This is a page for working on Arbitration decisions. The Arbitrators, parties to the case, and other editors may draft proposals and post them to this page for review and comments. Proposals may include proposed general principles, findings of fact, remedies, and enforcement provisions—the same format as is used in Arbitration Committee decisions. The bottom of the page may be used for overall analysis of the /Evidence and for general discussion of the case.

Any user may edit this workshop page. Please sign all suggestions and comments. Arbitrators will place proposed items they believe should be part of the final decision on the /Proposed decision page, which only Arbitrators and clerks may edit, for voting, clarification as well as implementation purposes.

Motions and requests by the parties[edit]

Template[edit]

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template[edit]

2)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template[edit]

3)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed temporary injunctions[edit]

Malcolm Schosha restricted[edit]

1) Due to failures to abide by Arbitration norms Malcolm Schosha (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is restricted indefinitely from editing this arbitration case. He may, at his discretion, send his comments directly to the Arbitration Committee via e-mail.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Fair enough. Kirill ^[pf] 18:44, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What he's done goes beyond presenting evidence and his side of the story. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:56, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed in role as case clerk. Malcolm has made unhelpful comments including definite accusations of antisemitism, and ignored a warning from myself to leave it well enough alone. See this section of this same page for details, also my talk pagehere and here, Malcolm Schosha's talk page as linked above.--Tznkai (talk) 18:00, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this is fair -- Malcolm was challenged to support his claim, and he offered evidence. You can't demand evidence and then block him merely because you feel he's failed to find adequate support for his claims (with which I disagree, BTW). I also think it would be far fairer to warn him specifically, e.g., "If you say X or Y, you will be made to stop participating in this case." IronDuke 00:16, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template[edit]

2)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template[edit]

3)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template[edit]

4)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Questions to the parties[edit]

Request from Roger Davies for specific evidence[edit]

It would be very useful if someone could set out on the evidence page a skeleton timeline of the dispute, from its beginnings to now, including details of various attempts at resolution. Thanks in advance, – Roger Davies ^talk 05:35, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Another request from Roger Davies[edit]

Has anyone given any thought to proposals that might solve this amicably yet? Or should it be entirely arbitrator-imposed? — Roger Davies ^talk 14:54, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

May I make the slightly depressing observation that this seems no closer to being amicably resolved? Loads more words but no signs of meetings of minds. Any further ideas? — Roger Davies ^talk 12:11, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fair point. I think the arguments have pretty much been made on either side (as they have been for months past). Tbh I have no idea of the best way forward from here, other than of course to follow my proposals ... --Nickhh (talk) 19:20, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think for we'd need some gesture or evidence of intellectual seriousness from the other side. That lacking, I think we're looking at total impasse.--G-Dett (talk) 05:25, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, I think G-Dett's gives a fair assessment of the current situation. Cla68 (talk) 06:29, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, the predictable gambit "it's all their fault". If only they were serious.... NoCal100 (talk) 14:16, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. Or to put it another way, perhaps the "mass personal attack" by G-Dett might be seen as evidence of the reason for the impasse, rather than as a fair assessment of the reason for it. At least she isn't singling anyone out this time, but I don't think that makes it any more helpful. 6SJ7 (talk) 18:33, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Would the Irish experience be any use? This beautifully crafted style guide is a model of common sense and cooperation: Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Ireland-related articles). Could any principles be borrowed from it? — Roger Davies ^talk 17:24, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm. Maybe so. There are some differences of course, most notably that in the Irish case there is no third-party term widely regarded as neutral, as there is in this case. The existence of a third-party term used almost universally by mainstream sources (as well as governments, statesmen, and international bodies) should in theory make this dispute simpler than the Irish one, but it hasn't worked out that way. So yes, we might consider setting aside the widely accepted English name in this case, instead loosely following the Irish example, with its balanced use of the two nationalist terminologies. We could, for example, use "Judea" and/or "Samaria" when talking about settlements, bypass roads, colonial outposts and so on, and use "Palestine" when talking about Ramallah, Nablus, Gaza City, etc. It's not ideal, but I'm open to it.--G-Dett (talk) 19:22, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In WP:IMOS, there's a heavy emphasis on "widespread/predominant/favoured usage in English" which I take to mean the same requirement as in WP:NCGN (ie, to count as widespread, a toponym must be at least three times as common as any other — and even counting exceptionally generously, "J&S" is more than one and a half order of magnitude less common than "West Bank" [1][2]). An additional complication is that the West Bank is not in Israel proper, and my gut feeling is that exonyms aren't entitled to the same level of recognition as terms agreed upon through self determination (eg Londonderry). Compromises modeled on IMOS's sole exception to the "use the widespread English term" rule, the Derry/Londonderry section (ie to use the two terms for the city and the county respectively) would necessarily create wikiality by contradicting all sources and give nationalist editors a carte blanche to introduce terminology that is shunned by all mainstream neutral media.

With these reservations regarding its applicability in this case, I agree that IMOS is a model of common sense and cooperation. MeteorMaker (talk) 22:43, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A style guide is a good idea in theory, but since the contents of the style guide would require consensus in order to be "adopted", it is likely that it would just "move" the dispute somewhere else. Which, I suppose, is still better than trying to get the ArbCom to decide a content dispute. And then style guides and similar things like WP:WTA have their own difficult issues, such as determining what is really "consensus", but that too is probably best left for discussion elsewhere. 6SJ7 (talk) 11:14, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A way forward[edit]

Here's a proposal from User:Cla68, which is probably the easiest and most effective way forward:

Decide which editors aren't acting in good faith, then give them all at a minimum one year topic bans. I suggest the "topic" should include any article having anything to do with Israel or Palestine. Give admins broad discretion in issuing more topic or general bans concerning the issue. Close the case. Cla68 (talk) 07:28, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

This is pretty much the way my mind is going and as an approach it will probably find wide favour among the arbs. Reactions? Roger Davies ^talk 08:04, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good to me. Anyone going to name names? Tiamut^talk 08:09, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please do. Roger Davies ^talk 08:10, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Several editors are named in specific sanctions below. Or do you want something more specific and/or succinct? Cheers, pedrito - talk - 24.03.2009 08:13

Yes please. Specific and concise is key now. I've set something up here as a starter. Roger Davies ^talk 08:20, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Better ways forward[edit]

I like Roger Davies' suggestion above to find ways to solve this amicably. Here are two proposals along those lines:

I proposed draft guidelines for usage of placenames here at IPCOLL (first draft), with an updated copy that editors are invited to edit. I was very pleased with the comments I received in response to the first draft, and have made some adjustments based on them; I have the impression that there is a lot of agreement, although some details still need to be fleshed out. I hope that editors will continue to participate in developing these guidelines. I suggest that discussion of the draft guidelines take place there.

IronDuke has suggested, based on an idea from Nishidani, that instead of topic bans, that the editors involved get together and work on Judea, Samaria, and Judea and Samaria with the goal of promoting them to GA status in two months’ time. The idea is further explained here, where some editors have signed up to participate. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 18:33, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Current status[edit]

What's the current status of the content dispute? I understand that consensus guidelines are (or were) being developed; are we close to seeing results in that effort?

If progress has been made, would the parties prefer that the case remain dormant pending a resolution of the community effort, or should we press forwards with drafting rulings regardless? Kirill ^[pf] 01:20, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The guidelines are under discussion. Not much has been happening for the past few days due to religious holidays. (not a party) ☺Coppertwig (talk) 00:26, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The content dispute is stalled, perhaps as Coppertwig says, in part because of the festivities. I think Arbcom should judge things by its own lights. I don't think that a drafting of its rulings would prejudice the negotiations of the content dispute, which will inevitably take time. These rulings may even assist the resolution of the dispute.Nishidani (talk) 09:57, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Nishidani. The content and conduct issues are now on different tracks.--G-Dett (talk) 22:17, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I'll start drafting findings this weekend, then. Kirill ^[pf] 03:19, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My position from the get-go was that this content dispute is not an issue to be decided through ArbCom. I have no problem with the case remaining dormant. I certainly haven't been involved in any of its discussions of late. NoCal100 (talk) 02:54, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dormant means we will have to do this all over again. I agree with Nishidani that certain rulings (particularly re the applicability of policies) may be necessary in order to make progress in the content dispute. OTOH, having an active case going seems to keep the worst stonewalling excesses at bay, so it's certainly beneficial to keep this case and the guidelines dicussion going in parallel. Currently, through the effort of editors committed to neutrality and accuracy, the guidelines draft looks pretty good. MeteorMaker (talk) 08:15, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When I last looked, there seemed to be a developing and relatively happy consensus on the proposed guidelines. However as ever the proof will be in the implementation and how editors deal with them. My view is that we have perfectly adequate guidelines and policy (eg WP:NCGN) to cover these sorts of things at the moment - the problem has been that these have been over-exploited and wiki-lawyered around, and, to be pessimistic, exactly the same thing could happen with any more specific rules that are set up. Having said that, I don't see why any ArbCom rulings can't move ahead (as they seem to be now - apologies for late response here). --Nickhh (talk) 16:17, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If I may say so, not being a party, I would like to encourage the arbitrators to move slowly at this point, because considerable progress has been made recently in clearing up some misunderstandings, including some which I believe were at the root of some of the serious accusations in this case, and I hope that further progress will soon be made building on that. (See The root of the problem and Clarification sections of my evidence.) ☺Coppertwig (talk) 01:27, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed final decision[edit]

Proposals by User:Nickhh[edit]

Proposed principles[edit]

Wikipedia should follow standard English language terminology[edit]

1) As WP:NCGN explicitly states, when referring to regions or political entities both in page titles and within article text, Wikipedia should naturally use the standard terms found in the majority of mainstream, authoritative sources, and be consistent in that across all relevant articles.

