied in a particular case, and about whether the naming conventions even provide an answer in this case. I think that is yet another way of saying this case is about content, not rule-breaking or rule-enforcement, meaning it is the kind of case the ArbCom does not decide.  6SJ7 (talk) 22:50, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The case is very much about why most of the policy indications for drafting articles, dealing with WP:RS, WP:Undue, and esp. WP:NCGN, are systematically ignored by one side to the dispute. We are literally begging for a policy clarification, for we cannot persuade our interlocutors that things like WP:NCGN apply.Nishidani (talk) 22:57, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Of course, it's also possible that you are the one who is incorrect in your interpretation of the naming conventions. 6SJ7 (talk) 14:56, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Of course. Everything's possible, in this worst of all possible editing worlds, and I'm well aware that living not far from the Vatican doesn't mean I too am entitled to make ex cathedra judgements. Since this 'content dispute' is very much a clash over how policy is to be interpreted and applied, I asked for clarification from our superiors.I just edit as I was taught to when academic training included simple standard rules, and drilled the young with a sense of method, objectivity, and obligation to be precise. The wiki rulebook is so vast and intricate that, well-mastered, it can allow pure anarchy by rule-waving martinets, and the strictest of suspensive disciplines imposed on otherwise scrupulous editors dedicated to historically-grounded content. I/P is so full of this, I asked for guidance, since I am perplexed, as to why the obvious is contested so minutely. Nishidani (talk) 15:13, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Candidates for topic bans
Please list below editors whose continued presence is disruptive and who are thwarting consensus. Please provide a brief (30 word) rationale, with at least three diffs for each allegation. Use the format + allegationdiff + allegationdiff etc + sig. The clerks will remove in their entirety proposals which are overlength. Thank you,  Roger Davies  talk 08:14, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Please add duplicate "nominations" as an additional line, please do not add comments to other people's lines.  Roger Davies  talk 08:39, 24 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Question: Can the diffs be to evidence sections?  T i a m u t talk 08:35, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Second choice. First choice is direct links.  Roger Davies  talk 08:39, 24 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't know if this is the right place for this, but I'd like to de-nominate the entire list below, if what's being discussed is their banning from all IP-related articles. While I can't agree with every single edit of any of the editors below, and there is too much squabbling and warring, banning them all would be really harmful to the topic area. I have no diffs for this, just long editing experience in the topic area and a desire to see accurate, neutral, fully-fledged articles in it. IronDuke  14:31, 29 March 2009 (UTC)


 * persistent bad-faith stonewalling, wiki-lawyering and gaming.  pedrito  -  talk  - 24.03.2009 08:22
 * Comment: I think what has happened has been misunderstandings, not deliberate stonewalling. See e.g. Jayjg's clarification, my attempt to clarify  and my bafflement at an apparent misunderstanding  about terms used in those discussions. See also my description here of several misunderstandings.(17:42, 16 April 2009 (UTC)) ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 16:50, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: no evidence has been found that these hypothetical misunderstandings actually occurred. MeteorMaker (talk) 20:47, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Such evidence is described here and in one of my evidence subsections. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 13:12, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * That is not evidence that misunderstandings have occurred, that's mere speculation, by yourself, that they might have ocurred, in one case despite the fact that the supposed misunderstander has explained that your hypothesis is wrong. Before you've got confirmation from anybody that he or she had indeed misunderstood something the way you postulate, you have no evidence at all. MeteorMaker (talk) 13:47, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I've updated my evidence. See The root of the problem and Clarification sections of my evidence. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 01:43, 24 April 2009 (UTC)


 * bad-faith edit-warring and stonewalling.  pedrito  -  talk  - 24.03.2009 08:22
 * repeated unsubstantiated bad-faith accusations of Anti-Semitism and Bigotry.  pedrito  -  talk  - 24.03.2009 08:22
 * Comment. Noting that sources should not be dismissed simply because they were born in a specific country does not amount to bigotry/racism allegations.  Jaakobou Chalk Talk  13:59, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment 2: Claiming that other editors have dismissed sources because the sources are Jewish does. MeteorMaker (talk) 14:13, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Closing note: Forgive me for considering Israel to be a Jewish state, MeteorMaker, but you assume bad faith where there is non.  Jaakobou Chalk Talk  14:36, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 *  Closing note 2: Then, stop assuming bad faith on my part and retract your unfounded accusations, like I have asked you numerous times. MeteorMaker (talk) 14:46, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Detail note: MeteorMaker, you say that I have "Claim[ed]that [you] dismissed sources because the sources are Jewish" and insist that I "retract" these "unfounded accusations". However, you did quite clearly refer to the sources/terminology as "Jewish" or "Jewish settlers", and used the euphemism "Israeli friendly individuals in America" to describe them. My objection to the methodology has nothing to do with allegations of racism.  Jaakobou Chalk Talk  17:46, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Question to Jaakobou: Where in those diffs is the dismissal of sources you object to? It appears that you have simply Googled up every instance of the word "Jewish" in a post by me. (Friendly note: This is the correct link to "Israel-friendly individuals in America", which, as is obvious if you read it, is a euphemism for "American Zionists", not "Jews". MeteorMaker (talk) 18:15, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Reply: After a comment of mine accidentally came off as possibly accusative, I explained myself and apologized for the misunderstanding and, it seemed, that you accepted said explanation. Other comments concentrated on Jewish state, Israeli or Zionist, affiliation. I never took your discussion notes in bad faith and certainly don't think you should be smeared based on rejecting pro-Israeli/Jewish sources. You did, however, position an objection to the validity of said sources for our topic of discussion and several editors disagreed. My disagreement here is not an allusion to antisemitism. I hope this clarifies your concerns,  Jaakobou Chalk Talk  19:20, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Suggestion: As a gesture of good will, you might want to consider retracting these two statements from this ArbCom case: "[MM] rejects sources on the account that they are Israel/Jew related" "sources such as 'international bank' were deemed 'Israel/Jewish-connected'" . MeteorMaker (talk) 05:04, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Clarification and suggestion: The issue we're discussing is about terminology with Jewish origins that is rejected by the Arab community of Israel. Israel, being a Jewish state, and your rejection of a terminology based on the writer having some type of perceived affiliation with the pro-Jewish and pro-Israel terminology is something which occurred based on your perception on how the language should be determined. My pointing out that, I believe 'International bank' and others, to be external sources even if it published a pro-Jewish terminology, should not be perceived as a smear about your personality but only as a note about disagreement in interpretation of sources on this controversial naming conventions topic. If you want, I'm thinking it might be an agreed upon goodwill action to rephrase past comments somehow to clarify that we're talking about a pro-Jewish/Israel naming convention and my comment about the reasoning of rejection on sources should not be confused with an allusion to antisemitism. Will that work for you?  Jaakobou Chalk Talk  07:37, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Reply: Sorry Jaakobou, if you say I "reject sources on the account that they are Israel/Jew related" and "deem sources such as 'international bank' 'Israel/Jewish-connected", I and others do perceive it as blatant smearing, even if you swear your accusations "should not be perceived as a smear about [my] personality" or "should not be confused with an allusion to antisemitism". That you reject my suggestion to strike your unfounded allegations might be perceived as further confirmation of bad faith on your part. MeteorMaker (talk) 09:00, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Re: I'm sensing that there might be a misunderstanding between us about how we perceive the concept of "bad faith". From my understanding, if I were to express bad faith against a fellow editor, that would mean to suggest that they have bad intentions. I don't make such assumptions to the intentions of fellow editors (unless they announce them) and my commentary was based only on methodology. To be a bit blunt, it would seem that you've repeatedly accused me of deliberate lying which falls under my understanding of the policy. Anyways, I'm open to a third opinion by an admin on the meaning of WP:BADFAITH though and my offer/suggestion above still stands.  Jaakobou Chalk Talk  11:02, 30 March 2009 (UTC)


 * incivility during this hearing, , Copied here from Evidence by Jaakabou   Roger Davies  talk 11:38, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * incivility during this hearing Copied here from Evidence by Jaakabou   Roger Davies  talk 11:38, 24 March 2009 (UTC)


 * bad-faith edit-warring and expansion of the dispute to multiple articles, after a compromise was reached. NoCal100 (talk) 14:27, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Note how all these diffs show me reverting User:Tkalisky on the same edit over multiple pages after he had followed and mass-reverted me. Note as well as the self-imposed WP:1RR. Edit-warring and "expansion of the conflict"? Hardly... Cheers,  pedrito  -  talk  - 01.04.2009 09:16


 * disruptive editing, including edit warring, which has already led to numerous sanctions including blocks and bans, to no avail:, , NoCal100 (talk) 14:33, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I can't find the links right now, but I believe a ban was later admitted to have been based on a misunderstanding: There was an agreement not to edit the lead, and MeteorMaker was accused of breaking this (?) agreement even though MeteorMaker's edit was not to the lead of the article. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 14:48, 18 April 2009 (UTC) Admission of error by banning admin:  Clarification by MeteorMaker  (edited 14:56 and 18:29, 18 April 2009 (UTC))
 * false/misleading allegations to cause/extend bans (above, fails to mention ban 2 (of 2 sanctions in total) was placed erroneously and lifted). MeteorMaker (talk) 15:16, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * false/misleading allegations to cause/extend bans, unsubstantiated accusations of ethnic discrimination , stonewalling MeteorMaker (talk) 15:16, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * for edit-warring: my concern is that Pedrito (previously referred to as "Pedro") has an old habit of tag-teaming with others. e.g. Recently, he joined with User:Factsontheground on a biography of an Israeli politician and responded negatively when noted of BLP concerns with his participation (see edit summary).  Jaakobou Chalk Talk  10:45, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * This bogus, year-old accusation of tag-teaming was brought up by yourself here at WP:AE and was not found to merit even a comment from an admin. As for the edit warring, check the histories. I reverted three times in six days -- the result of a self-imposed WP:1RR to avoid edit-warring. Cheers,  pedrito  -  talk  - 01.04.2009 09:16


 * Ynhockey, at this late point, should have his map work thoroughly reviewed. Last night, while this very issue is under discussion before Arbcom, once more he inserted information he cannot but know is blatantly false, into Wikipedia, on a map he uploaded onto the Susya page. I am deeply disappointed that I have been forced to remark on this. This patently violates the standards we expect from administrators.Nishidani (talk) 09:09, 30 March 2009 (UTC). It would appear from a note on my page by User:Nableezy that I am guilty of not (I admit it) having the foggiest notion of how images generate these window pop-ups. If the Susya pop-up is as Nableezy suggests, I retract my remark on it, and apologize to User:Ynhockey.Nishidani (talk) 10:16, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Jayjg repeated and extensive edit-warring. MeteorMaker (talk) 07:31, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Statement by mostly uninvolved User:Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg
I have edited wikipedia for a long time. Many people know me as someone who makes mostly productive edits, though until about 18 months ago I was probably best recognized for editing Israel-related articles (a subject which I mostly stay out of now). Anyways I just wished to express my displeasure with the fact that arbcom has chosen to consider this case which amounts to little more than a simple content dispute. Furthermore I would like to express my horror that arbcom is now considering a topic ban of Jayjg. I hope that Jayjg's longtime service to Wikipedia will be recognized in this case. Whether people agree or disagree with him I think everyone can agree that over the years Jay has done an impossible job doing what few other administrators were willing to.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 23:49, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm sure you know there is another perspective, which is that despite productive work in some ways, Jayjg has adopted an approach that in other ways abuses other editors as well as Wikipedia. Every time I reexamine the point, this hits me as unavoidable. It is comments like this I'm talking about, where not only is Jayjg going to invent fantastical hurdles to overcome, but then he's going to tell you to stop trying to shift the burden of proof and stop wikilawyering about it.  One of the most widely used information sources in the world should see an obligation, in my view, to address these kinds of problems and not simply shrug them off. Mackan79 (talk) 11:42, 30 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Mackan79, you are really saying that Jayjg has proved an obstacle to your editing goals. Certainly he is a very experienced editor, and effective in arguing for his views. But I see him in a different perspective than you do. There have been many times that he told me that an edit I wanted could not be allowed because of problems with reliable sourcing, synthesis, etc. In other words, my experience with Jayjg is that he supports WP neutrality, not partition editing goals. I have never seen a case where Jayjg gave his support to anything that he considered contrary to WP editing guidelines. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 18:39, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Neither have I. Impeccable statement, only that what he considers contrary to WP editing guidelines varies from page to page. I've documented this habit elsewhere, without convincing you, so here's another of a few dozen random samples for your consideration.