Comment by Arbitrators:

I'm not sure this is the sort of thing we ought to be ruling on. The main problem here, anyway, is revisionism and recentism, applying sometimes loaded present-day jargon to historical entities. — Roger Davies ^talk 08:38, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

First line of WP:NCGN is "This page describes conventions for determining the names of Wikipedia articles on places", and you are trying to force fit this into your agenda of eliminating every mention of the term from the article body. This will not fly. Canadian Monkey (talk) 22:01, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please keep reading WP:NCGN rather than stopping at the first line, until at least you get to the point where the unremarkable suggestion is made that "within articles, places should generally be referred to by the same name as is used in their article title". As to your second point, please read my point 2) below, where I clearly suggest ways that the alternative names are included and covered, per WP:UNDUE, and where there is no suggestion of "elimination". Misrepresentation of policy and of other editors' viewpoints is of course one of things that led us to ArbCom, and it seems unwise to continue it on this page. --Nickhh (talk) 22:16, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support. This is one of the core issues of the debate. pedrito - talk - 20.03.2009 10:38

Note to Roger Davies. In my view this is simply a restatement of WP:NCGN - I appreciate (as below) that there may not be a decision on the specifics of precisely what that terminology should be in this case or any other, but the general principle is surely uncontroversial? Also there is a slight mis-statement of the underlying problem: the issue is not "recentism" trying to replace established, historical terms; but rather relatively obscure, historical terms (Judea and/or Samaria) - which are now generally viewed as obsolete, partisan and politically-loaded - being pushed as replacements or alternatives for the standard contemporary term (West Bank, or northern/southern parts thereof) used since the 1950s or thereabouts by the overwhelming majority of mainstream, uninvolved or official sources. And the evidence in favour of West Bank is astonishingly weighty - this is not a 50-50 debate. Kind of like people asking that every town in Sri Lanka is described as being "in Ceylon", or even "in Sri Lanka, also called Ceylon". Or that towns in northeast England should be referred to as being part of the "Danelaw". Now either of those ideas would get pretty short shrift on Wikipedia, and any editors who dragged out talk page debates and edit-warred for their inclusion in multiple articles over a period of 6 months would surely be dealt with, one way or another? --Nickhh (talk) 10:50, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support. It is not a matter of Arbcom taking 'sides' in a content dispute, but of it simply clarifing what rule applies here. We have dozens of sources commenting on the terms 'Judea and Samaria' as loaded language, minority nationalist usage by annexationists within Israel. We have dozens of sources saying the standard and neutral English term is 'West Bank'. The other side ignores wholly the overwhelming evidence, doesn't even reply to it, and simply presses, in violation of NPOV, for annexationalist language. Even in modern Hebrew usage, 'Judea and Samaria' marks out the speaker's politics, and many other native users (as documented) prefer to avoid it and use the calque for 'West Bank' (HaGadah HaMa'aravit), which, though 'leftish' in Israel (standard in such newspapers as 'Haaretz') is thought to be neutral as to both Israeli and Palestinian claims, because it mirrors standard international usage. Those who push for 'Judea and Samaria' are pushing a political line, a partisan sub-national jargon, that runs in the face of WP:NPOV. The Gordian knot here is cut by avoiding usage that is nationalistic (particularly since 'West Bank' is disliked by many Palestinians) and hewing to standard neutral international language, which takes articles out of this endless, and absurd, game of inserting a national POV. This is good enough for other articles, I see no reason why we should make some exception here.Nishidani (talk) 11:12, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

The argument by user:Nickhh that WP:NCGN continues on to say "within articles, places should generally be referred to by the same name as is used in their article title" would only be relevant in this case if we were talking specifically about the West Bank article. Tundrabuggy (talk) 04:03, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure? If that were the sentence's intended meaning, wouldn't it read, "within articles, places should generally be referred to by the same name as is used in the article title"? I'm pretty sure the antecedent of "their" in this sentence is "places" – not, as you seem to think, "articles." My reasons for thinking this: (1) if the antecedent is "articles," then the sentence is ungrammatical, corresponding to "...the same name as is used in the articles' article title"; and (2) if the antecedent is "articles," then the rule is very weird and arbitrary. Once you determine the widely accepted English name for a place, then you must use it within the article specifically about that place, but within other articles anything goes? Doesn't make sense. Why we should we read the sentence ungrammatically, only in order to arrive at an arbitrary meaning?--G-Dett (talk) 16:21, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Would not be ungrammatical, but a differing interpretation. In any case, the sentence says "should generally," not "must" use, as you suggest. In the West Bank article, not to include mention of the regions (or districts) of Judea and Samaria would be to favor the less specific over the specific. We would be giving the reader less information, simply to slavishly adhere to a guideline that itself claims should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception. Tundrabuggy (talk) 04:48, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If the antecedent of "their" is "articles," then yes it's ungrammatical ("as is used in the articles' article title"). Fortunately there is no reason to think the antecedent is "their," because the grammatical reading makes good sense and the ungrammatical one makes no sense at all. As to why the sentence says we "should generally" use the widely accepted English name for a place within articles, instead of saying we "must always," the rest of the paragraph makes very clear the sort of exception in mind: historical usage. "Use of one name for a town in 2000 does not determine what name we should give the same town in 1900 or in 1400, nor the other way around." It would be inappropriate to say "In the days of Jehoram, Benhadad again laid siege to the northern West Bank," just as it's inappropriate to say, "In 2005 Ariel Sharon unilaterally dismantled settlements in Samaria." WP:NCGN is very clear, both in letter and in spirit; you are doing what Canadian Monkey accused Nick of doing, "trying to force fit it into your agenda."--G-Dett (talk) 11:57, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Every rule admits of exceptions yes, but not simply as an excuse to throw in terms and names that are the subject matter of serious dispute out in the real world, and that do not anyway even add anything in terms of specifying location as compared to the neutral terms used by all mainstream sources in a ratio of something like 1000:1. Note it has never been disputed that articles can and should say for example that "town X is located in the Jordan Valley" or "2km north of Nablus" on top of the broader description of being "in the West Bank"; and for settlements that they "are adminstered by local [Israeli] council Y" or for Palestinian towns "governate Z". Apologies but it is this kind of pedantic (mis)interpretation of rules, apparently for partisan advantage, that makes this whole issue so frustrating. This is such a non-debate - the rules are clear, and sensible to boot. Can we please stop trying to find ways to argue around them, for no apparent constructive purpose? If you don't agree with WP:NCGN, discuss it there. This principle is merely a re-statement of it. --Nickhh (talk) 11:48, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This seems like it would be interpreting a guideline in a particular and debatable way. This may be right, or wrong, but I don't think this would help resolve the conflict, so I think the arbcom should pass on this one. – Quadell ^(talk) 16:13, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support Mainstream linguistic usage is important in demonstrating Wikipedia's adherence to WP:NPOV.--Peter cohen (talk) 18:24, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Content decision. Fails to capture the nuances of the whole WP:NCGN convention, which says e.g. "In some cases, a compromise is reached between editors to avoid giving the impression of support for a particular national point of view." ☺Coppertwig (talk) 16:19, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The next sentence: "For example, the name Liancourt Rocks has been adopted rather than select either the Korean or Japanese name for the feature." As pointed out earlier, this is exactly the same situation as we have here: Two competing minority and more-or-less partisan terminologies, J&S and Palestine, and one commonly accepted and neutral, West Bank. WP:NCGN is pretty clear that the most widespread toponym should be used, and no exceptions to that rule are in fact made. MeteorMaker (talk) 16:37, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like a content ruling. Stifle (talk) 13:21, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative terminologies should be given due weight[edit]