 * He removes a large quote on a copyright issues, and prunes it and another down to 150 words, on fair use. I point out to him that he allows several long quotes violating his copyright and wordage interpretation at the  Israeli Settlement page, even by people who are not WP:RS, like Kim Beazley, on behalf of their legality. Difference in interpretation of WP rules. Apparently the long quotes from Christopher Hitchens and Tom Segev (who personally gave me permission to use the material) throw positive light on Israel Shahak, while Jayjg edits in, or defends edits which smear him with malicious untruths (about his putative anti-Semitism). The positive quotes require drastic editing. But the equally long series of several quotes on Israeli settlements shoring up the thesis of their legality are not questioned for length, copyright or for their violation of WP:RS. Why? well, who knows, but they all happen to be positive about what Jayjg supports.


 * Thus O.09% from Segev (no copyright problem) of Segev's book must be trimmed down to his 150 word limit. De Wet (188 words, 0.24%): Eugene Rostow (10%): Julius Stone (198 words = 1.158%,): Kim Beazley (232 words = 9.7% of text), and (Jochen Frowein 204 words) however, on the other page, are fine, no such problem. So you see, on one page he wants copyright law to prevail, nothing more than .25% of the text is allowed, everything must be précised to under 150 words. But on another page he sees nothing wrong with several quotes, some near or over 200 words and 10% of a copyrighted text. In each case, WP guidelines are mentioned, only they function to all appearances to justify or elide things according to what he wants to see on or off the page. This is what I call Jayjg's cosmic elasticity approach to the WP rulebook, always at his elbow, but the contents stiffen into stone, or soften into rubber, as the circs require.Nishidani (talk) 20:05, 30 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Your objections only express your unhappiness over having your editing goals frustrated. But arbcom is not to settle editing disputes. This request for arbitration is no more than a spin off from the editing disputes of Israel/Palestine articles, with you playing hardball to get an effective editor, who has frustrated your editing goals, removed from editing. Considering the obvious urgency you feel to achieve certain editing results -- in support of a cause you consider very good and very important -- I understand that you think this effort to dislodge Jayjg justified, and you are doing this is for an end you consider good. But it is not good for WP. Quite the contrary. To attempt the removal from editing of editors who supply necessary balance is deplorable, no matter how good the intent. Without balance, the result will not be NPOV, but articles that are unbalanced propaganda. That subverts the foundational intent of WP.


 * To repeat, I have never seen a case when Jayjg edited contrary to WP principles, nor does he allow others to edit contrary to WP principles to achieve partisan goals. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 21:14, 30 March 2009 (UTC)


 * And people make a case against G-Dett for improper language! A minor correction. I have never called for anyone's removal or banning (except once or twice for an antisemitic newby). I am neutral on this. I have asked (a) Arbcom to have strong words to Jayjg on his rule-bending, and to review what Ynhockey does, or fails to do, in his map work. I don't care for bans, I've never, despite repeated provocations, availed myself of arbitration to get back at anyone. I've consistently told editors to avoid dobbing in for sanctions anyone. I care for an efficient editing environment where editors and administrators are held to coherence, cogency in reasoning (not wikilawyering), respect for quality sources, and a dedication to neutrality, which means challenging rubbish wherever and by whoever.Nishidani (talk) 21:23, 30 March 2009 (UTC)


 * You have left no doubt in my mind that your goal is the removal of an obstacle to your editing goals. All the other nice words about "efficient editing environment," etc, do not change the obvious fact that your intent is to discredit one of WP's best editors because you find his presence inconvenient for your goals. I find that deplorable. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 21:34, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I haven't left anything there. I wish you'd use diffs to back your extraordinary ad hominem psychological deductions about my mind and intentions. I'll withdraw, in any case, from this silly exchange.Nishidani (talk) 21:51, 30 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Diffs? There is no need for diffs because everything I have said is based on comments in this thread, framed in the context of the complaint made to arbcom, and in the still larger frame of the Israel/Palestine dispute articles. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 20:48, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Well now that you've clarified your methodology for working on wiki . .Good evening.Nishidani (talk) 20:50, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I have contempt for all the crying around Jayjg: it certainly feeds his ego, but I see little value to it. Leave him alone, or provide evidence. For what I have seen, at most, all ArbCom can do is slap his wrists for calling people bigots, and maybe for tendentious editing in his usual tactic of sourceflooding discussions with sources he couldn't humanly have read with any amount of comprehension. Topic ban? Then 3/4s of the editors in ARBPIA would be topic banned. Including myself. This stuff has the unique flavor of people beating dead horses to a jelly: face it, its good to be the king, and no amount of crying can take away teh fact that Jayjg is royalty. One can always get the fork out of here... --Cerejota (talk) 00:44, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
 * A simply amazing post for someone accusing others of personal attacks! Not out of character, unfortunately. Tundrabuggy (talk) 04:50, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I believe we're done here.--Tznkai (talk) 14:42, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Draft guidelines for use of placenames
I've posted draft guidelines for the use of the terms "Samaria" and "Judea" at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration. Please discuss there. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 12:26, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Excellent work Coppertwig has done there – subtle, supple, nuanced, and fair. I recommend everyone read it; it could be a breakthrough.--G-Dett (talk) 12:48, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I think the link should be to this.Nishidani (talk) 20:37, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Nishidani. That's what I meant. I've fixed the link in my comment above. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 18:53, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

On bigotry (and accusations of)
A question to the parties, and please do not infer any judgements or opinions on my part.

Are the statements that allegedly imply bigotry basically "ethnic-based or ideology-based disqualification of sources is distasteful?" Is that what this particular part of the dispute revolves around?--Tznkai (talk) 21:45, 1 April 2009 (UTC)


 * That's the main one (in several variations) that's been used, to the effect that User:MeteorMaker and others have "dismissed" or "disqualified" sources based on their ethnic or national affiliation. That is quite a serious charge. In reality of course what has happened is simply that examples of use in Israel, or by Israeli and Zionist writers or publications, have been rejected as evidence for use of the terms Judea and Samaria outside of Israel. This is a simple matter of logic and deductive reasoning, in the same way as evidence of the use of "Palestine" in Palestinian and Palestinian nationalist sources would not be evidence of widespread use outside of, erm, Palestinian sources. That's a classic case of removing context or qualifiers in order to create a false impression. The error has been pointed out so many times, and the explanation seemingly ignored, that one does beging to wonder whether it is a simple error any more. The list of sources brought forward to explain why Judea and Samaria are problematic terms includes many Israeli and Jewish ones. I'm sure MM can provide more detailed diffs on this point and examples of any other problems in this regard, as they have been the main target of this sort of thing. And now we have editors claiming going even further on these pages, and claiming that "90-100%" of the editors involved in starting or "supporting" this case are "anti-semites", and (previously) that no proof is needed before this kind of accusation is made. --Nickhh (talk) 23:27, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Your statement above is unclear, and possibly misleading. If you are suggesting that only 'examples of use in Israel ' or "by Israelis" have been rejected, that is false. Several sources who are not Israelis, and who are outside of Israel have been rejected on the grounds that they are from people who belonged to Zionist organizations in their youth, or coordinated fund raising for Zionist charities, or studied in Israel at one time. If you concede the latter, then your claim that this is a mater of 'logic and deductive reasoning' that such sources are appropriately disqualified from being used as 'evidence for use of the terms Judea and Samaria outside of Israel " - is simply wrong. While Israeli sources are obviously not good evidence of use outside of Israel, a non-Israeli Mormon or Jew who uses that statement outside of Israel is a certainly evidence of use outside of Israel, and disqualifying such sources, on the basis of Jewish ethnicity, or alleged Zionist ideology, or educational preferences, should not be permitted. Canadian Monkey (talk) 00:04, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not inviting people to argue about.. . whatever it is you're arguing about, I'm asking a simple question: is the statement I highlighted the one at issue?--Tznkai (talk) 00:44, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes. One of the parties even went so far as to say that doing so was "anti-semitic".Cla68 (talk) 00:52, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * let me point out once again, what has already been pointed out to you by numerous editors already: Amoruso is not party to this Arbcom, that the edit you are referring to is a year old, and that Amoruso hasn't been editing in more than 6 months. These repeated attempts to drag an uninvolved party into the dispute raise very serious concerns about your motivations here. NoCal100 (talk) 05:05, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I've noticed a recurring theme in the case for multiple users of different "sides" to refer to the same incidents with radically different terminology. Equally frequent is the tendency of both "sides" to refer to the incident with their own particular jargon - which happens. The effect however, is to confuse the outsider - to obfuscate the actual incident into a cloud of insinuation, accusation, and sound-bytes. It seems to me that at least part of the loss of the mutual assumption of good faith is a tendency for editors to interpret the same event in two different ways - each with their own "spin" and to see the opposing position as so different that malice is the only available explanation.


 * In this case, one side sees the above as an accusation bigotry - and the other a description of biased selection of sources. Am I anywhere close on the perceptions?--Tznkai (talk) 03:04, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Cognitive dissonance aka "One man's West Bank is another's Judea and Samaria". With both trying to obliterate the existence of the other. Its that simple, really.--Cerejota (talk) 05:19, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Let me direct two questions. To those offended by the statement, is there any way that could have been made into a legitimate point? To those who made it and made others like it, can you see the insult that others inferred?--Tznkai (talk) 18:26, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * No insult was made- and those offended by the statement admit they did disqualify sources based on alleged ideology, place of birth, chosen work/study area etc.. - and insist that they were right to do so. Canadian Monkey (talk) 20:52, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * That is because those are valid arguments to make in the context. It is clear from the evidence that the central questions wasn't the sources per se or in the abstract, but if the terms were in currency outside of an given ideological/ethnological Jewish and Israeli sphere. Essentially the argument is this:


 * Some sustain that "Judea and Samaria" is a term used only by Israel, Zionist Jews, and their close allies, and that these areas are almost universally called The West Bank. Others sustain this is not the case, and that in fact plenty of sources exist outside of Israel, Zionist Jews, and their close allies.
 * In the process of "proving" the points, sources were produced. The side who objects the usage of "Judea and Samaria" argued that the sources being used as "proof" of usage of the term outside of the mileux of Israel, Zionist Jews, and their close allies, were in fact sources that were in that mileux, and hence didn't disprove the assertion that "Judea and Samaria" is a term used only by Israel, Zionist Jews, and their close allies.
 * This is being called antisemitic by those who presented the sources, leading to the clusterfuck we are currently suffering.


 * Put in abstract terms: Position A sustains that X is argued only by M. Position B sustains that this is not the case, and provides as evidence L. A points out that L are indeed also argued by M. B argues this is anti-M.


 * In my opinion, the argument that this is somehow antisemitic is incorrect: we have WP:ISRAEL, WP:JEW, and WP:JEWISH-HIST, which means the Wikipedia community has deemed the topic as notable, and clearly defined - and collectively these projects are among the most active and best quality ones in Wikipedia. The expectation that the demarcation of the reality of Israelis and Jews, and Israel as a Jewish State, can only be used in a supporting argument stands as illogical: it can also be used, without bigotry or racism, to provide criticism, and even to question the neutrality or relevancy of sources using those same standards of demarcation. In the same manner a BLP can include critical material even over the objection of the subject - as long as this material is verifiable and meets certain rules, articles on topics related to Israel, Jews, Zionism etc, will use as a frame of reference not only what Israeli, Jews and Zionist think about these topics, but also what sources generally viewed as neutral and reliable for the topic think, and what their rivals and even enemies think. There is a difference between soapboxing your opposition to Israel as if these were forums and pointing out that a source might be partisan because it is Israeli, Jewish, and/or Zionist. There is difference between pointing this out as a rationale to exclude sources, and this rationale being accepted. I am very sympathetic, as a firm beliver in countering systemic bias as the basis for NPOV, to the plight of Jews, and are appalled by antisemitism both in real life (were it is alive and well), and in wikipedia (were it is not). But crying wolf is crying, and disruptive. In fact, it is counter-productive: when everything is antisemitism, nothing is antisemitism.


 * I think we should use the terms Judea and Samaria, and Copper has made an excellent framework for discussion, but I am not a blind follower of sides: the reality is that this has been made into a storm in a teapot because of an irrational claim of racism and antisemitism, hereby poisoning the well. This is a great tactic for POV pushers, and used everywhere, but it helps bring encyclopedic quality exactly zero. What would have helped was arguing vehemently and forcefuly for inclusion, without making the argument about the editors, but about the content. The reason we are here and not creating encyclopedic content is precisely because of the inability of editors to behave and hereby losing their focus.--Cerejota (talk) 00:22, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

(undent) Look, I'm just a clerk, but I'm really not interested in assigning blame and discussing tactics or the content argument per se. I'm trying to discern the nature of the fight, separate the wheat from the chaff, the intractable from the communication failures.--Tznkai (talk) 02:27, 3 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Tznkai, I think from the perception of one 'side' you might want to read the article entitled the New antisemitism. You may decide the debate is intractable.  Some editors believe that attacking or denigrating Israel, Israelis or Zionism and Zionists is acceptable, and that as long as they do not specifically use the word "Jew" or "Judaism," they demonstrate that they are not bigoted.  It has become illegal in some countries to propagate hate, and so Europeans are not unnaturally nervous about being called "antisemitic" or racist.  I understand that.  But in fact it has become a mantra among the anti-Israel crowd to say that no one can say anything against Israel without being accused of antisemitism.  That means that one cannot say something like I find "ethnic-based or ideology-based disqualification of sources is distasteful," without getting this mantra used against them, as it has been here, turning a simple factual statement into heavy accusations of incivility and personal attack.  It allows one side freedom to denigrate a people(Israelis, or Zionists), and at the same time "turn the tables" by accusing anyone who objects, of "accusations of antisemitism".  It makes for a terrible editing environment, because the articles are not being improved and these issues not being compromised. It would/should be a simple matter of saying northern West Bank (Samaria) or Samaria (northern West Bank) depending on what the article is about, ie if about geographical Israel or a more political article, all that could be worked out, if the editors were operating in good faith.  In fact, I think that's at the very crux of the matter for me, I simply cannot believe that some of the editors here have been operating in good faith in the last year's campaign they have waged against Israel in WP.  Tundrabuggy (talk) 04:15, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
 * There's certainly a problem here that what would normally be standard questions of conduct overlap with fractious political discussion about what is appropriate commentary on these topics. This overlap could in theory be abused in either direction, by editors using policy to stamp out legitimate and notable viewpoints, or by editors trying to circumvent policy by reframing personal attacks as political commentary.  Neither possibility is rightly ignored.  I'm not sure there's a great way around this, but I would suggest that to draw too many inferences about anything is probably best avoided.  In my view, the relevant question here is simpler, about how many times an editor should be calling another's arguments things like "distasteful," regardless of what it implies.  If an editor wants to register their personal contempt for a comment, then fair enough.  To repeat the point over and over, however, must start to be less appropriate at some point (it seems the word "distasteful" has been used here many dozens of times).  I believe it's also been noted that, if in discussing an issue an editor does feel the need to constantly express contempt for the other side's arguments, but they aren't ready to raise the point to dispute resolution or solicit views on the appropriateness of the arguments, then probably the editor isn't well-matched to that discussion.  If an editor wants to explain why an argument isn't appropriate and is willing to explain why then certainly that has to be allowed.  However, my suspicion is that arbcom should recognize but not try to over-analyze these types of issues. Mackan79 (talk) 07:56, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I think User:MeteorMaker may be the best person to clarify this for Tznkai, as he has been the editor doing the most analysis etc of the sourcing points, and the editor on the receiving end of most of the criticism (disregrading Malcolm's more sweeping recent comments). I would quickly add that in my view asking for the use of standard international terminology does not represent a "campaign" of any sort, and certainly not a "campaign against Israel", any more than arguing against referring to towns in Northern Ireland as being in "the six counties" or "the six county statelet" would constitute a "campaign against the Irish", or "a campaign against Irish Republicanism". Oh, and I'm not "nervous" about being called racist or anti-semitic because of European laws, I just find it deeply offensive, and an assumption that is being made by people who have no on-WP evidence for such a claim, and who know nothing about me or how I conduct myself in the real world. --Nickhh (talk) 08:29, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Trying to read here, but the bullet point answers I've heard thus far from various parties are:


 * No, there is no valid point
 * There is no way not to take offense, (I'm being called a bigot)
 * No there is no way to take offense, (I'm just saying that is an unreasonable referencing standard.)
 * The valid point is lost after repeated displays of contempt
 * They are being anti-semetic
 * The rhetoric and terminology chosen is inaccurate.
 * Now I want to point out a few things. First, I am duly impressed by everyones ability to produce a small essay in response to my one line questions, but might I suggest that this is part of the problem? Everyone here is well versed in argument and writing for effect - but apparently no one is concerned with being concise, to the point, and minimizing inflammatory language. While no one in this paragraph has started cursing, let me suggest to you that civility is a positive claim - it is something that is actively perused. To be specific: if you could read it in a politics forum, hear it on cable news services, or read it in an OP-ed, don't say it. Furthermore, just reading the responses here, as well as the responses on the rest of the case, I'm of the opinion that many users on both "sides" are poorly served by taking those sides, as their arguments, opinions, and so on are conflated with the more distasteful ones sharing their content persuasion.
 * Is anyone here willing to make a commitment to tone it down?--Tznkai (talk) 14:34, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I am, but other than TL;DR, I basically said the same thing you did: the problem is people making political, partisan points as if these were forums for that.--Cerejota (talk) 18:45, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
 * On the other hand, from personal experience, one finds oneself driven to write essays because editors who cancel out an edit you make, with just a string of WP:NOR, WP:RS, WP:CIVIL,WP:SYNTH, WP:this, and WP:that. This latter kind of editor will often comment on a talk page in a way that is a model of concision, yet often, such editors don't show much knowledge in the subject, the status of the sources and their authors. One gets exasperated, because obvious, well-sourced things are challenged by any of several dozen rules, and the only way given one, is to follow the general counsel to explain what you are doing, at length, esp. when the blocking editor keeps bringing up new objections, (all with superb concision). Result, one fits the perfect model of a wiki editor, citing rules endlessly, to block an edit, and the original editor, actually trying to build an article with content while trying desperately to attain WP:CONSENSUS, gets accused of WP:SOAP.Nishidani (talk) 11:22, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Excellent question, Tznkai, and my answer is: in a word, yes; but here goes my little :-) essay anyway.
 * Here I'm trying to help editors to understand each others' points of view, and to clear up misunderstandings about some terms used. I may need help with this: I don't have complete understanding of everyone's POV, so I call on others to fill in the gaps and help explain everything so that we can all see clearly what has been happening and what the various terms used in this discussion mean to each participant.
 * As I see it, the root of the problem is ambiguity in the phrase "outside Israel" used in MeteorMaker's main thesis: "In this case, we are arguing about whether J&S are used as terms for the modern West Bank outside Israel or not." To me, the phrase "outside Israel" seems to denote a physical location outside the borders of the country, and apparently Jayjg understands a similar meaning, but MeteorMaker apparently understands it to mean something different from that: something which has not yet been specified, but which apparently has something to do with emigrants and Zionists.   We have not yet managed to communicate effectively about this; this is still a problem and still requires clarification.  There may be some misunderstandings going on that none of us understands fully, but that I hope can be cleared up somehow.  MeteorMaker is baffled by my failure to understand the meaning;  I'm left hanging by the lack of a definition provided by MeteorMaker: I had suggested that MeteorMaker provide a statement beginning "When I say 'outside Israel', I mean ...", but MeteorMaker didn't take up the invitation.
 * Therefore, now in good faith I'm going to try to guess what MeteorMaker means by "outside Israel"; but first I'd like to explain how that ambiguity seems to me to have caused this whole problem.
 * MeteorMaker used the phrase "outside Israel", e.g.: "If you cannot prove that Samaria is widely used outside Israel, it cannot go in Wikipedia articles."
 * Jayjg provided sources published in countries other than Israel. According to my understanding of the phrase "outside Israel", and apparently according to Jayjg's, these were examples of usage of the term "Samaria" outside Israel. However, many of the sources failed to meet MeteorMaker's unspecified criteria.
 * MeteorMaker seems to be having difficulty emphathizing with the way Jayjg felt at that point. I can see, though, why Jayjg might have felt motivated to comment as he did.  So, yes, MeteorMaker, I can see how such accusations as you listed on my talk page can be made in good faith. To understand this, it helps to remember the extremely deep emotions many people feel in reaction to the discrimination against Jews which has happened in the real world, especially the Holocaust.  If Jayjg sees no logical reason why certain publications should not be classified as "outside Israel", then the rejection of such examples of usage for having an Israeli author or a Zionist author seems to bear some resemblance to ethnic discrimination. (I'm sorry if it's hard to understand why something published in a country other than Israel would be considered obviously "outside Israel" by Jayjg; I in turn find it hard to understand why it's hard to understand.)  The best way to overcome this, I think, is to explain to Jayjg the logical reason for rejection of such examples of usage in this context, so that it may no longer appear to resemble ethnic discrimination; but because of the strong emotions attached to this subject, it may be difficult to get the point across.  A first step would be a definition of what is meant by "outside Israel".
 * Also, another ambiguity or misunderstanding entered the scene at that point: Jayjg used phrases such as "discriminate against sources". It seems clear to me that what Jayjg meant was exactly what had actually been happening: that MeteorMaker had been indicating that certain sources didn't meet MM's criteria (the criteria labelled "outside-Israel"). In other words, the sources were being rejected by MM as examples of usage of the term "Samaria" outside Israel.  But some people apparently may have interpreted the phrase "discriminate against sources" as meaning rejecting sources as reliable sources to verify facts in the article, and thought Jayjg was claiming something was happening which was not happening. ("total red herring ... What was rejected was examples of usage")
 * OK, I'll now try to guess what MeteorMaker means by "outside Israel", or rather by the whole statement containing that phrase. Of course, I may be wrong; but in that case I hope MeteorMaker will be motivated, on seeing my attempt, to provide a clarification, possibly in the form of a statement beginning "When I say 'outside Israel', I mean ... " or possibly in the form of a rewording of the thesis to avoid that apparently ambiguous phrase.
 * (I'm sorry: I can't at this moment find a guideline saying that names used by occupying forces are not to be considered to be the local name and used as such. I tried WP:NCGN. Maybe someone can help me out here.)
 * I have two hypotheses. One is that MeteorMaker's argument is that the term "Samaria" is used by only a tiny minority of English speakers. This argument could go like this: at first, one argues that the term is used only in Israel, and that the number of English speakers in Israel is tiny in comparison to the population of English speakers worldwide.  When examples are produced of the term being used in publications published in other countries, then the argument is extended: OK, maybe a small number of people who are not residing in Israel use the term, but we can show they're a small number by establishing that they're all either emigrants from Israel, or Zionists, or members of some other specific groups, and arguing that the total number of members of such groups in the world is still a tiny percentage of the total population of English speakers.
 * The second hypothesis is that MeteorMaker's argument goes like this: that there is a guideline (where?) stating that we don't use the terms applied (only?) by an occupying army. One then argues that "Samaria" is a term used only by Israel, the occupying force.  When examples are given of use of the term in publications published in countries other than Israel, one argues that these are uses by people who are either Israeli, or closely connected with or directly influenced by Israel, and that they therefore represent the direct effect of an occupying force having mandated use of the term, rather than representing what most people would naturally tend to call the area in the absence of such a mandate.  This argument applies to sources of which the author is someone who was born in Israel, or who lived in Israel for a period of time, etc.
 * Each of these hypotheses provides a rational basis for classifying sources as to whether they provide relevant examples of usage in the context of the discussion. I disagree with some parts of each of these arguments, and with the conclusion, but expect to discuss this later in the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration rather than here.  Here, the point is not whether the arguments are convincing, but whether they are arguments that it's OK to make without violating social norms against ethnic discrimination, and also whether the arguments are presented in such a way that they also appear (e.g. to Jayjg) to be OK to make.  I think that if things are explained according to one of the two hypotheses I gave above, that it looks OK, at least to me.  But if there is ambiguity as to the meaning of "outside Israel" and examples of usage are dismissed without a reason which is stated, explained and understood by all parties, then it can appear to be not-OK, and I think this is what happened.  And if something appears to be not-OK, then someone can easily react in good faith as Jayjg did.  MeteorMaker, you yourself repeat an accusation multiple times when something appears not-OK to you: specifically, on the evidence talk page you repeated multiple times that Jayjg had said something about "distasteful" etc.  If you think about how you felt when you did this, perhaps that will help you to understand why Jayjg too might feel motivated to repeat an accusation multiple times when something appears to him to be not-OK.
 * I hope this helps. Please build on this and try to reach a common understanding. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 22:22, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Coppertwig, I find the above post well-nigh unfathomable.--G-Dett (talk) 03:13, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry about that. My long post above can be summarized as "We need to find out what MeteorMaker means by 'outside Israel'". ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 23:58, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Tznkai: I agree completely with your observations and will keep my reply concise. Apologies that I haven't posted in this thread before.

The answer to your question, if the statements that allegedly imply bigotry are "your ethnic-based or ideology-based disqualification of sources is distasteful" is basically yes. There are other ones as well, but variations of this phrase have been the most common (about 25 instances, whereof 20 by Jayjg ).