2) As WP:UNDUE clearly requires, where there are alternative terms or terminologies, especially when these are used to express a point of view about ownership or to highlight a political or national affiliation, these should be acknowledged and noted, but only in the appropriate place. It should also be made clear in what context those terms tend to be used. ~~only relative to the extent that they are used in mainstream and authoritative sources~~. [amended per MeteorMaker comment below]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Support. Especially the last point regarding the appropriate place, which I interpret as not just in the scope of an article, but in that of the encyclopaedia. Such descriptions belong in the articles West Bank, Judea and Samaria and not within each IP article which uses any of the terms. pedrito - talk - 20.03.2009 10:40

Comment: It should be explicitly stated that by "give due weight" we mean "acknowledge that the terms are in current use in certain groups, and identify these groups" in the articles about the terms themselves. This was in fact the main locus of the dispute in its earliest phase. [3][4][5] MeteorMaker (talk) 11:46, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comment: With the suggested wording, I can see a definite risk that the proposition may become read as "J&S should be given space in the articles" by certain editors, which would clash with the plain reading of WP:NPOV and WP:NCGN. It's also worth noting that WP:UNDUE actually never mentions terminologies, only viewpoints. MeteorMaker (talk) 09:59, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Unfortunately, the argument here is that either terms, West Bank or Judea and/or Samaria, can be interpreted in virtually every case as "express[ing] a point of view about ownership or highlight[ing] a political or national affiliation." That is why we require WP:RS for making our case. Any term should, of course, be used "in the appropriate place;" however, if it is appropriate to use it in that place, it should be used, but not according to an artificial ratio of common usage. We do not need to apply the weight test to each article, or to go on search-and-destroy missions whenever a term is used. "Appropriate use" with sources is sufficient, and will balance out in an organic way with mainstream and authoritative sources, without specific campaigns intended to hurry the process along. Tundrabuggy (talk) 04:39, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is one flaw in that argument, in comparing POV terminology the comparison is not the West Bank or Judea and Samaria. The comparison is Palestine or Judea and Samaria with West Bank being the internationally recognized standard neutral term, where sources explicitly highlight that both Palestine and Judea and/or Samaria are POV terminology not in use by any international organization. Nableezy (talk) 04:49, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There has not been discussion of using Palestine in place of West Bank or Judea and Samaria. At any rate, at times it is appropriate to use one and at other times to use another. One terminology does not need to be cleansed out of wiki because we don't approve of the ideological positions of the authors of the RSs. We don't do it to the word Palestine which has plenty of currency here at wiki, and we shouldn't do it to the words Judea and/or Samaria. There is no reason in the world why we cannot live with both. Tundrabuggy (talk) 06:12, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There has not been discussion of using "Palestine" for the West Bank, Gaza, and East Jerusalem collectively because your opponents are committed to all aspects of WP:NPOV, including the part about taking "a descriptive rather than prescriptive approach in such cases, by using the common English language name as found in verifiable reliable sources." If Arbcom chooses not to intervene on the content issue, or if it is decided that WP:NPOV doesn't clearly prohibit the use of partisan terminology in Wikipedia's neutral voice, then of course it will be time to revisit the use of "Palestine" for the current Palestinian territories collectively. There are far, far more – and far more varied and contemporary – sources supporting this usage than Jay has collected supporting use of Judea and Samaria for the West Bank. I'm currently compiling a list, and it's huge.--G-Dett (talk) 15:15, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I imagine that everyone would support this, so long as they get to define what due weight is. :) – Quadell ^(talk) 16:13, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. We don't need Arbcom ruling on content; we need more detailed, nuanced, flexible guidelines such as are being discussed at WT:IPCOLL. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 19:04, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Selective cherry picking of sources is harmful to Wikipedia content[edit]

3) When there are disputes over matters of fact or terminology, pointing to an individual source or individual sources which appear to back up one side of an argument or a preferred version of wording is clearly inadequate, and relying on that to write content in Wikipedia’s neutral, narrative voice is poor practice. Sources need to be looked at in the round, to establish where the consensus lies among mainstream authoritative sources.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Support. This is basically what's prescribed by WP:UNDUE. MeteorMaker (talk) 17:12, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

I doubt this is possible to be used. I mean, we all pick certain sources out of many, and ideological foes will accuse others of cherry-picking. It is remediable by simply bringing up other sources. I don't disagree with this, I just doubt it would be useful. – Quadell ^(talk) 16:16, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per Quadell. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 17:00, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Repeatedly pushing minority content into articles is disruptive to the encyclopedia[edit]

4) Where it is clear that there is a standard, prevalent terminology in mainstream writing and discourse, and unchallenged evidence has been provided to that effect, edit-warring and talk page stonewalling by editors across multiple pages is clearly disruptive and harmful, as well as being a distraction preventing improvements elsewhere.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Support. Again, this is a core issue. pedrito -talk - 20.03.2009 10:41

Support.Fundamental. I went through agonies on the word 'uprising' at Al-Aqsa Intifada: 160 sources against zilch, and still no consensus, for the simple reason that the word would remind the readers of the Warsaw Uprising. No one edits articles when this amount of mental effort to show prevalence of a word is stalled, by an extreme minority niggle.Nishidani (talk) 21:57, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support. The key phrase is "[where] unchallenged evidence has been provided to that effect". MeteorMaker (talk) 11:54, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

I imagine this would be useful if the evidence showed editors did this, unambiguously. If the evidence doesn't show that, then it's moot. – Quadell ^(talk) 16:18, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The title is subjective, and covered by WP:NPOV. One person's "pushing minority content" is another's "representing an alternative or opposing view." If 99.8% of the electorate is Democrat, we would still be required to air the others' view without deprecation or minimization.Tundrabuggy (talk) 03:12, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To my knowledge, there is no "alternative or opposing view" that J&S are neutral and widespread terms in the English-speaking world. We are required to inform the reader that these minority terms are used and by what minority, not to use the terms in WP articles. MeteorMaker (talk) 11:54, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Arbcom does not take sides on content disputes. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 17:00, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support, this is not ArbCom taking sides on a content dispute, it's saying that this kind of behaviour is execrable. Stifle (talk) 13:22, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

”Compromises” cannot override core policy[edit]

5) Where a prevalent terminology is found in the outside world, Wikipedia should stick precisely to that terminology, not invent new “compromise” combined terms, which append minority terms to mainstream language and treat them as if they were equivalent, simply in order to placate what is a minority real world opinion and to avoid on-WP conflict.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Support. Wiki will become authoritative when it follows the best traditions of scholarship, not when it negotiates POVs between arbitrary coalitions of casual editors who refuse to follow a simple rule (standard international usage) because they want to hold out for a 'crreative' wiki-specific compromise. It makes the editor into an author.Nishidani (talk) 21:59, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support per Nishidani and WP:NCGN. MeteorMaker (talk) 07:39, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Oppose. The last part of it is reasonable though could perhaps be expressed so as not to sound like a criticism, but the first part makes the majority POV the only POV. Under NPOV, minority POVs need to be expressed too. Perhaps usually we need to use a single standard name for a place, but there may be contexts where some variation can occur, particularly since the placenames under discussion don't refer to identical land areas. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 00:15, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NPOV nowhere states that minority terminology should be used. MeteorMaker (talk) 00:58, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think NPOV states that minority terminology should not be used, either. It seems clear to me that use of minority terminology, in proportion to how often it's used in reliable sources, is in line with the spirit of NPOV. NCGN says "Within articles, places should generally be referred to by the same name as is used in their article title," Note that it says "generally", not "always"; also that "Samaria" is the title of the article about that place. NCGN also says "In some cases, a compromise is reached between editors to avoid giving the impression of support for a particular national point of view"; I think that's what we need to do here. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 23:06, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We have two minority and more-or-less partisan terminologies here, J&S and Palestine, and we have one commonly accepted and neutral, West Bank. If you read the next sentence in WP:NCGN, you will find that the line you quoted is examplified with precisely that kind of situation: "For example, the name Liancourt Rocks has been adopted rather than select either the Korean or Japanese name for the feature." Additional note: While several editors routinely invoke WP:NPOV (in the apparant belief that it supports the use of minority terminologies), it's unusual and strange to hear someone invoke it because it doesn't expressly forbid it. I believe you can say that about every WP policy, so what's the point? No support in policy is no support in policy. MeteorMaker (talk) 07:32, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. This is a mite too inflamatory, and possibly in conflict with WP:5P. – Quadell ^(talk) 16:19, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly support the concept, as expressed in the heading, although would prefer tighter language. In essence dispute resolution should lead towards NPOV, RS, etc. Dispute res is not and should not be a process of 2 sides or warriors dividing the spoils, and not only as far as terminology. Jd2718 (talk) 01:36, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly Oppose -- For reasons enumerated by Coppertwig. Further, "compromise" is at the very heart of consensus-building and is core WP policy. Tundrabuggy (talk) 03:17, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose -- Per Coppertwig, minority POV's should have a say also. —Sandahl (talk) 20:50, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder: WP:NPOV is about giving space to minority views, not to minority terminology. MeteorMaker (talk) 21:37, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed findings of fact[edit]