What makes the statement offensive is that it has been applied systematically to suppress the objection that examples of "X" are poor proof of the existence of non-X (in this case, if examples of Israelis using the terms "J&S" are proof that the terms are widely used outside Israel). The ethnic dimension is, of course, entirely irrelevant but has been used to the hilt in order to obstruct and stifle discussion. Also worth noting is that Jayjg, Jaakobou and Canadian Monkey (and apparently now also Coppertwig, if I decode his Chewbacca defence-style essay above correctly) all chose to aggravate the already ill-founded accusation by claiming that examples had been rejected on ethnic grounds, whereas in reality all that had been said was that Israeli examples are not suitable as examples of outside-Israel usage. MeteorMaker (talk) 13:04, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi Tznkai, I think my take on this is sufficiently distinct from MeteorMaker's that it's worth mentioning. For me the absolutely key thing here is that we're talking about primary sources invoked in talk-page meta-arguments about terminology and nationalism, not secondary sources adduced for claims in articles themselves.  The significance of this distinction cannot be overstated.  In this case, the secondary sources state very explicitly that "Judea" and "Samaria"  are religious-nationalist terms favored by right-wing zealots and annexationists and avoided by mainstream sources and international bodies; these secondary sources also specifically say the terms are "used by Israel," "used by Israelis," etc.  In other words, it's good solid secondary sources – sources like Columbia Encyclopedia – that are correlating nationalism and nationality to the question of terminology.  Jay has mounted an argument against these secondary sources' conclusions about nationalism, nationality, and terminology; his evidence for his argument is primary-source instances of the disputed terms' use.  Now, of course (as Jay knows well, and has explicitly stated in other contexts) Wikipedia discourages using primary sources in this way; it does so in large part because people will disagree about what primary-source evidence shows, and how it should be interpreted.  At any rate, as soon as you start introducing primary-source instances of a term's use to argue against the claims of secondary sources about the role of nationalism and nationality in use of that term, then voilá, like it or not, the nationalism and/or nationality of those primary sources by definition becomes a legitimate issue for editors to discuss.  I can't think of a single instance in which it would be appropriate to question the reliability of sources used for article content on the basis of nationality, race, age, or indeed any other criteria than plain old reliability.  But nothing like that has happened here.


 * I hope the following analogy will clarify the distinction I'm getting at. If someone introduces content to Nigga from secondary sources, for example content about the history or use of the term, then it would never, ever be appropriate to contest the source on the grounds that the author was white, or black, or young or old for that matter.  Attempts to do so could legitimately be described as discriminatory, "distasteful," etc.  But here are two scenarios where it could become appropriate to discuss the race, age, ethnicity, etc. of primary sources:
 * Scenario 1: Editor A introduces secondary sources saying that "Nigga" is a term used by young African-Americans (say, under 40) in discursively informal contexts to express affection for and solidarity with other young African-Americans. Editor B attempts then to disprove this by amassing primary sources to show the term is widespread, considered broadly acceptable, is used by whites and other non-blacks of all ages in formal contexts, etc.  It would then be perfectly legitimate (and not in any serious or meaningful sense discriminatory) for Editor B to point out that all of the amassed sources are in fact people in their 20s and 30s; or that many of the sources are in fact black, or half-black; or that in the exceptional case where a "white source" uses it, that white guy is a rapper or a hip-hop producer widely noted for his unusual identification with (and/or acceptance within) African-American youth culture, etc.  Of course it might be more painless for Editor A to simply say to Editor B, Look, I'm not interested in discussing what your primary-source evidence shows or doesn't show about use of the term.  Suffice to say I find it unconvincing, but that's neither here nor there.  Let's just stick with what secondary sources say.  I've provided numerous sources saying the term is used virtually exclusively by young black people in informal interactions with each other.  If you have good secondary sources countering that, produce them.  But don't ask me to evaluate your original-research synthesis of primary sources.  But if Editor A decides instead to point out that Editor B's list of primary sources doesn't even demonstrate what it aims to demonstrate, because two-thirds of it consists of young black men, then it would be ludicrous to claim that Editor A is "discriminating against sources on the basis of alleged race or age."
 * Scenario 2: Editor B is using the term "brother" and "sister" to refer to black men and women in Wikipedia's neutral voice, across a range of articles. Editor A begins changing "brother" and "sister" to "African-American man" and "African-American woman" across this same range of articles, casually noting in his edit summaries that the terms he's replacing are "not widely recognized outside of African-American culture" or even more tersely, are "black idiom only."  Editor B then opens a talk-page section called "Why Editor A's theory fails," which begins by saying that "Editor A has been promoting the theory that brother and sister are 'not widely recognized outside of African-American culture' or are 'black idiom only'," and then provides a list of primary sources (as in Scenario 1 above) aimed at disproving "Editor A's theory" (which in fact was only a casual edit summary, the main thrust of which is backed by secondary sources).  Editor B then points out that many of the primary sources listed by Editor B are in fact black, or mixed-race,  that the only "white source" given is a VIBE interview with Eminem, who is widely noted for his unusual intimacy with African-American culture, and so on.  Editor B then claims that Editor A is "attempting to discriminate against sources based on alleged race," and remarks that this is "distasteful."


 * Both of these scenarios are relevant to the present case. The alleged "campaign to deprecate" the disputed terms is simply Jay's description of Scenario 1, in which MeteorMaker and others introduce well-sourced content about use of the terms "Judea" and "Samaria" (that they are "biblical names for the southern/northern West Bank," that they are "used by Israelis," that they are favored by "annexationists," etc.), while Jay and others remove this secondary-source material on the grounds that their own primary-source research disproves it.  The alleged "campaign to remove" (or "ethnically cleanse") the disputed terms, on the other hand, is simply a description of Scenario 2, whereby MeteorMaker and others have substituted standard for non-standard terminology, per WP:NCGN and per what secondary sources say about the disputed terms (vs. what Jay claims is self-evident about their use from primary sources).


 * The difference between these two scenarios and a scenario where an RS's claims are actually dismissed because of the source's race or ethnicity should be very clear. In the two scenarios above, Editor A is not challenging the reliability of the source, or the legitimacy of its claims; rather, he is challenging Editor B's conclusions about what broader trends Editor B's amassed primary-source evidence supposedly demonstrates (against, moreover, a background where Editor A has secondary sources backing his own claims, and is repeatedly asking Editor B to provide secondary sources backing his claims, to no avail because they don't exist).  To claim that Editor B's protestations in these scenarios constitutes "an attempt to discriminate against sources based on alleged race" is not only fatuous but fraudulent.--G-Dett (talk) 18:48, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that trenchantly congruent analogy, G-Dett. That is as succinct and compelling a synthesis of the gravamen of the conflict, in which there has been a complete breakdown of fidelity to the basic rules governing primary and secondary source weighing by one party. 80 secondary sources of quality explicitly affirm that the terms 'Judea and Samaria'/'Judea' and 'Samaria' are appropriative Israeli religious, political-partisan and nationalistic usage. Not one secondary source has been adduced to counter this academic consensus in secondary sources. Instead, the burden of disproof has been thrown on the shoulders of those who respect secondary sources. Disproving a peculiar, personal theory by one editor, synthesized from 30 odd primary sources of middling value, which argues that what turns out to be Israelocentric usage in secondary sources, is also widespread abroad, has occupied centre stage. It too has been deconstructed, and the result has then been to personalize the argument, by implying something like ethnic-based discrimination (code for antisemitism) was behind our collective effort to go the extra mile on those 30 sources (which in any case had been trumped by the 80 secondary sources' massive evidence). These things can only occur because the complexity of wiki rules is such, that the obvious is frequently lost from view by finessing the interpretation of protocols.Nishidani (talk) 19:43, 15 April 2009 (UTC)


 * G-Dett, you raise a good point re primary versus secondary sources. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 23:58, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

why I oppose retroactive application of sanctions
I do so in general for these reasons:


 * 1) Fails to assume good faith - people can misbehave, but do the huge size of wikipedia and our decentralized, consensus driven model, people might act in ways they considered legitimate, in good faith. If there is retroactive application of ArbCom sanctions, we could get a situation like back in 2004-2005 when mentioning ArbCom often served a chilling effect on healthy discussion.
 * 2) Any egrerious lack of compliance would have previously been adressed, and if it wasn't, there is probably a good reason - There are hundreds of active janitors admins, dozens of priests crats, and even gods of the olympus stewards who can handle the well traveled noticeboards. If someone wasn't blocked, warned, banned, or otherwise have bad behavior addressed before getting to ArbCom, there is probably a good reason for that. Other than in exceptional cases (such as discovery of puppetry due to ArbCOm mandated Checkuser), retroactivity basically is an assertion that all of the admins failed to do their jobs or that they acted or not acted in bad faith - both being highly unlikely.
 * 3) Specially when introducing new principles, ignorance of the law should indemnify - most of the policies and guidelines are ambiguous, on purpose, and people should be allowed some latitude.
 * 4) I expect this to provide resolution, not punishment. Sanctions that are retroactive are punitive.

Of course, I am willing to accept some exceptions such as what I mentioned above on mandated Checkuser, repeat offenders, or cases where participants are specially unrepentant and disruptive, but this is a general principle.

In this case specifically, retroactiveness would be unproductive and nasty, because these articles are all WP:ARBPIA articles. Editors could seek enforcement in WP:AE and in fact have done so in the past. If the admins WP:AE didn' act, then I see no reason in evidence to overturn their calls. If ArbCom was to expand or deminish the sicretionary nature of the sanctions, thats their call. Editors need to be reminded that WP:ARBPIA exists, and if they wanted their pound of flesh, they could get it that way.--Cerejota (talk) 18:37, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I feel the need to comment on this since, IIRC, I was the first (and maybe only?) one to propose retroactive sanctioning. What I actually meant was that some users might've been in clear violation of policy already, but this was not noticed (either because they weren't reported, or because it was considered a content dispute where both parties violated policy), and usually users are not sanctioned for 'old' actions even if they were a clear violation of policy. Therefore, I was simply proposing making an exception this time. This applies only to obvious policy violations, of course, and not anyone who didn't work by whatever new rules the ArbCom sets after this case (which they had no way of knowing). -- Ynhockey (Talk) 11:08, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Precedents and comparisons
I've noticed two other place/area naming issues which are, or have been recently, causing some kerfuffle here. It's interesting to note how they've been dealt with in a couple of respects -

Ireland

This went to ArbCom recently, in terms of what to call articles about the state, the island etc themselves. One of the rulings eventually made there was this one, effectively a reaffirmation of WP:NCGN. This would seem to set a precedent for a general ruling of the sort that I had suggested here.

(Former Yugoslav) Republic of Macedonia

I don't know if this has ever been to ArbCom or not - I assume not or otherwise it would be being discussed at WP:AE not WP:ANI - but currently admins and other editors are falling over each other here to offer to clamp down on "Greek nationalists" and "partisans" who insist on using the "Former Yugoslav" part. The thread seems to have ended without any consensus that an editor reverting FYROM to ROM across multiple articles, on the basis that this was the preferred neutral name for the state/area and despite opposition from Greek editors, was doing anything wrong (it was one of those ANI threads which ends up to some extent turning against the original complainant). Now then as far as I'm aware the relative incidence of FYROM vs ROM is far more evenly balanced than Judea and/or Samaria vs West Bank (or part thereof); and while "Greek nationalists" would indeed by and large hold out for the use of FYROM, many other more neutral and mainstream international bodies use that phrasing as well - whereas virtually none use Judea and/or Samaria. However there would seem to be far more leniency towards and indulgence of minority nationalist terminology in this case. --Nickhh (talk) 12:36, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Meta-discussion
In further reply to G-Dett's comment here in the section G-Dett has mischaracterized Jayjg's position (see also my replies there): Thank you yet again for your willingness to adjust your rhetorical style to my literalness. I've edited my evidence section to take into account your refactoring and explanation. I'm sorry for the delay: I've been busy with other things, including actually helping to write an article. (It happens occasionally.)

Near the end of your second paragraph, the thrust of your argument as felt by this reader seems to gain its momentum from a premise that it's disruptive to focus one's arguments against a statement from a talk page discussion, rather than against something else that the other person would presumably prefer to discuss instead. This argument, however powerful, fails to cause this reader to lose firm pedal contact with the ground. I believe that each person can choose what they wish to discuss, the chief penalty for not participating in any discussion or sub-sub-discussion being failure to convince anybody there of anything. I see arguments as being similar to mathematical proofs: established theorems and lemmas can be used to build on further. If, therefore, someone says something that one disagrees with, it seems very reasonable to me for one to focus on discussion of that statement in search of clarification or agreement as to its level of validity. Otherwise, if such statement were left hanging, the rest of the continuing discussion would lack a firm, unambiguous logical foundation.

All right, I concede that to retract the statement was not the only way for the discussion to have proceeded. It was also possible for MeteorMaker to have stated "I'm not talking about that; I'm talking about my proposed content", without actually retracting the statement; and it was also possible for MeteorMaker to have said nothing about the disputed statement but to have presented some arguments (not containing that disputed statement) and to have asserted that they were a complete set of arguments showing that the given sources supported the proposed content. Since, therefore, there were multiple freeways along which the discussion could have driven, to accuse one editor of having SOV-edly brought all traffic to a standstill seems un-traffic-cop-ly.