West Bank or Judea and/or Samaria[edit]

1) There is no serious dispute that the former is the overwhelmingly preferred term for the area, with “northern West Bank” (or variations) being used in preference to “Samaria” and “southern West Bank” (or variations) being used in preference to “Judea”; also that the latter in each case are usually employed as alternative names for precisely the areas in question - and solely for political or partisan purposes - on the occasions when they are used at all. Both statistical analysis of usage in media and government websites, as well as secondary commentary in media and academic sources confirm this. No evidence has been put forward to challenge, let alone rebut, either of these assertions

Comment by Arbitrators:

This is essentially asking us to rule on a content dispute, which we don't do. — Roger Davies ^talk 08:40, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Oppose. There is no serious dispute that 'West Bank" is the preferred term for the area, not 'Judea and Samaria", which is a predominately partisan usage. However, there is well documented evidence that 'Judea', and 'Samaria' as designations for geographical entities, are neutral terms, which are perfectly acceptably for use use in WP, when accurately describing the location of geographical entities. Canadian Monkey (talk) 22:09, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

These issues have been discussed at length, and I have yet to see anything which supports such a contention of neutrality, or an assertion that a distinction is made in a modern context between the terms combined into one phrase or the terms separately, either in prior discussions on relevant talk pages, or presented as evidence at ArbCom. "Trinidad and Tobago" refers to the same places as "Trinidad" and "Tobago". --Nickhh (talk) 22:30, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Closing your eyes to the evidence presented (such as maps produced by the CIA or the World Book encyclopedia) does not make that evidence go away. And no, "Trinidad and Tobago", which is a political entity, does not refer to the same thing as "Trinidad" and "Tobago", the individual islands which are geographical entities that make up the country of '"Trinidad and Tobago". Accordingly, our article on Port of Spain says that while it is is 'the capital of Trinidad and Tobago' (a political, administrative designation), it is also "located in the northwest of the island of Trinidad" - a geographical designation. Correspondingly, we should be able to say that "Ariel is a city in the West Bank which is in the region of Samaria" - as our article currently correctly states. Canadian Monkey (talk) 22:59, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note, this is a key point in the underlying dispute and I have repeated some points about this in detail here, to avoid continuing the discussion here. --Nickhh (talk) 17:55, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Contrary to CM's assertion, there are in fact no sources at all that support the "Samaria is in wide use" position, which is required by WP:NCGN. CM has also chosen to ignore the rebuttals of his map claims (which, even if they were legit, would merely be anecdotal evidence and not prove widespread use in the WP:NCGN sense). MeteorMaker (talk) 23:35, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Although I doubt this will make it through the Arbitrators, this would put an end to this entirely futile discussion. As per User:MeteorMaker, we have yet to see a single source that supports Judea and/or Samaria as generally accepted toponyms, while we have about 80 sources which state the opposite. The evidence doesn't get any harder than this. pedrito - talk - 20.03.2009 10:44

Support. If judging whether the world is flat or round is nothing more than a content dispute, this is a content dispute. There is not one source available after several months of research, that indicates 'Judea and Samaria' are anything more than Israeli-specific terms for a non-Israeli region. Arbitrators are requested at least to clarify what policy criteria determine how we interpret the point.Nishidani (talk) 22:04, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Opposed, based on the many times the ArbCom has stated that it does not decide content disputes. 6SJ7 (talk) 02:27, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I accept that point (and was aware of the principle before putting this proposal down), however do feel that this isn't really a content dispute as such, but a minority viewpoint/POV/Undue issue, hence posted this as a suggestion. The point is being discussed in more detail on the talk page --Nickhh (talk) 17:10, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Opposed per Canadian Monkey, with the exception that "Judea and Samaria" is still in common usage as terms with religious significance to millions of Jews and Christians world-wide, and is notable as well for its political connotations. It should be used judiciously, but not expunged. Tundrabuggy (talk) 03:30, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Opposed, ArbCom does not sttle content disputes.—Sandahl (talk) 17:13, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, the arbcom shouldn't decide what terms are in common use. And "There is no serious dispute..." looks false on its face, since that serious dispute is at the heart of the conflict. – Quadell ^(talk) 16:21, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: content issue. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 01:49, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, content ruling. Stifle (talk) 13:22, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NPOV and disruptive editing[edit]

2) As a consequence of the above, this is not a 50-50 or even a 90-10 content dispute, but an attempt by a group of editors to impose and retain an extreme minority, POV terminology across a series of articles over a period of more than six months.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Oppose. This is a content dispute, and to the extent there's any POV pushing, it is shared by both sides. Canadian Monkey (talk) 22:10, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support. The content non-issue is at the root of the abundant edit-warring on the topic, which is itself the issue. pedrito - talk - 20.03.2009 10:46

Support. The available sources unanimously corroborate the position that "J&S" are partisan, "West Bank" neutral. Apart from Jayjg's initial attempts to dismiss the sources as "WP:OR", "anecdotal", "WP:SYNTH" and so on [6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13], they have not been challenged. The current tactic is to ignore their existence. This is not a content dispute, it's a concerted campaign to disrupt source- and policy-based editing in order to force non-neutral minority terminology on a large number of articles. MeteorMaker (talk) 09:45, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It absolutely is a content dispute. 6SJ7 (talk) 11:06, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Opposed, based on the many times the ArbCom has stated that it does not decide content disputes. 6SJ7 (talk) 02:28, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Opposed obviously a content dispute. To claim it is an"extreme minority" position is POV in itself and a good example of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, ie "refusing to acknowledge others' input" and "repeating their viewpoint without end". Time to put a stop to this behavior, and let the articles revert back to their stable condition prior to this campaign to expunge a terminology throughout wiki. No reason whatsoever why these terms cannot co-exist. Tundrabuggy (talk) 01:06, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: content dispute; and for issues pertaining to the region, it's not reasonable to dismiss the Israeli POV as "extreme minority". ☺Coppertwig (talk) 00:30, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per 6SJ7, content dispute.—Sandahl (talk) 23:45, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, no. Among other problems, the phrase "extreme minority" is not going to help things. More seriously, that's an interpretation of facts that follows from a content decision, and is speculative even then. – Quadell ^(talk) 16:23, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed remedies[edit]

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Amending content in all relevant articles[edit]

1) Any article which currently refers to towns or places in the West Bank [amended following comment below] as being “in Samaria” or “in Judea” should be corrected so that they site them simply as being in the “northern West Bank” or “southern West Bank” (and also not some combination of both terminologies) and so that the terminology is consistent across all these articles. The main articles for “West Bank”, “Judea and Samaria”, “Judea” and “Samaria” should all include a clear explanation as to how, why and to what extent the terms are used (or not used).

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Strong Oppose. So, after repeatedly denying that the goal is to remove every mention of Samaria and Judea from all articles, the cat is let out of the bag and a remedy is proposed which would do just that. I wonder how this remedy would work in the case of Tzur Natan. Will we claim it is in the Northern West Bank"?

The first point has been answered elsewhere. As to the final question - no, of course not. As a side note, do you want the article to claim Tzur Natan is "in Samaria", as the phrase is commonly used and understood in most modern sources? In any event, I have amended the proposal wording for clarity. --Nickhh (talk) 22:40, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The first point has not been addressed elsewhere, it has just been denied, until now. So, if it ok to describe Tzur Natan as being in Samaria, as the source in that article describes it, how is it possible to claim that Samaria is the same as '"Judea and Samria"? Canadian Monkey (talk) 23:01, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Note that nobody (so far) has claimed that Tzur Natan is in Samaria, so it's obviously not crucial to the article. MeteorMaker (talk) 23:27, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's just no end to this denialism, is there? Have a read : [14] Canadian Monkey (talk) 00:54, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody has claimed that Tzur Natan is in Samaria in the article itself. Seems it's doing fine anyway.