I agree that they were disputing the "what is today" clause; however, Jayjg's point was that this clause was not required except for polemic purposes,, and it seems to me that a blurring of whether anyone was or was not relying on an implied assumption that "Samaria" and the "West Bank" were the same thing was an important undercurrent in that discussion: one which, by my reading of the discussion, MeteorMaker seemed reluctant to address explicitly.

On what is today my talk page you presented a quote from a source which used the phrase "what is today" a number of times. In that quote, the phrase "what is today" seems quite appropriate to me (or at the very least seemed appropriate on what was the day on which I read it). The source is discussing events which occurred during a time in the past when the area in question was not called X (where X is Jordan, Iraq etc.) The phrase "what was once" can also be used similarly: like "what is today", it seems appropriate to me whenever the events being mentioned occurred or are occurring during a time when the area is or was not called by that name, but the area was or is (or will be) called by that name during some other time period. In effect, it's a time-travelling clause. In MeteorMaker's proposed content that Jayjg rejected, this was not the case. To move from the present to the present, no time-travel machine is required. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 16:16, 13 April 2009 (UTC)


 * "It was also possible for MeteorMaker to have stated "I'm not talking about that; I'm talking about my proposed content", without actually retracting the statement;"


 * Not just possible, that was in fact what actually happened. After conclusive encyclopedic evidence of the terms' obsoleteness was presented, Jayjg et al refused to accept the evidence, and even to discuss its validity (probably because they realized that would have been futile). The main alternative strategy he chose was to dismiss the sources on the grounds that they didn't contain the words "not a modern toponym" and "not well-known outside of Israel", which is completely irrelevant because the proposed article content didn't either, and the facts themselves were sufficiently well-sourced. One example (of many) of me trying to convince Jayjg:


 * Jayjg: "Now, which of your sources states that "Samaria" is "not a modern toponym" or "not well-known outside of Israel"?"
 * MM: "They all do if you read them, which I encourage you to do. However, the line that you keep deleting from the article in fact states neither:
 * "'Samaria is a term used for the mountainous northern part of what is today the West Bank. Israeli annexationists also use the combined term Judea and Samaria to refer to the modern West Bank.'"
 * It's all explicitly sourced, quoted verbatim (more or less) from the sources. "
 * Jayjg: "Please quote the source that states that "Samaria" is "not a modern toponym" or "not well-known outside of Israel"? Show us the explicit words stating that."
 * MM: "I've done that, many times (see section below). It helps if you read the cites. Now, show us where those conclusions are in the line "Samaria[...] is a term used for the mountainous northern part of what is today the West Bank. Israeli annexationists also use the combined term Judea and Samaria to refer to the modern West Bank", and how anything in it is not well-sourced."
 * Jayjg: "Utter nonsense. None of your sources say the term is "not a modern toponym" or "not understood outside Israel". Your theory based on the fact that certain groups use "Judea and Samaria" to refer to the West Bank is irrelevant. "
 * MM: "Do you see that "theory" expressed in the sentence "Samaria is a term used for the mountainous northern part of what is today the West Bank" or in the sentence "Israeli annexationists also use the combined term "Judea and Samaria" to refer to the modern West Bank"? If so, exactly where? Both statements have explicit support in all major online encyclopedias and literally thousands of other reliable sources (see section below), whereas your contrary position has none."
 * Jayjg: [leaves the discussion]


 * Jayjg chose to ignore the question every time. Note that this is just one example of many.


 * "A blurring of whether anyone was or was not relying on an implied assumption that "Samaria" and the "West Bank" were the same thing was an important undercurrent in that discussion: one which, by my reading of the discussion, MeteorMaker seemed reluctant to address explicitly."
 * Diffs to what gave Coppertwig that impression would be helpful. Here are links to the actual discussions (which anybody should read who tries to determine who's reluctant to address any questions explicitly):.


 * "The phrase "what was once" can also be used similarly: like "what is today", it seems appropriate to me whenever the events being mentioned occurred or are occurring during a time when the area is or was not called by that name, but the area was or is (or will be) called by that name during some other time period. In effect, it's a time-travelling clause. In MeteorMaker's proposed content that Jayjg rejected, this was not the case."
 * The proposed content again: "Samaria is a term used for the mountainous northern part of what is today the West Bank". Since the term "Samaria" was used at a time when "West Bank" was not and vice versa, Jayjg's "pleonasm" objection is invalid by definition (with one exception on the planet: Israel, where the toponym "Samaria" is still used.) Do we disagree about the definition of pleonasm or about whether "Samaria" is used outside Israel? Either way, sources would be welcome. MeteorMaker (talk) 19:13, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi Coppertwig. MeteorMaker's response strikes me as fairly definitive. If there are questions you've put to me that remain unanswered by MM, let me know. Otherwise, I'll be brief:
 * 1) Though I enjoyed your time-travel metaphor, it seems to me beside the point. MeteorMaker's what is today phrasing was amply supported.  The major mainstream encyclopedias define Samaria as an ancient region "corresponding roughly," as one of them puts it, "to the northern portion of the modern West Bank territory."
 * 2) I do not understand why you say, it seems to me a blurring of whether anyone was or was not relying on an implied assumption that "Samaria" and the "West Bank" were the same thing was an important undercurrent in that discussion: one which, by my reading of the discussion, MeteorMaker seemed reluctant to address explicitly. This just doesn't make any sense.  As I've pointed out repeatedly, Jay and MM's proposed lead sentences are identical in identifying Samaria as only the northern portion of the West Bank.  There's no daylight between their stated positions on this, unless you squeeze your eyes shut and hallucinate.  To detect by means of divining rod an unstated "undercurrent" in a discussion, and then fault one party for not addressing this undercurrent "explicitly," is to talk in circles, Coppertwig, and to take WP:AGF, moreover, into the territory of strenuous and unseemly special pleading.
 * 3) I do not think "it's disruptive to focus one's arguments against a statement from a talk page discussion, rather than against something else that the other person would presumably prefer to discuss instead." That's a very poor summary of what I've argued.  What I've argued is that it's disruptive to apply a rigorous interpretation of WP:NOR to casual talk-page formulations, while refusing to discuss proposed article content.  It seems a little late in the day for you to still not understand the distinction.  Perhaps an analogy will help.  Imagine two editors, "Cometman" and "RobinRg" are quarreling over this sentence proposed for the lead of Hamlet:"Hamlet is regarded as a seminal text for Western literary representations of self-consciousness."
 * RobinRg: As explained many times, the sentence contains the pleonasm "self-consciousness". Are you trying to distinguish Hamlet's state of mind from "other-consciousness"?


 * Cometman: Of course not – what in the hell is other-consciousness?  What the sources are getting at is that Shakespeare's play was the first to explore a mind almost obsessively aware of its own thought processes, a peculiarly modern condition.


 * RobinRg: Which sources say "Shakespeare's play was the first to explore a mind almost obsessively aware of its own thought processes, a peculiarly modern condition"? Please quote them saying it.


 * Cometman: We've been through this before. Harold Bloom described the "fierce inwardness" and "extraordinary self-hearing" of its hero,  and even argued that in writing Hamlet Shakespeare "invented" the modern self.  Many critics think Bloom is hyperbolic, but it's generally agreed that the play has been profoundly influential in the literary representation of modern subjectivity.
 * RobinRg: I note that not one of your sources states "Shakespeare's play was the first to explore a mind almost obsessively aware of its own thought processes, a peculiarly modern condition." Thanks for proving my point.  Shall I assume that your attempt to insert pleonasms is now at an end?

Enjoy,--G-Dett (talk) 21:33, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * In answer to the above requests: here are examples of diffs that gave me the impression "that a blurring of whether anyone was or was not relying on an implied assumption that "Samaria" and the "West Bank" were the same thing was an important undercurrent in that discussion: one which, by my reading of the discussion, MeteorMaker seemed reluctant to address explicitly" (Those quotation marks indicate that I'm quoting myself).  ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 00:52, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't understand; the diff you're offering doesn't support your ideas about blurrings and undercurrents. At all.  No one is talking about these blurrings and undercurrents except you, and none of us can figure out what on earth you mean.  It seems weird, even surreal, to fault MeteorMaker for failing to "address explicitly" something that only you can detect, and no one else has talked about, including his interlocutor in the exchange you're linking to.--G-Dett (talk) 03:22, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I must concur Coppertwig, with G-Dett's observation. I have, from the outset of this point you are making, as opposed to your work on the compromise, not the foggiest notion of what you are trying to say. I just thought it a remarkable stylistic imitation. bordering on ventriloquism, of a notable if problematic method, and gave it full marks as such. No offense intended, but out of frankness, I think you do well to assist us in negotiating the content resolution, rather than illustrate a variation on Raymond Queneau's Exercices de Style (complimentary).Nishidani (talk) 10:05, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * What could possibly be happening here? It seems obvious to me that this question: "According to whom are "Samaria and the West Bank... different-epoch names for the same area"?" is talking about "Samaria" and the "West Bank" both referring to the same area of land (although at different time periods).  Is there some other way of interpreting those words that I'm not seeing? The ellipsis seems to me to represent the word "are", which was present in the original statement by MeteorMaker which Jayjg was quoting.  "same area" seems to me to mean that the two terms each refer to the same area of land.  I don't see any other interpretation.  This idea of them both referring to the same area of land seems to me to stick out like a sore thumb: because it's something that is in conflict with the generally accepted reality, it seems to me to be the most prominent attribute of that quotation, and to be crying out to be explicitly addressed and corrected.  Yet MeteorMaker says nothing about that in MM's replies, even saying "All of them do", which seems to me to be accepting the "same area" description as accurate. What am I missing here? ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 13:55, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * What you are missing here (even though you yourself curiously provided two diffs of it three posts earlier) is probably the link to the sources that all explicitly or implicitly support the position that Samaria and the West Bank are different-epoch names for the same area, but above all the suggested Samaria article content "Samaria is a term used for the mountainous northern part of what is today the West Bank. The combined term Judea and Samaria is also used in Israel to refer to the modern West Bank". You find the link right after the sentence "It's all explicitly sourced, quoted verbatim (more or less) from the sources." above (and at the time of the diff, it had been posted twice already, and linked to numerous times, to no avail). The text of the linked diff is reposted here for your convenience:
 * Britannica Concise Encyclopedia:
 * "Samaria, central region, ancient Palestine. Extending about 40 mi (65 km) north-south and 35 mi (55 km) east-west, it was bounded by Galilee to the north, Judaea to the south, the Mediterranean Sea to the west, and the Jordan River to the east. It corresponds roughly to the northern portion of the modern West Bank territory."
 * The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language:
 * "Samaria, an ancient city of central Palestine in present-day northwest Jordan (Pre-67 edition - MM). It was founded in the ninth century B.C. as the capital of the northern kingdom of Israel, also known as Samaria."
 * Columbia Encyclopedia:
 * "Samaria, ancient city, central Palestine, on a hill NW of Nablus (Shechem). The site is now occupied by a village, Sabastiyah (West Bank)."
 * Encarta:
 * "Samaria, ancient city and state in Palestine, located north of present-day Jerusalem, east of the Mediterranean Sea. [...] In modern times, a sect of Samaritans practices a religion similar to that of the biblical Jews, with some admixture of Islam. Few in number, they make their home around their ancient temple site of Mount Gerizim, near modern Nābulus, in the area now known as the West Bank."
 * Concise Dictionary of World Place-Names:
 * "Samaria, Samaria, (Hebrew: Shomron), West Bank. The central region of ancient Palestine and its capital, now called Sabasṭiyah."


 * Re the usage domain of the terms "Judea" and "Samaria":
 * Encyclopedia Britannica Online says:
 * "West Bank, area of the former British-mandated (1920–47) territory of Palestine west of the Jordan River, claimed from 1949 to 1988 as part of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan but occupied from 1967 by Israel. The territory, excluding East Jerusalem, is also known within Israel by its biblical names, Judaea and Samaria."
 * Columbia Encyclopedia says:
 * "West Bank, territory, formerly part of Palestine, after 1949 administered by Jordan, since 1967 largely occupied by Israel (2005 est. pop. 2,386,000)[...] Israelis who regard the area as properly Jewish territory often refer to it by the biblical names of Judaea and Samaria."
 * Now, Coppertwig, just to clear a potential misunderstanding out of the way:
 * 1) Can you come to another conclusion than that the above quotes are sufficient sources for the proposed sentence in the lead of the Samaria article: "Samaria is a term used for the mountainous northern part of what is today the West Bank. The combined term Judea and Samaria is also used in Israel to refer to the modern West Bank"?
 * 2) Are arguments like "none of your sources say the term is "not a modern toponym" or "not understood outside Israel"" and "Which one of those sources states "Samaria and the West Bank... different-epoch names for the same area"? Please quote them saying it" sincere attempts to discuss the proposed article content? Do they acknowledge what the sources say? Do they concern the actual proposed article text itself, or something at best only marginally related?
 * MeteorMaker (talk) 15:47, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * There seems to be some sort of misunderstanding. You repeat the same point in your comment above, where you say "sources that all explicitly or implicitly support the position that Samaria and the West Bank are different-epoch names for the same area". That sounds to me as if you're saying "Samaria" and "West Bank" both refer to the same area of land.  But I thought "Samaria" was generally considered (by those who use the term) to refer to (exactly or approximately) the northern part of the West Bank, not the whole West Bank.  Oh! I think just possibly I might have found out what's happening.  MeteorMaker, when you said in this diff "Red herring, because nobody has claimed that", did you mean that nobody has claimed that "Samaria" and "West Bank" refer to the same land area, or did you mean that they're not synonyms because although they may refer to the same land area, they refer to different time periods of that land area?  I'm really trying to understand what you're saying. I realize I haven't answered your questions; I hope to do that later. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 16:34, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * It would be a decidely odd position to state that "Samaria" (without Judea) and "West Bank" refer to the same piece of land, and all editors on both sides would certainly have objected if somebody had tried to claim something that silly. Obviously Jayjg doesn't assume I've said that either (and in all likelihood, he wisely discards that remote possibility before it even becomes conscious thought. He doesn't take me for a complete ignoramus). Before you try to convince me that he was indeed thinking exactly that, ponder the fact that he chooses to constantly ignore the evidence whenever it's presented and instead focuses on that casual talk page remark — which is the stonewalling tactic G-Dett objected to, and the subject of our meta-discussion here. MeteorMaker (talk) 16:59, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Would you please explain what these words mean to you? "Samaria and the West Bank are different-epoch names for the same area". As I said, they seem to me to be clearly and explicitly stating that they refer to the same land area, something you've just denied. My hypothesis is that the reason Jayjg focussed on this statement was that it seemed to be saying something that seemed very wrong, i.e. that they were referring to the same piece of land.  Do those words not seem to you to mean that they're referring to the same land area?  What does "same area" mean to you?  ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 20:53, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Not to be impolite, but I believe proper etiquette would be to answer my questions before you pose questions of your own to me. MeteorMaker (talk) 22:08, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Coppertwig, even if Jay's quarrel over the casual talk-page phrase "different-epoch names for the same area" were motivated by the fact Samaria refers only to the northern West Bank, not the whole thing – and this motivation strikes me as exceedingly unlikely in the context – it would still be disruptive stonewalling for him to focus on it, because it's clear that this was simply an anomaly born of casual talk-page phrasing, not at all at issue with regards to proposed content. Here, once again, are Jay and MeteorMaker's proposed lead sentences:
 * "MeteorMaker: Samaria...is a term used for the mountainous northern part of what is today the West Bank

Jayjg:Samaria...is a term used for the mountainous northern part of the West Bank."
 * Again, I don't agree with you that "same area" was the problem for Jay; I can't even detect that as what you call an "undercurrent." As can be seen from their proposed leads, they were on exactly the same page regarding the "area" designated by the term: it's the mountainous northern part.   Every contextual indication is that the problem was "different-epoch terms," because the content they were fighting over was the phrase "what is today."  But even if you go on maintaining that "same area" was a problem, Coppertwig, you're just moving Jayjg out of the frying pan and into the fire.  To grind discussion to a halt on the basis of an incidental talk-page error not reflected in disputed content is by definition disruptive.  To do this while coyly refusing to state the nature of the incidental error –  instead leaving it there to be discovered and explicated by other editors five months and one Arbcom case later – would be extremely disruptive.  To do all this while knowing full-well that the incidental error didn't reflect any actual geographic misapprehension of MeteorMaker's would be beyond the pale of bad faith.--G-Dett (talk) 21:03, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * In reply to MeteorMaker's post of 15:47 15 April: I apologize. I had intended to come back and reply to the questions, but forgot. If there are other things I should be answering, I don't mind being reminded.
 * Clearing up potential misunderstandings is a very good idea, I think.
 * Question (1) Yes, I can come to a different conclusion. I can certainly see Jayjg's argument for opposing the proposed text which includes "what is today", while accepting the version without that clause.  The reason is that "what is today" can be understood as implying that the term "Samaria" is no longer applied to that area.  The second sentence fails to counteract this impression by talking only about the combined term "Judea and Samaria", not "Samaria" by itself.
 * Question (2) Yes, those appear to me to be sincere attempts to discuss the proposed article content. I believe Jayjg was under the impression that certain things you had said were intended as lemmas in an argument supporting the proposed article content, and that he was arguing against those lemmas as a natural part of arguing about the proposed content.  Whether they acknowledge what the sources say: not explicitly, but he says the sources do not support certain statements, and I agree that the sources do not support those statements.  The things Jayjg said which you quote concern arguments which appear to me to directly concern whether or not to include the clause "what is today" in the article content. They relate not to what is explicitly said by the clause "what is today", but to what that clause seems to imply when it's included in that sentence.
 * A clause such as "what is today" is normally only used when there's time travel involved. The sources which use phrases such as "modern" or "what is today" generally also include a word such as "ancient" or "former" (sometimes in an earlier sentence), indicating that they're discussing more than one time period. When the phrase "what is today" is used in a context where everything is in the present tense, the word "ancient" is not present, and there is no other indication of time travel, the reader tends to supply a time-travel idea to explain why the clause is there (because otherwise it would just be redundant, and the reader tends to assume there's some reason it's there). A natural conclusion (although not the only conclusion) the reader may reach is that the term "Samaria" was used only during the time period when the "West Bank" was not the "West Bank". It's not NPOV to imply this, in my opinion, because it contradicts the Israeli POV that the term "Samaria" still applies. Simply using the term "West Bank" is OK, but including words such as "what is today" which imply something non-NPOV about the term "Samaria" doesn't look right to me. Therefore, I agree with Jayjg's arguments here; but whether or not I agree with them, I see nothing wrong with Jayjg's presenting arguments, on an article talk page, to support his opinion about proposed article content. It's OK to disagree!  It's OK to discuss! ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 22:52, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Your answer to question (1) seems to imply that while you personally object to the wording "Samaria is a term used for the mountainous northern part of what is today the West Bank. The combined term Judea and Samaria is also used in Israel to refer to the modern West Bank", you see the alternative wording "Samaria is a term used for the mountainous northern part of what is today the West Bank. The term Samaria is also used in Israel" as fully supported by the sources. Is that correct?
 * Re question (2): To cut the speculation short, I have requested Jayjg's opinion if he actually feels he has been misunderstood. . However, I agree completely with G-Dett that the misunderstanding you postulate is extremely unlikely, beside the point, and in fact disruptive to focus on as a pretext for ignoring the major points of the suggested article content.
 * "The reader tends to assume there's some reason it's there", I think you nailed it there. Yes, that is exactly why I suggested the phrase "what is today". According to the sources (posted above), Samaria "corresponds roughly to the northern portion of the modern West Bank territory", is an "ancient city and state in Palestine, located north of present-day Jerusalem", "in the area now known as the West Bank", "in present-day Jordan" (the last one is from before 1967). Since November, 75 more sources have been added. I think it's safe to say that we have enough sources for stating that as a fact.
 * Now, since you've given answers to my questions, I will again answer yours: "Would you please explain what these words mean to you? "Samaria and the West Bank are different-epoch names for the same area". Do those words not seem to you to mean that they're referring to the same land area?" No, they don't, except if you read them with your common sense switched off. No sane person could possibly have come to the conclusion that I all of a sudden had decided to incorporate Judea into Samaria. And, as pointed out above by G-Dett, it would have been even more disruptive by Jayjg to veto inclusion of well-sourced material by quibbling about a minor and obvious mistake in a talk page comment. MeteorMaker (talk) 08:34, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Do you mean that you said "same area", didn't mean "same area", assumed that Jayjg would realize that you didn't mean "same area", and therefore didn't clarify this point even when Jayjg repeatedly focussed on what you had said which contained that phrase?
 * This may be a difference in communication style. Maybe some people are comfortable using phrases that don't express literally what they mean, and are even uncomfortable with expressed clarifications (because they might be taken as implying that someone didn't know something), while others are uncomfortable with the use of phrases that don't express literally what is meant or that haven't been clearly defined, because it introduces uncertainty about the meaning. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 13:03, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * You ask another question; again, I think established etiquette gives mine priority, due to its having been asked first. MeteorMaker (talk) 15:14, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry. I forgot to answer your question. However, now that I look, I see that you also still haven't answered one of mine: "Would you please explain what these words mean to you?" You've said what they don't mean, but I don't think you've said what they mean. I'm trying to understand. Re your question about fully supported by the sources: I would say no, mainly because the "in Israel" in the second sentence could be taken as implying that it's not used elsewhere, which I don't think has been established; also because the first sentence taken by itself would not be NPOV in my opinion, with the phrase "what is today", so the addition of a second sentence that fixes that problem would make it only marginally acceptable. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 16:05, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * To answer your question (a third way this time): You are fishing for a "misunderstanding" trophy, but as has been shown numerous times, it's as unlikely for a misunderstanding to have occurred here as it is for anybody to believe I'm talking to an unknown third person if I address this reply to "Coopertwig". Despite the potential for becoming paraded as someone who can't tell the difference between "Judea and Samaria" and "Samaria", and carelessly uses them as synonyms, I'll give you the straight answer that the term "Samaria" "West Bank", as was obvious from the context, was a short-hand substitution for the longer term "Judea and Samaria" "Northern West Bank", and as a bonus I offer the observation that nobody has yet stepped forward, raised his hand and said "Yep, I got fooled, I thought he was saying that "Samaria" and "Judea and Samaria" are the same thing".
 * Now, the next question from me: You reject the suggested content by saying "the 'in Israel' in the second sentence could be taken as implying that it's not used elsewhere". In your opinion, is the term "Samaria" used elsewhere than Israel to refer to the modern West Bank, and if so, what sources do you base that opinion on? MeteorMaker (talk) 17:07, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not fishing for a misunderstanding trophy. I'm trying to help people get along with each other, and whether this is done by my finding and straightening out a misunderstanding, or by someone else finding and straightening out a misunderstanding, or by discovery that there was no misunderstanding, or by somebody deciding to apologize or to state that they're willing to drop a line of argument, it's all fine with me as long as there's progress.

Thanks for clarifying what you meant. (Puts up hand) I was fooled: I thought what you were saying meant (perhaps inadvertently on your part) that Samaria was referring to the same land area as the West Bank. It didn't occur to me that you might be using "Samaria" as an abbreviation for "Judea and Samaria".

I hope you don't mind if I wait and answer your question after you answer my question on your talk page about the meaning of "outside Israel"; I would answer immediately except that I think it will be easier for me to answer when I have that information, because I suspect a similar meaning might apply to your use of "elsewhere than Israel" here. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 17:27, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * It's been one week now, have you had time to read the answer to your question on my talk page, and are you now ready to answer mine? Which was: In your opinion, is the term "Samaria" used elsewhere than Israel to refer to the modern West Bank, and if so, what sources do you base that opinion on? MeteorMaker (talk) 07:46, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Note to all parties
Kirill has asked some questions here. Could you please sign below if you've read this message so I know who I have to track down?--Tznkai (talk) 22:09, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * What if one side in this case was to say, "What compromise is needed? We've made our case with the available sources.  Progress will be made when the other side concedes that they are wrong and stops obstructing."?  Sometimes one side in a content dispute is clearly right and the other side clearly wrong.  Is this one of those times?  The evidence is there on the evidence page.  I understand that the ArbCom doesn't rule on content disputes, but the Committee can decide if editors are failing to exercise good faith when presented with evidence that their position is untenable and are refusing to accept it. Cla68 (talk) 04:41, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Read and replied to.Nishidani (talk) 09:58, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Will reply to shortly.--G-Dett (talk) 12:13, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

KL: Proposed remedies
Would Kirill kindly share some of the thinking that went into his proposed remedies? Jd2718 (talk) 03:08, 27 April 2009 (UTC)


 * The people involved in this dispute have all edited in ways that violate one or more policies (mostly the one against edit-warring, but occasionally others), and have through their shared lack of cooperation escalated and prolonged this dispute beyond all reasonable boundaries. At the same time, I don't see any real evidence that the editors here are fundamentally unwilling or unable to edit properly; their problems are limited to this particular area, which appears to be one in which they all have strong personal convictions that are hampering their ability to edit dispassionately.
 * My proposals, therefore, amount to removing the parties from this problematic area, and directing their efforts towards constructive work elsewhere in the project. I'm hopeful that when the restrictions are lifted (and I'm fairly certain they eventually will be), the editors in question won't return to their current, unproductive approach to resolving disputes; and, even if they do not, their absence should give other, uninvolved editors time to come up with a workable solution to the underlying dispute. Kirill [talk] [pf] 03:16, 27 April 2009 (UTC)


 * You say that the violations are mostly edit-warring – there clearly has been some, but the greater part of the evidence presented concerns behavior on article talk pages, which are supposed to be the alternative to edit-warring. Some of the behavior there seems extremely poor and harmful to the building of an encyclopedia, and yet this is hardly touched on by the Findings of Fact.  I fear that no matter how many editors are banished there will be more to take their place, exhibiting the same behavior, unless it is censured.  Kanguole 23:43, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

the email
In regards to striking FoF's about "the email", I believe they are necessary for context. One of the most important concepts that make this project work is consensus - the five pillars are not made of stone - they are molded by consensus. It is vague and messy concept at the best of times, and backroom business like that email bring the shaky concept of consensus to its knees. We know emails like that happen - but we do not need our leaders to be saying "do as I say; not as I do".