EDIT: Canadian Monkey just added "Samaria" to the article. [15] MeteorMaker (talk) 07:56, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Although this should be obvious, it is always worth a reminder. As a side-note, this is just very bad taste. If Tzur Natan is West of the Green Line, then it is in the Center District. Chalk-up another wilful disruption of Wikipedia to prove a point. pedrito - talk - 20.03.2009 10:52

Comment by others:

Opposed, based on the many times the ArbCom has stated that it does not decide content disputes. 6SJ7 (talk) 02:31, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly Opposed. Language is organic and changes over time, compare modern English with Chaucer's or Shakespeare's English. We should not be imposing artificial change, unless such words are generally accepted as offensive, or in cases of entities that no longer exist by agreement of the parties such as U.S.S.R., or concepts that have been thoroughly debunked, such as flat earth. Even under those circumstances, there are places where their use would still be appropriate. This is a very slippery slope and if followed to its logical conclusion would lead to sanctions on anyone whose editing does not conform to what the committee has determined is politically correct. Tundrabuggy (talk) 05:49, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed language changes, that's, er, the whole point of making sure that we use the current, standard language at any point in time (with appropriate reference to alternative or dated terms). And the term "West Bank" is not "artificial", "newspeak" or "politically correct" - it's simply what every mainstream source calls the area currently, virtually without exception. All the POV in the world isn't going to get you round that one. --Nickhh (talk) 11:55, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By dictating and approving removal of content in this fashion, ArbCom would become a sort of Minitrue, and relevant information would go down the memory hole. Judea and Samaria are separate, distinct places, neither one synonymous with the "West Bank." They are widely understood (and used) the world over, both in and out of a political context, and multiple sources have been provided to demonstrate this. To start deleting them would make wiki poorer, and the attempt to do so is, in itself, both political and POV Tundrabuggy (talk) 05:51, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The J&S side keeps repeating the mantra that the terms "are widely understood (and used) the world over", but has not been able to show anything else than a handful of isolated examples of outside-Israel usage. TB, you would do us all a favor if you refrained from asserting that again until you have found an RS that actually supports your position instead of pushing your personal interpretations of less than ten examples. MeteorMaker (talk) 08:45, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is a silly waste of time engaging you with references, since you invariably find some "justification" to dismiss them, generally for ideological reasons, eg the fact that many millions of Christians believe that Israel is the proper homeland for the Jews and thus are "Zionist" and disqualifies them, according to you. In looking back I see that these discussions (and the attendant demand for what you deem to be acceptable references) has been going on for near a year or more in multitudinous articles throughout wiki. I think there are better ways to improve wiki than through this sort of intellectual ethnic cleansing. But as a show of good faith, here is one more for your collection. [16] Tundrabuggy (talk) 03:59, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let me make one thing clear: Unlike you, I have never dismissed any sources. The purported examples of usage that have been dismissed are not sources, because they don't state anything about usage. For instance, your assertion that "Samaria is known today as Samaria by millions of Christian travelers"[17] is not valid unless you support it with a reliable source that says so. If you just post a link to a Christian Zionist-owned travel agency that uses the word "Samaria", that doesn't prove anything else than that this particular site has used it, and that you don't think WP:SYNTH applies to you. MeteorMaker (talk) 07:49, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I and other editors have put up numerous links to travel agencies (not all Christian-owned or Zionist-owned) to counter the insistence that Judea and/or Samaria are not "widely understood" outside of Israel. The existence of these links on the internet, and one reference to thousands of trips made previously to the area, allows the common-sense assertion that the terms are widely understood outside of Israel. You then proceeded to dismiss these sources, as you have all sources by anyone, and claimed further down that 'not one' of the given sources meets your requirements! Tundrabuggy (talk) 16:28, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh dear, oh dear! Here we go again. 100 scholarly sources arduously combed, conclusions drawn, and we have tourist agency brochures thrown in the spokes just as the wheel starts to roll.Nishidani (talk) 16:55, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This thread is in my view the most important; it neatly encapsulates what this whole dispute has been about. Nick proposes a simple, straightforward implementation of WP:NPOV, which states:

Wikipedia takes a descriptive rather than prescriptive approach in such cases, by using the common English language name as found in verifiable reliable sources. Where inanimate entities such as geographical features are concerned, the most common name used in English-language publications is generally used.

For his temerity in suggesting that we apply policy, he is accused variously of "denialism," advocating Orwellian newspeak, and engaging in "ethnic cleansing" of Wikipedia. Meanwhile his accusers – who combine ethnic chauvinism, intellectual fraud, rhetorical thuggery, and cynical victim politics in the most unseemly ways – do not offer a single policy-based argument.--G-Dett (talk) 12:00, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Content dispute. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 00:30, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest discussing this as part of the current development of guidelines at IPCOLL. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 01:49, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. This is an effort to achieve editing goals through arbitration. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 11:48, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per Malcolm Schosha.—Sandahl (talk) 17:19, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. G-Dett wrote "This thread is in my view the most important; it neatly encapsulates what this whole dispute has been about." Yes, this thread does seem to "encapsulate" what the dispute is actually about, and this thread reads exactly like a typical talk page dispute about article content. This thread very clearly demonstrates that the whole dispute is nothing more that a typical editing dispute, and not a matter for arbcom at all. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 20:42, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. I'm agnostic on whether "Samaria" should be used, but I'm emphatic that Arbcom shouldn't dictate it. So is Arbcom, I might add. – Quadell ^(talk) 16:25, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Article stability[edit]

2) Any reversion to non-standard descriptions or terminology, in any relevant article, by an editor notified or aware of this decision will leave that editor open to sanction

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Oppose. This is an attempt to pre-define terminology you don't like as "non-standard", even when well sourced. Canadian Monkey (talk) 22:15, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support. There is a well-defined procedure for determining the standard toponym in WP:NCGN. This is relatively unproblematic, unlike CM's position that synthesis of a few scattered counts of anecdotal evidence outweighs the unambiguous result of performing that procedure and nearly 100 reliable sources [18] that explicitly prove him wrong. MeteorMaker (talk) 08:04, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Any decision without teeth is a non-decision and will not solve the problem. pedrito - talk - 20.03.2009 10:53

Comment by others:

Opposed, based on the many times the ArbCom has stated that it does not decide content disputes. 6SJ7 (talk) 02:31, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Opposed. This is definitely ungood. Tundrabuggy (talk) 05:52, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Content dispute. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 00:30, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Arbitration should not enter into editing disputes, and particularly arbitration should not enter an editing dispute on the behalf of one side. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 11:59, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Presupposes that there is a "standard description". Is there? That's a decision on content. – Quadell ^(talk) 16:26, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposals by User:Ynhockey[edit]

Note: Replies to questions raised in this section will be made on the user's talk page if possible, to avoid a lengthy discussion here. As I see it, this should be a support/oppose discussion with concise comments, and this is why I reduced mine to 2–4 lines each.

Proposed principles[edit]

Separation of politics and geography[edit]

1) There should be as little mixing of geography and politics as possible, and Wikipedia should provide information both on the political status of the subject, as well as its geographical features. Because there are no disagreements as to the political or geographical status of a locality, only about the terminology, the issue should be WP:NPOV, not sources. See a full explanation of the concept here.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

In this discussion, the dichotomy has been rather artificial. Most of the time, we were under the assumption we were discussing geographical terms, then Jayjg determines the terms are in fact political — or the other way around, depending on whether he was defending or dismissing a particular source at the time. As many editors have pointed out, the "political" and "geographical" edition of the terms look exactly the same in both articles and sources, and treating them with totally different sets of rules only opens for endless wikilawyering. Better to use the terms only in the articles about themselves, and elaborate over the P/G distinction there. And remember, neither the "political" nor the "geographical" J&S have been shown to be widely used terms, which is what WP:NCGN requires. MeteorMaker (talk) 12:52, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agree that there are actually difficulties de-linking these concepts, as the discussion below Ynhockey's post indicates. Is not what we are looking for surely, when we say "Town X is in Area Y", a simple pointer as to where that town is on the map, for which we simply use the standard and commonly recognised name for Area Y? And where it is on the map pins down what political entity it is part of (although the issue is of course a little complicated here) --Nickhh (talk) 16:31, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What does 'the political . . . status of a locality' mean? There's a huge disagreement potential there, unless this is clarified.Nishidani (talk) 21:58, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As I am slowly showing on my work page here, User:Ynhockey's creation of maps which he uploads onto Wikipedia confuses consistently the political and the geographical, since at both Battle of Karameh and Susya (the last as late as last night, 29/03/2009)he creates maps which imply or explicitly assert that areas of the West Bank are within Israel. Suffice it to run one's mouse over the map on the Susya page to note a pop-up message and observe the sublimal packing of a false statement into the map. That is a clear and blatant interpretation of a geographic reality for political ends, and collapses the very distinction he is trying to draw. Cartography, as historians of cartography constantly tell us, has its political uses, and his own creation of these maps for Wiki underlines the point.An average editor might do this. An administrator who does so is abusing the principles of neutrality by inserting misleading, indeed false, interpretations that apparently reflect his ideological convictions in a manner I find disconcerting.Nishidani (talk) 09:00, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'm not sure I understand this proposal, and invite Ynhockey to restate it. According to a pretty large consensus of reliable sources, the geographic terms at the heart of this dispute are politicized, and use of them is political, which is why the majority of mainstream RSs avoid them. I'm not sure what force is to be found in Ynhockey's expressed wish that they "there should be as little mixing of geography and politics as possible," when that mixing is a fact, a done deed attested to by countless reliable sources. Ynhockey has done some fruitful, good-faith thinking about the issue, as seen in posts of his on other pages; when I invite him to restate or clarify this proposal, I'm not speaking rhetorically or ironically.--G-Dett (talk) 02:04, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Support for reasons stated by Ynhockey. 6SJ7 (talk) 01:45, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support for reasons stated by Ynhockey. Would like to add, in relation to his point regarding the use of Judea & Samaria as an administrative district discussed at his given link, that there is a policy in WP:NCGN that specifically speaks to administrative districts.

Question: How does this section (which simply reaffirms the principle to use English rather than foreign words) in any way amend or nullify the basic tenet of WP:NCGN, to use the widely accepted English name for a place? MeteorMaker (talk) 07:57, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: forgive me, but I am also slightly confused as to why we are now being pointed towards a section of WP:NCGN which discusses the generic terms used by countries or cities etc for their internal administrative/political sub-divisions (eg "district", "oblast", "state" or whatever), when the point at issue is what we should be calling specific areas, which in fact of course lie outside the boundaries of the country whose sometime terminology some are seeking to attach to it. Doubly irrelevant, surely? Sadly this habit of sending people off to look at random, recently-plucked-out-of-the-air sources or supposed points of policy at every turn (or perhaps hoping they won't go to look at all?) has been all too common a feature of this debate. I'm sorry, but it is either a consequence of straw-clutching desperation, genuine lack of comprehension or deliberate obfuscation and filibustering. Take your pick. --Nickhh (talk) 23:33, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support - a good position for keeping things neutral. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 10:56, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clarify - this is too ambiguous, and ambiguity is the root of this mess. One must remember that guidelines, in particular naming conventions, in general implicitly or explicitly take into consideration NPOV. For example, WP:MILMOS#CODENAME explicitly says that NPOV is the reason why operation names should not be used as article names. WP:NCGN appeals to this less forcefully: A name can be considered as widely accepted if a neutral and reliable source states: "X is the name most often used for this entity", but it is implied that neutrality is the goal. Furthermore, NPOV includes WP:UNDUE, which precisely conditions NPOV on what RS say. In other words, RS and NPOV are inseparable, and this propossal, as currently written, seems to ignore this.--Cerejota (talk) 12:35, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support -for reasons stated by Ynhockey.--00:18, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that's useful. "as little mixing of geography and politics as possible" is a content decision, essentially telling people how to organize or write the content of articles. – Quadell ^(talk) 16:30, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per Quadell. Content decision. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 17:00, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Centralized but separate discussion[edit]

2) All changes to the terminology should be made after a centralized discussion, which should be clearly known to WP:IPCOLL, WP:ISRAEL and WP:PALESTINE. Any simultaneous and similar changes in multiple articles on the subject without such a discussion, including such changes in the past, should be considered null and void, and reverted immediately. At the same time, there should not be one central discussion about all the 'involved' articles, because articles about Israeli localities are different from articles about Palestinians localities, which are different from articles on archaeological sites. Individual WikiProject considerations should also be taken into account.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Agree on the centralised discussion and WP:IPCOLL looks like the best place for it. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:07, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

The more centralisation the better in my view. --Nickhh (talk) 16:33, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Support WP:IPCOLL as being the place for centralized discussion. WP:ISRAEL and WP:PALESTINE both are too partisan.--Cerejota (talk) 12:37, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Amend: I might support a restriction against mass changes across multiple articles, but individual editors focussing on individual articles should at least be free to make changes in terminology that are incidental to other edits they're making. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 00:30, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The immediate retroactive reversion is a bad idea, but the underlying idea behind might be sound if it were reworded. – Quadell ^(talk) 16:39, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed findings of fact[edit]

NPOV, not sources[edit]

1) When there is an argument over terminology, and not content or ideas, there is no point in checking sources as long as a sufficient amount use each terminology (and in this case, they do). Wikipedians should come up with neutral terminology and article structure acceptable to both sides, and not argue over each one of the thousands of sources for each term. Disagreements are resolved through consensus-based discussion, rather than through tightly sticking to rules and procedures. —WP:BURO.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Oppose.

"A sufficient amount use each terminology (and in this case, they do)." Nope, they don't. Per WP:NCGN: "If the name is used at least three times as often as any other, in referring to the period, it is widely accepted." The Samaria-to-West Bank ratio has been found to be 1 to 70. [19] Also read this.
"there is no point in checking sources" — but then, how would we know? ;) MeteorMaker (talk) 12:14, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure about this threshold idea - how would we define when it has been reached? Does it mean we would include multiple alternative names for every place on each occasion the area is mentioned, using minority alternative names as well as the standard, mainstream one? And in this case, would this not mean that we should also be describing every town etc in the West Bank as being "in Palestine" (used commonly by the UN, some media and Palestinian sources) as well, thus having everything in triplicate? And does the contention that Wikipedia should "come up" with terminology (of any sort) fit with WP:OR? --Nickhh (talk) 16:40, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly oppose. Tallying and evaluating sources is absolutely central to resolution of naming conflicts. Both WP:NPOV and Wikipedia's detailed naming conventions are explicit about this. A proposal along these lines might begin to make sense in a naming dispute where the sources were comparable in number and kind. But in the present dispute – in which the numerical distribution is so enormously, lopsidedly in favor of "West Bank"; in which all of the high-profile, mainstream, influential RSs with a general reputation for neutrality line up on the side of "West Bank"; and in which countless secondary sources attest to the neutrality of "West Bank" and the politicization/marginalization of "Judea" and "Samaria" – a proposal like this is just bizarre.--G-Dett (talk) 02:23, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support - volume of sources are around the 10 million area. Wikipedians should indeed come up with neutral terminology and article structure acceptable to both sides. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaakobou (talk • contribs) 18:02, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Oppose - RS is as non-negotiable as NPOV, and they are not separate. Core policy is exempt from WP:BURO. Wikipedia is not a democracy, Wikipedia is a sources-based encyclopedia, and while consensus is a strong factor in editing, ArbCom should be an arbitrer of consensus, not of editing policy. Essentially what is being suggested here is that we WP:SYNTH via instead of creating encyclopedic entries based on reliable, verifiable sources. This is questioning the entire basis of the project as we currently known it.--Cerejota (talk) 12:42, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this is a FOF. – Quadell ^(talk) 16:33, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Content issue; and I think the issue is a little more complex than that. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 01:49, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like a content ruling. Stifle (talk) 13:23, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Correct sources for correct fields[edit]

2) A source is not either 'reliable' or 'not reliable'. Rather, a geographer should be cited for geographical terminology, and a political analyst can be cited for the political status of an area. An historian can be cited for the historical context. There should be no mixing of the sources. Moreover, there seems to be a trend to dismiss sources based on language, or the race/nationality or religion of the author. This should stop, so that only authors without the proper credentials can be dismissed.