I have rarely spoken about this incident, mostly because it seemed that doing so would be political wiki-suicide. The only time I did raise it was at Avraham's first RfB, by which time I was more comfortable speaking out, and sufficiently interested in Wikisource that I didnt really care if someone from on high made my Wikipedia life hell. Avi's responses there are a classic example of the wiki-political suicide involved - he repeatedly dodged the meat of the concerns. During his second RfB, Avi and I talked via email, where I told him that for my support he needed to make a stand on that email. And I quote from my email "On your last RfB, I only asked that you publicly distance yourself from the email, in a believable manner .... My level of trust would go up if you can furnish me with diffs showing you getting mighty mad at canvassing." He needed to say he found that email objectionable. Avi did this on his second RfB, saying "I am comfortable saying that soon after that incident I informed Jay that I no longer wished to be contacted that way". I switched to neutral, and I didn't participate in his third RfB. And now I find Avi saying "This e-mail, while something I would not do ... is operatively no different than posting to a wikiproject talk page." That appears to be a big step backwards from not wanting to be contacted that way. John Vandenberg (chat) 07:49, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Hello, John. I believe you are making the same mistake, or misunderstanding, that was made by Mackan on the Workshop page. Jay's e-mailing, as opposed to using a wiki page was wrong. You know it, I know it, and I told him so straight out. I had one point to make on the RfAr page, and that was the e-mail in question should not be used as an indication that Jay "was involved in a conspiracy to affect Wikipedia content in violation of several policies." (Direct quote of 2.7.1). The most obvious reason as to why this (2.7.1) was not true, was that had the same, or operatively equivalent words, been used on a wiki project talk page, they would have indicated efforts trying to maintain wikipedia policy . That is what I meant by "operatively no different…" The error, and undoubtedly there was one, on Jay's part was one of judgment, by using a mode of communication that could lend itself to misinterpretation; NOT that the e-mail indicates a Zeq/Palestinian Yahoo! group-like off-wiki conspiracy. This has nothing to do with other edit warring, which is completely independent from this issue. Furthermore, the fact that the e-mail does not indicate an off-wiki conspiracy does not make it right either. It was not the way to handle the Messianic Judaism situation, and I told him so outright. However, its wrongness does not include any evidence that there was a mass off-wiki conspiracy. There is a difference between saying someone made a mistake, and saying someone is conspiring to edit wiki outside the norm. If there is later evidence of edit warring, that is well-and-good, but later edit warring should not be combined with said e-mail to fabricate the appearance of a vast off-wiki conspiracy, at least in my opinion. I hope that you now understand how I have been consistent in my adamantness that the e-mail was wrong, while simultaneously not believing that it is evidence of an off-wiki conspiracy at that time. Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 08:04, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for underscoring that the email was wrong. Objectives aside, the contents and the purpose of sending an email like that are wrong.  We have plenty of very open systems for requesting assistance in editorial disputes, and sending emails to a limited distribution has long been viewed with suspicion, bordering on unacceptable.  To those who hold opposing views, this email does look like the tip of the iceberg of a Zeq/Palestinian Yahoo! group-like off-wiki conspiracy.  I have previously asked you to come forward and give us some sort of statement regarding how much of this has been going on.  This RFAR would be the perfect opportunity for you to submit evidence.  Rather than tell us that this one email doesn't, on its own, indicate a conspiracy ... you could augment the Evidence to reflect your understanding of the extent to which Jaygj has sent emails like this.
 * You are presenting (conservative) logical deductions based on what we can see (i.e. this one email is wrong, but can be explained..);
 * You are not making affirmative statements about what you can see (e.g. this email is the only email asking me for backup).
 * You can see more than we can.
 * Gosh darn it, I am a suspicious bloke arn't I! I like to read clear statements. John Vandenberg (chat) 09:19, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Looking back at over two years of e-mails, this was one of two where I was approached about an article. There was one seven months earlier (5/2007), also about improper original research, and no requests after that, likely because I told him both that w-mail was not the proper way to protect wiki articles and I did not want to be contacted via e-mail about articles; that's what I have a talk page for. John, you can see much more than we can, you are privy to the arbcom e-mails :) -- Avi (talk) 12:53, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Avraham has explained that email, and his remonstrations over it, to other I/P editors, on request (I recall User:Eleland) some time ago, and they accepted his comments, which are those he provided here. In three years, I have never had an occasion to see Avraham use his judgement or administrative offices poorly. In one particular case, where there were good grounds for administrative exasperation with an editor, he used considerable discretion to hear me out in that editor's defence. Nothing in the present arbitration reflects on his work and role here, which are admired on both sides. My views on Jayjg are well known. Their severity does not stop me from appreciating that someone with amicable ties inside wikipedia with Jayjg should stick out his neck and defend him with vigour. He had everything to lose and nothing to gain. That takes guts. Nishidani (talk) 13:34, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I wonder if ArbCom would clarify whether there was any discussion or agreements with Jayjg during the Allegations of apartheid case that led to its dismissal. I ask only because he stopped editing for several months, then upon return was editing only exactly once a day, and appears to have gone back to normal editing exactly six months after he left. I am not suggesting that something happened (I don't know), but considering ArbCom was potentially more open to private resolutions at the time, it seems like a possibility (this could also be relevant to perception of the above email). Otherwise perhaps someone would also clarify to what extent there are other types of private considerations at play which others should at least take into account. It's been suggested, for example, to clarify that Jayjg has not misused the CU tool, but by itself that seems to leave the wider question open. There was some movement to be more transparent about these kinds of things a while ago, so in part I wonder if that trend continues or if it is still a tension. Mackan79 (talk) 08:22, 29 April 2009 (UTC)


 * At that time I asked the Committee by email if Jayjg was on an editing restriction and was told that he was not. Cla68 (talk) 23:59, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Part of the problem is that the project has had repeated changes in attitudes about canvassing. For example, there's the recent dust-up over Cla68's block where ANI decided to unblock him after he was blocked for canvassing for an AfD. As long as we are highly inconsistent about what approaches are acceptable and what are not these problems will continue to arise. JoshuaZ (talk) 23:24, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * My canvassing was legal under the current guideline. Jayjg's canvassing clearly violated it.  Clear cut. Cla68 (talk) 23:59, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Multiple admins disagreed with your interpretation. And Lar's canvassing was clear not ok. The basic point is that what constitutes unacceptable canvassing seems to change from day to day and from user to user. We need to get a coherent view about this. But one thing is clear to me: Attacking Avraham for his changing views seems unfair given that the community can't make up its mind at all. JoshuaZ (talk) 00:02, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Avraham has stated above that his views on that email have not changed, which needed to be clarified given he was asked to, and did, made a stand on that email. If his views had changed since making such a clear statement, it is worth discussing. John Vandenberg (chat) 01:05, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah. I understand. JoshuaZ (talk) 18:47, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Offer to lift restrictions
Kirill's proposal provides a way for restricted editors to prove that they really are here to build an encyclopedia and not here, as implied by their restriction findings, to solely push a POV in a certain subject area. A featured article (FA) takes a lot of work, but measurably improves the encyclopedia because an FA is supposed to mean that that particular article is "complete", i.e. covers the subject thouroughly as appropriate for an encyclopedic entry, as well as meeting all of the style and format guidelines. Thus, I can understand Kirill's reasoning to require this kind of effort to prove one's dedication to the goal of building Wikipedia as an encyclopedia.

Several of the FAC regulars have posted objections to the proposal, and I can understand their concerns. After sleeping on it, however, I really can't think of a better alternative. I guess volunteer mentors could be assigned to each restricted party who could then help design a "lift restriction" plan for that particular editor which could be submitted to the ArbCom for approval. For those editors unwilling or unable to write any FAs, perhaps they could commit to reviewing FAs, as SandyGeorgia suggested, or doing some other type of work such as reviewing a certain number of GAs, copyediting or giving peer reviews, or helping resolve article problem tags such as NPOV or MoS violation notices. Sounds like, though, that this plan would have just as many potential problems as the FA proposal. Any other ideas? If not, I propose that Kirill's proposal about writing a certain number of FAs be given a try. Cla68 (talk) 23:32, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * It is interesting to observe that the former director of the military history project apparently rates featured media contributions as less than five percent as valuable as featured article contributions. Maybe that explains a few things.  There are many possible subjects for this work.  As contributor of 71% of MILHIST's featured sounds and 34% of MILHIST's featured pictures, perhaps I should reprioritize in favor of projects whose leadership acts as if this work counts for something.  Durova  Charge! 00:12, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Where did he say that, although I think it's almost universally regarded that 1FA >> 1FL/portal etc etc even if he didn't say that  YellowMonkey  ( cricket calendar poll! ) 01:19, 28 April 2009 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict) I'm not sure where you're getting "five percent" from, or what my alleged views on the relative value of featured pictures have to do with a remedy that doesn't mention them. I doubt that an arbitration proceeding would be a good forum to debate the adequacy of MILHIST's recognition of your work, in any case. :-) Kirill [talk] [pf] 01:26, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, let's see how this adds up. Counting en:wiki only, I've done 212 featured media credits, a combined total which wouldn't be worth as as much as 10 FAs per Kirill's metric.  Have you considered how many of the editors in this dispute speak a first language other than English?  For a year and a half I've been mentoring someone who can do DYKs with a bit of copyediting and proofreading assistance, and can do featured media content, but to expect him to write brilliant English prose fluently simply isn't realistic.  In all likelihood that language barrier applies just as much to some of the editors on the other side.  One would think that in this dispute particularly, that sort of problem would have been thought of before the proposal went live.  And Yellowmonkey, exactly how many featured media credits do you think are worth ten FAs?  Would 300 do it?  400?  You name the number.  Durova  Charge! 01:36, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I haven't a clue, because I don't know anything about what makes a good photo or sound quality or these technical processes you tell me about when it comes to tweaking the pictures to make them more aesthetically pleasing. I do get the strong impression that FAs are held in much higher regard than the others. For FLs, yes, FAs take about 10-15 times as much work, at least mine did. As for portals, I'm not up with it but a few FP people told me at meetups that they're about 4 hours work, and that they're good political value because apparently some people don't realise how easy they are (according to the FP builder)  YellowMonkey  ( cricket calendar poll! ) 01:41, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I've since received a complaint from a FP builder who says it takes much longer than four hours....  YellowMonkey  ( cricket calendar poll! ) 00:13, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Interesting. The first featured portal drive I did involved bringing nine biographies up from start-and stub-class to B-class, and both of the featured portal drives involved doing a number of featured picture restorations (which actually took quite a bit more time, but apparently edits in Photoshop aren't worth very much).  Maybe the two associated GA drives earn a smidgen of respect. Growl, foam at mouth.  Durova  Charge! 01:51, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * well yes, if you have to create the redlinked articles in the FL then it takes a long time, like my two swimming ones and some portals, but otherwise, my FLs were quite easy to do. I think imitation is a sign of respect. Some FA writers thought that some politicians respected them because they got a pat on the head but more likely the [non-writing] politician was happy that the writer gave them lots of FAs to bask in the glory thereof and look better.  YellowMonkey  ( cricket calendar poll! ) 05:52, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * My ignorance of pictures is shown by my canvassing for the photo poll....as you well know, on my sig link  YellowMonkey  ( cricket calendar poll! ) 05:53, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) You're assuming that I want to make it easy for people to have their restrictions lifted, though, and that's emphatically not the case. Your own contributions to featured content are the key to my thinking on this, incidentally.  Were I reasonably certain that achieving a featured picture was an endeavor that could take a month or more of continuous work, I'd be happy to add FPs as an option in the remedy; but, given the rate at which you've been working, I have no confidence that an editor would be unable to produce 10 FPs in a few weeks.  That would still be a valuable contribution to the project, to be sure—but it would also make the underlying editing restriction fairly useless. Kirill [talk] [pf] 01:44, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Kirill, kindly refrain from putting words in my mouth. I began with a slim willingness to suppose you intended to make it possible for them to have their restrictions lifted.  Evidence appears to be mounting to the contrary.  Shall I advise Jaakobou to enroll in advanced English coursework, and resign as his mentor?  This is absurdity itself.  Durova  Charge! 01:51, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I can't see why you'd feel the need to do that, considering that Jaakobou doesn't actually have any sanctions proposed against him. Kirill [talk] [pf] 02:07, 28 April 2009 (UTC)


 * And Kirill, expecting the editors in this case to produce FPs at the rate I do is like expecting them to generate FAs at the rate Hurricanehink produces them. If everyone can do this, how come 11% of the site's FPs are my contributions?  Apparently being prolific lowers the political value of a contribution type.  Perhaps I should remember that, and become less productive.  Durova  Charge! 01:55, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think this is about political value in any real sense, though. My intent was not to enumerate every method by which an editor might prove their worth; it was merely to provide a reasonably feasible—though certainly difficult—path to having one's restrictions lifted.  You can hardly blame me for choosing a method whose inner workings I have some experience with; I cannot easily draft a remedy having to do with a certain number of featured pictures simply because I personally have no idea how much time and effort would be required for the average editor to achieve such a result. Kirill [talk] [pf] 02:07, 28 April 2009 (UTC)


 * @Durova: I think slagging this proposal because you perceive there is a slight to yourself in it may not be the most productive approach. The point of the proposal, the way I read it, was to encourage/require working together productively and amicably... if someone accumulates the credits by lone-wolfing, it sort of misses the point (yes, the encyclopedia is bettered by the contributions but that's free-ticket-ism which I don't think is what was intended). Now, this may not be a perfect proposal. Heck, it may not even be one that in the end should be tried. But I think high marks are deserved for trying something innovative. The community asked for fresh approaches. Let's applaud them, even if we end up disagreeing. ++Lar: t/c 01:43, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * No, but slagging it because it's biased against second language speakers is right on target. ;) Durova  Charge! 01:52, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Whoa whoa whoa there folks. This seems to be a tactical dispute – what solution is most likely to create incentives for overly passionate/POV-pushing editors to edit more dispassionately? – but it's getting energized by what seem to be other, more personal grievances. Let's keep the focus on our (read my) grievances, not yours for chrissake. :)

Durova has a statement on the main workshop page to the effect that Arbcom shouldn't try to "pass the buck," that they should "tighten [their] belts, read the evidence, and decide on something." It's a bit too fervently stated, but I think she has a very important point. There's a systemic problem here, of which Judea/Samaria/West Bank is a mere synecdoche; and Arbcom is going to have to analyze it at some point. Global solutions (i.e., topic-ban everybody) are appealing for a number of reasons (they avoid the appearance of partisanship, they shift responsibility for barroom brawls back on the participants, etc.), and I like very much the statement they make: content is more important than grievances. I take that statement to heart personally; it's humbling (for a gadfly and muckraker), it's inspiring, and so on.

At the same time, Nick and others have pointed out (and I'm paraphrasing freely here) that it's precisely the "dedicated" editors here, not the comma-fixers, who have brought about the current impasse. (Cool Hand Luke's comments are also relevant here.) So it's a little weird, I think, to say, alright, let's test your commitment.  It amounts to saying – and I'm framing the matter very, very crudely – whoever can run this obstacle course gets to decide what the territory between the Green Line and the Jordan River will be called. It's a nice incentive structure for productive editing, but it isn't a sensible normative framework for the relationship between policy, source material, and content.

Onerous and unpleasant as the task will be, Arbcom might simply have to produce individual conclusions about each involved editor: e.g., that I need to be monitored for incivility, MeteorMaker for single-issue editing, Jay for obstruction of consensus-building discussion, whatever. The disadvantage to this sort of case-by-case approach is that it will be a royal pain in the ass. The advantage is that the result cannot be gamed; you've got each person's number, and you send a signal to potential gamers that they're up against common sense.--G-Dett (talk) 02:53, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * If only it could actually work I'd love Kirill's proposal. Actually within the last week I joked about holding an FA race for this dispute: whichever side wrote more FAs within three months would get to write the Israeli-Palestinian dispute articles however they liked.  Next year, new FA race.  The dispute itself would remain intractable but at least the site would glean other decent content by rechanneling the combative energies.  Problem is, we have gatekeeping systems for content that aren't designed to handle this kind of politicization.  The people who volunteer there don't wan't to become the new nexus for managing a long term dispute, and may burn out and quit if burdened with that responsibility against their wishes.  There's a serious risk that explicitly commoditizing FAC and GAC could do long term and widespread damage to both processes.  What I miss is the days when Fred Bauder wrote decisions.  He wasn't always perfect--no one is--but the Arbitration Committee in those days had enough confidence that it didn't sanction willy-nilly in the attempt to generate a superficial appearance of neutrality.  Neutrality was assumed and it enacted remedies upon editors who deserved them, and no one else.  What this year's Committee is risking is a site culture where editors fear to knock at their door, and would rather tolerate the abuse of destructive individuals than invest months in search of relief only to find themselves formally sanctioned and their onsite reputations ruined--for the sake of misguided attempts at evenhandedness.  Durova  Charge! 05:11, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * " What this year's Committee is risking ..." No, that was last year's committee. I'll repeat, what I see of this year's committee so far, I like. Actually stepping up and doing hard decisions instead of spending months on dithering and then putting forward a motion to just forget the whole thing. Putting processes in place to make things more predictable, and more transparent. Proposing novel solutions. Keeping track of cases and where they stand. All goodness. This in particular is a very tough case, in part because it deals with some entrenched power blocks, at least peripherally, including a former member of ArbCom who still has considerable overt and behind the scenes power. I share Durova's concern that this proposal is gameable. But so are a lot of other proposals. It's a great thought starter in any case, and at worst, the project gets content it wouldn't have gotten as quickly. One thing that might alleviate a big concern (the politicization of FA processes and the exposure of innocent volunteers to excessive drama) might be some sort of prefiliter... don't send these articles straight to FAC... make them go through a prescreen first by volunteers selected at least partly for their willingness to wade into this... only then let the article go to FAC??? ++Lar: t/c 12:33, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I wholeheartedly agree with the need for a prescreen; someone who has already successfully gotten several articles to FA should be required to look at the articles before they are submitted. Since most of these editors have no FA experience, this can help to alleviate a potential burden on FAC (poorly prepared articles) and give the editor a mentor who understands the FAC criteria and can help provide advice. user:Karanacs 13:45, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Lar, I very explicitly mean this year's Committee in that description. Last year's Committee's main fault was that it kicked too many difficult decisions over to arbitration enforcement in the form of discretionary sanctions.  So other than the Orangemarlin debacle (which no one outside ArbCom anticipated) the fear was that nothing useful would happen at all.  This year's fear is that the Committee will exploit pretexts to sanction both sides in any dispute and ignore the commonsense obligation to identify primary antagonists.  I'm not going to say who's coming to me with that fear, but it's real and it's coming from multiple directions and I've never seen feedback like this before.  Durova  Charge! 15:02, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I stand behind what I said regarding the good things this year's committee is doing. I'm much more hopeful about AC in general than I was last year. But I won't deny that "a pox on all their houses" solutions miss the mark if there is a clear difference in behaviours, or if, as in this case, there appears to be one faction that's apparently quite well organized and pushing a non mainstream point of view, and another "faction" that's hardly a faction, just some editors that have some concern plus a fair number more that are concerned about the pushing but aren't at all "organized". Punishing both sides equally sends the wrong message. So while I stand behind what I said I also agree with you. If you see what I mean. :) ++Lar: t/c 15:34, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

An open invitation
As a metric to estimate the labor involved in image editing, anyone who reads this is welcome to duplicate this exercise. I am currently uploading a restored version of this image from the influenza epidemic of 1918. In terms of overall size it is fairly small (only 12MB before rotation and cropping), but it has several dozen horizontal scanner streaks. Anyone who wishes to is welcome to duplicate the restoration and measure the time involved. Please be sure to address the parallel bands in the background beneath the canopy and prepare the work for inspection at 200% resolution. When you've done that, consider yourself at liberty to tell me how much work this is. Durova Charge! 02:16, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Fwiw, Xavexgoem spent three months of steady work on his first restoration FP. And that one was a bit simpler than this.  Durova  Charge! 02:20, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Fair enough; but what about non-restoration FPs? Kirill [talk] [pf] 02:24, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * We have an editor who has contributed well over 100 featured pictures of original photography. He's been editing for five years, so his work is getting promoted at an average rate of a little more than two photographs a month.  This makes sense when you consider how many of our photographic FPs are outdoor shots of nature, which can only be attempted at that quality under certain weather conditions and at certain times of day.  Assuming of course the birds, insects, etc. are cooperative.  Durova  Charge! 02:34, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, the aggregate average over five years isn't really the number that concerns me; I'm more interested in what the minimum span of time for someone to get, say, 10 FPs would be. (But I realize that you probably don't have those statistics at hand.) Kirill [talk] [pf] 02:37, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Let's cut to the chase. It wouldn't necessarily be bad to make a statement of a general sort that the Committee looks favorably upon good content work and would consider substantial quality contributions as a factor in weighing sanctions reviews. Customarily that's applied in a general sense and it's applied flexibly. PHG raised the 50DYK medal during a sanctions appeal, although that by itself wasn't sufficiently persuasive. The superlative content work by Shoemaker's Holiday last year was one of the reasons I went to bat for him to the extent that I did. But to establish any formal threshold as a rigid measure is a bad idea. If the Committee ever gets asked to weigh a profile of media contributions toward a sanctions appeal, I would gladly seek a panel of featured media contributors (per specialization and uninvolvement) to evaluate its quality and difficulty. One can't simply assign a fixed value to featured pictures; the amount of skill and value varies in something like the difference between taking a redlink to FA v. taking a good GA to FA. Those of us who understand a given medium know an easy bit of work from an especially impressive one. Durova Charge! 03:51, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. Kirill [talk] [pf] 04:01, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree. As long as it's not just an out and out free ticket. Durova, Jayvdb and my mentorship of PM failed, but it *was* trying something along this line... requiring some content work to show intent to contribute and to improve working together skills. ++Lar: t/c 12:36, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * You remember that it was I who originally proposed a final review to make certain the proposed content work actually got done? When the Committee rewrote the proposal to take that out I objected privately to some of the arbitrators, and was eventually the one who drew the line about resignation.  If that precedent is going to get discussed here, one might reasonably conclude the Committee is more lax about that sort of standard than I am.  Durova  Charge! 23:09, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * That was last year's committee, IIRC. But I agree with you, they were more lax than you. Or I. Or Jayvdb. You drew the line, but we all agreed that resignation was our only viable alternative at that point. Let us hope things would be different. Jayvdb, after all, is now ON the committee. ++Lar: t/c 14:26, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you. One thing to bear in mind with media contributions is how specialized they may be.  In a separate conversation recently the subject of wax cylinders arose.  For copyright reasons often the only license-compliant version we can get of certain music is on wax cylinders, and for historic performers such as Enrico Caruso that's all we'll ever have.  The Wikimedia Foundation currently has exactly one volunteer who digitally restores wax cylinders; he's very good at it.  I'd be hard pressed to compare one of his restorations against a featured article.  Considering the rarity of the skill and that he's actually restored John Philip Sousa's music performed by John Philip Sousa's own band and conducted by John Philip Sousa--one might argue the restoration is more valuable.  Durova  Charge! 15:02, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Guidelines work?
We seem to have a near-consensus version of the naming conventions draft. Would it be presumptuous to ask permission to complete the work, should the worst happen and we are forced off the project? MeteorMaker (talk) 08:00, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Query
This Fof was put into the Workshop page despite there being no evidence of these findings. Then, two days later, almost the same exact wording as the Fof was placed into evidence. Does anyone find this weird, if not suspicious? -- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 18:35, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I dont see the problem. Kirill is very familiar with the background that he submitted as a FoF.  There is no real need to add it to the Evidence page of this case, as it is merely a quick overview of previous cases, which had their own Evidence pages.  It doesn't hurt for someone to add it to this Evidence page; staying close to the wording provided by Kirill is a pretty sensible way of staying out of trouble. John Vandenberg (chat) 19:04, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't see how it's any weirder or more suspicious than the case itself. It's certainly consistent with the idea of sentence first, then scrounge for "facts" to support the desired sentence. IronDuke  19:09, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Related ANI thread?
Just wanted to bring this to the attention of the committee. I offer no opinion on it. Cla68 (talk) 00:41, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * broken link? John Vandenberg (chat) 01:07, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * It's now archived. Cla68 (talk) 04:50, 4 May 2009 (UTC)