Clarification of sourcing principles (as requested by Roger Davies):

Sources should be evaluated based on their academic credentials in a certain field. Therefore, the first requirement for any source (only for controversial statements!) should be solid academic credentials and/or serious peer review. The second criterion should be the correct field. For example, statements about the geographical features (on the topographical boundaries of Samaria or whatnot) should be attributed to geographers, statements on history or usage history (e.g. usage of West Bank vs. Judea and Samaria to refer to the area delimited by the Green Line) should be attributed to historians, and generic statements can be attributed to any academic related to the field with expertise in the Middle East/ME Studies. Thus, a professor of linguistics should not be used as a source, and a professor of political science should not be used other than possibly in the political implications of the dispute.
Mass media sources should be avoid as much as possible—they are used a lot on Wikipedia and considered acceptable (especially reputable ones like the New York Times), but for controversies like this, I really think they are usually inappropriate. The reason is, other than the fact that mass-media uses Wikipedia, that the mass-media employs political analysts and 'Middle East experts', and not academics, and there's no reason to cite it when there is an abundance of academic sources on the topic. The mass-media also takes little interest in the issues of local geography, which is central to this dispute.
Not dismissing sources based on nationality or political ideology—sources should be assessed based on academic credentials, not supposed POV as a result of nationality. For instance, it is natural that the most authorative and in-depth sources about Israeli geography originate in Israel and are in Hebrew, and I fully expect there to be sources in Arabic, or by Arab academics, about the geography of the area. These should be found and encouraged, rather than shunning 'involved' sources and resorting to quoting mass-media that has neither expertise nor interest in the details we're looking for.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Some clarification on sourcing principles might be helpful. — Roger Davies ^talk 08:44, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

"There seems to be a trend to dismiss sources based on language": Ynhockey should read this.
"There seems to be a trend to dismiss sources based on the nationality of the author": Ynhockey has not fully understood that examples from country X are not good as examples from outside country X, if examples from outside country X were what one intended to show.
"There seems to be a trend to dismiss sources based on the race or religion of the author": Ynhockey should specify what sources have been thusly dismissed and by whom, or else retract this statement.

MeteorMaker (talk) 12:00, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion continued here. UPDATE: As of 09-04-18, Ynhockey has still not provided diffs to support his accusations of dismissal of sources based on the race or religion of the author, and not retracted or amended his allegations. MeteorMaker (talk) 15:43, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re accusations of dismissal of sources: this is clarified in this thread on the talk page. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 12:23, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ynhockey has not posted in that thread, so it's unclear to me why you say that in response to the statement that he has yet not provided diffs to his accusations. Neither has anybody else, I might add. I have admonished him to retract it, [20][21] he has declined. [22] MeteorMaker (talk) 13:25, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. The first four sentences of this proposal are too fuzzily formulated to be useful, and the last two are categorically false.--G-Dett (talk) 02:31, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The proposals are vague because they presume source clarity, when there is much overlapping. Israel controls the internal cartography within the region, as per Ynhockey's 15 volume Gazetteer, which of course maps Israel and the West Bank as one geophysical reality, and his proposal seems to legitimate that as the basic source, in Hebrew, inaccessible to others, and one that, as well documented by Meron Benvenisti, an academic in a family of famous cartographers, is informed by political interests. I support his general proposition that I/P articles, all of them should have stricter rules governing RS, severely limiting the use of extra-academic sources, since the net is full of agenda-driven trash that makes for poor content. What Ynhockey's proposals ignore is the extensive high quality documentation by academic political, cartographic, geographic and linguistic sources that expressions like 'Judea and Samaria' are infused with a political objective, which collapses the tidy distinctions he makes. No editor on the 'Judea and Samaria' side addresses this vast evidence. But all editors on that side make much ado about our rejection of their limited number of parochial sources supporting that usage as being grounded in 'ethnic-based discrimination', whereas the objection is to one nation's usage imposed on an area beyond its recognized national borders, as opposed to standard English language usage, recognized as neutral by the majority of Israeli sources adduced so far. Ynhockey's recipé, to reply to a comment below, would risk 'institutionalizing' explicitly anti-Palestinian bias in Wikipedia. Nishidani (talk) 10:06, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Following the clarification above, I kind of think we're at risk of over-complicating this (quite apart from the problem of making artificial distinctions between "geographical" or "political" use, when of course the - ahem - boundaries are much fuzzier than that). We are not talking about complex scientific or academic issues. We are talking for the most part about how, often in fairly stubby articles, we pick a one or two word name for the wider area where a certain town, settlement or geographical feature is sited, eg "Truro is a city in the West Country". And if we are simply looking to confirm what the common, standard versions of area names in English are, the media is actually a very good place to go (for all its failings of accuracy in other areas) - indeed WP:NCGN specifically recommends it. We are writing a broad English language encyclopedia for a lay readership, not an exclusive academic journal on the topic of geography, archaeology, foreign language toponymy or whatever. And as it happens, we know that a fuller analysis of other sources - including those of other encyclopedias - would almost certainly reveal the same mainstream consensus against the use of "Judea" and/or "Samaria" in any event. And again, there has been no "dismissing" of sources on the basis of race or religion etc. Can this slur please stop? Now? --Nickhh (talk) 19:07, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Support for reasons stated by Ynhockey. I think MeteorMaker's approach would institutionalize anti-Israel bias on Wikipedia. (Not that there isn't too much of it already.) 6SJ7 (talk) 02:01, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support for reasons stated by Ynhockey. No ideological/ethnic/or country-of-origin tests. If the source is reliable for what it is being used to demonstrate, we are not obliged to further test it, even if we do not approve of that ideology. Tundrabuggy (talk) 03:51, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: In all the months of this discussion, the only person who has rejected a source for no other reason than his dislike for its "ideology" is Tundrabuggy himself. And I agree with Nickhh, the recurrent unsubstantiated claims of source rejection on ethnic grounds are becoming tiresome. MeteorMaker (talk) 12:35, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Perhaps the fact that MeteorMaker cannot appreciate that this comment (from diff above) from a source that he pushed as reliable :"The biblical themes of exile, return, the blossoming of the desert and the promise of the land have been transformed to support Zionist nationalist policies of ethnic cleansing" is actually a bigoted statement and an antisemitic accusation rather than an example of a simple "ideology" --speaks volumes to this whole case. Tundrabuggy (talk) 04:01, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, rabid, decontextualized accusations of antisemitism are the root of some of the issues. I fail to see the antisemitism in the statement, although it is obviously partisan, and perhaps exaggerated. But again, we are not here to validate view points, but to report them. You and others consistently fail to see this difference. --Cerejota (talk) 04:36, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - consensus determines what a RS is, including the un-involved cosensus of the wider community via RfC, RSN etc. This is actually contradictory with the above proposal citing WP:BURO, as it is really seeking to limit long-standing community views on RS, and even the letter of the RS: for example, the NYT is in no way an expert on geography, yet it is explicitly named as a RS in WP:RS. Yes, notability and relevancy are important to include a source, but they are to be decided by the community via consensus, not ArbCom.--Cerejota (talk) 12:48, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support per Tundrabuggy.—Sandahl (talk) 20:20, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I agree with the first 3 sentences. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 17:00, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed remedies[edit]

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Removal of terminology (ban)[edit]

1) Automatic ban for about 1 month (per admins' discretion) from making related edits to anyone who edits multiple articles at once removing the terminology they don't agree with. Should be retroactive to the users who already did this.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Strong oppose. Retroactive punishment: Bad, bad, bad. I hope Ynhockey sees where adopting such draconic rules would lead.

Question to Ynhockey: Let's say a (non-religious) editor finds 30 articles that contain the time designation "A.D." and changes them all to "CE". Does this incur the automatic ban? If not, why? MeteorMaker (talk) 11:41, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I also have concerns about "retroactive punishment", as a general principle. Also editors removing terminology that they do not agree with is not per se a bad thing (indeed, as an aside, WP needs a lot more removal of content generally; and where there is poor content, plenty of editors will not "agree" with it of course) - what perhaps this kind of provision should cover is something more like "editors removing or adding terminology that is not neutral or standard", or "not agreed on". --Nickhh (talk) 16:56, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. I don't think the idea of retroactive sanctions is a good one. Canadian Monkey (talk) 22:32, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Doesn't make any sense. Editing multiple articles is not the problem. Editing against policy is the problem, as is disruptive wikilawyering and deliberate stonewalling. Also, this is a dispute about whether to use controversial terms in Wikipedia's neutral voice; one party adds them, the other removes them. This proposal weirdly asks for only the removing side to be retroactively auto-banned. Crazy idea.--G-Dett (talk) 02:48, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Rather transparent attempt to get specific editors banned. Retroactively punishing editors for behaviour which at the time was not contrary to policy, neither in word nor in spirit, seems rather difficult to defend. pedrito - talk - 20.03.2009 08:56

Comment - Not advocating direct santioning on people I disagree with in content here, but I would like to note that edit warring is a violation of the previous Arbcom decision. Best I'm aware, edit-warring over multiple articles is indeed contrary to basic policies and everyone here are aware of both these policies as well as the linked Arbcom. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 11:18, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Oppose - retroactivity is nasty and egregious. In fact, a general amnesty should be part of every ArbCom.--Cerejota (talk) 12:50, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Retroactive" is probably unwarranted, but the rest of it could be a good idea. – Quadell ^(talk) 16:42, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support in principle but not the retroactive part. Tundrabuggy (talk) 03:35, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: how do you know whether someone disagrees with a terminology except by whether they remove it or not? Too strict. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 01:49, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You have a point, except I was thinking that a couple of editors have removed the terminology from over 50 articles each. That seems excessive to say the least! Tundrabuggy (talk) 19:23, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, that won't work. Stifle (talk) 13:23, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dismissal of sources (warning)[edit]

2) A clear warning should be given to all involved users about dismissing academic or otherwise reliable sources based on race, ethnicity, nationality, language, etc. Doing this amounts to soapboxing and it directly harms the ability to come to a consensus.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I fear this might be seen as a carte blanche by nationalist editors to stonewall all discussion of sources. Hypothetical example: A Romansh group of editors want "Svizra" to be used alongside "Switzerland" and point to 9,000 English-language Google hits. Editors who point out that most of the sources are in fact Romansh get silenced per Ynhockey's suggestion, and the faulty information sails proudly into Wikipedia.

But I might have misunderstood the suggestion. Two questions to Ynhockey:

In your opinion, would this proposed rule have been applicable to the J&S dispute, and if so, how?
In light of the fact that J&S have failed to fulfill the requirements of WP:NCGN and additionally have clear issues with neutrality, would this proposed rule help to make Wikipedia more accurate and neutral, and if so, how? MeteorMaker (talk) 11:26, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

From Ynhockey's reply here, I understand the answer to the first question to be "yes", and furthermore, that Ynhockey has joined Jayjg, Canadian Monkey, and Jaakobou in their diversionary campaign to discredit other editors as bigots. Since his proposal apparently makes it a sanctionable offense to point out that examples of "X" are invalid as proof of the existence of non-X if any of the parameters can be described in ethnic terms, I can only oppose. MeteorMaker (talk) 06:43, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Ynhockey, you should be ashamed of yourself. MeteorMaker has responded to this ridiculous attack somewhere in the neighborhood of a hundred+ times. I've also systematically and repeatedly dismantled it. Those who keep repeating the stupid meme, including you Ynhockey, have not once responded to or even acknowledged MeteorMaker's defense; you just keep repeating the meme. That's pretty serious, damning evidence of bad faith. I think you should consider removing this proposal; it makes it difficult, for me at least, to take seriously your other proposals and stated intentions.--G-Dett (talk) 11:44, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. As an abstract formulation it looks 'cool'. Contextually, it is a smear (by the way 'ethnicity' is the post 60s euphemism for 'race', so the phrasing is pleonastic). It is poorly framed also since it equivocates on languages, and would cancel all objections to an article being sourced substantially to non-English language sources most editors cannot control or read. The proposal was made in bad faith, repeated in bad faith, and constitutes a collective smear campaign. I can understand several others doing this. Someone to whom administrative powers has been delegated should be ultra careful in both pushing this hoax (it means, read properly, Nickhh, MM, myself, G-Dett, Pedrito, and several others are inspired by an antisemitic perspective in evaluating sources) and lending his or her authority to such a disgraceful maneuver. Nishidani (talk) 10:35, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Reliable sources are reliable. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 11:27, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Support This should go without saying. Reliable sources are reliable - that is the only test. NPOV allows us (no, requires us) to use both terms in an appropriate manner. Tundrabuggy (talk) 01:18, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Reliable sources are reliable, indeed, but we cannot censor opposition to sources on whatever grounds: unconvincing argument is unconvincing. By the way, Tundrabuggy would be immediately guilty of violating this: I have seen him/her violate this multiple times in multiple articles, most notoriously questioning Al Jazeera as an RS, even after Jimbo Wales argued it was an RS (and then used Jimbo's argument to "prove" it wasn't an RS!!!).--Cerejota (talk) 12:59, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't think this is an appropriate forum to start accusing other editors about other issues. But to the point and in defense: Jimbo Wales did not simply say Al Jazeera was a RS without qualifier ("generally", "as far as I know"). He said (and I quote) "Be careful about what Al-Jazeera is being a reliable source for," among other things. [23] Tundrabuggy (talk) 15:55, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Of what did I accuse you now? I mean, being inconsistent is not a crime, but the fact is you are inconsistent, and that is relevant. In ArbCom, contrary to article talk, we focus on the editors, not the content. It is extremely relevant to discussing theis propossal, as you seem to be supporting something that entirely applies to your own editing behavior. As to the qualifiers used by Jimbo, they are the same qualifiers used in WP:RS, which is my contention everywhere: if people understood the spirit of policy instead of trying to wikilawyer their POV, we wouldn't be here, and would be editing instead.--Cerejota (talk) 14:13, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have again accused me of being inconsistent. Not a sin, but still a WP:NPA. Your illustration, however, is incorrect. When did I ever reject a source based on "race, ethnicity, nationality, or language" of the writer? I don't think you can find one. However, it is also true that in a conflict area, such as this, it is not unreasonable to expect the 'other side' to attempt to insert false propaganda into media. One needs to be careful about this, as the supporters on wiki on both sides will generally be less than assiduous in hard looking at their preferred source(s). Tundrabuggy (talk) 03:46, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am not accusing, I am stating a fact. However, keep strawman arguments down: I have not argued you "reject a source based on "race, ethnicity, nationality, or language". I argued that you have in the past applied policy inconsistently. For example, you have argued for extensive background information to be included in some articles - even to the point of disruption - and then argued in others that background information be reduced or eliminated using arguments that are 180 degrees opposite. Tundra, please remember there is a record here (diff link). Funny thing is, that when I used the excellent "fleas" analogy to attack the extension of the already overlage Gaza war article background sectionyou didn't hear it. So please, be clear on what I do "accuse" you of.--Cerejota (talk) 04:48, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Language" is tricky, since this is absolutely an English-language encyclopedia. The rest is solid though. – Quadell ^(talk) 16:44, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose English-language sources should be used by preference. Foreign language ones are much harder for reader to verify and should only be used when no sources of equivalent quality can be found in English. Further caution should be exercised when a subject is as politicised as the Arab-Israeli dispute, (or similar disputes in Ireland, Kashmir, Cyprus, Sri Lanka etc.) and editors should be wary if sources from one national or ethnic side of a dispute dominate.--Peter cohen (talk) 19:02, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. This would prevent us from answering the question of whether a term is used outside a given region, which may be a fair question. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 01:49, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed enforcement[edit]

Publication[edit]

1) Administrators who frequent WP:AE should receive clear instructions on what sanctions to apply if any rules set forth by ArbCom are violated. The case should be made public and easily accessible to anyone visiting WP:AE (as should all cases involving hundreds of articles and at least a dozen users, for that matter)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Comment This is the way it works now. For example, WP:ARBPIA enforcement keeps a public log of all admin actions regarding AE around ARBPIA. So I do not see the point? Clarify?--Cerejota (talk) 13:00, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposals by Cla68[edit]

Proposed principles[edit]

Neutral editing (NPOV)[edit]

1) WP:NPOV, a core Wikipedia policy, states clearly that a neutral point of view "is non-negotiable and expected of all articles, and of all article editors."

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Support, kind of obvious of course, but worth restating. --Nickhh (talk) 17:12, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support, with one minor qualification. It may be useful to break down a little what we mean by neutrality when speaking of editors. One type of editor (A) may make good, policy-compliant edits that in the aggregate reveal their non-neutrality; they might, for example, systematically remove possible BLP violations from articles about Israeli politicians and pro-Israel pundits, while ignoring and tacitly condoning similar violations on the other "side." Another type of editor (B) reveals his or her 'bias' on individual articles through dubious content contributions, occasional wikilawyering, etc. that always seem to favor a certain side. A third type (C) treats WP policies, guidelines, and principles as strategic weapons, and is systematically inconsistent. They might for example regularly remove content critical of pro-Israeli pundits "per BLP" (citing the higher source-standards required for articles on living people) while simultaneously adding similarly sourced content to articles on pro-Palestinian pundits, simply saying that it's "sourced and relevant," dodging or ignoring the standards issue and refusing detailed discussion. Faced with questions about inconsistency, type C editors will point to OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and suggest that if you have issues with another article, you should take them up there; meanwhile in another, even simultaneous dispute, they will explicitly demand consistency and make their case through analogies with other articles. And so on.

Type A editors are a credit to the project, despite what we may glean about their motivations and non-neutral views. Type B editors can be a nuisance to deal with, but are still probably a net gain for the project. That is to say, Wikipedia can make use of their energies, and has consensus mechanisms more than adequate to deal with their biases, which may be unconscious as well as conscious. Many editors debut as type B editors, moreover, only to find themselves evolving and improving with the tutelage and example of the community. Depending on their level of gaming skill and community influence, however, type C editors may be too much for the policies and mechanisms they are working consciously, after all, to undermine. They damage and embarrass the project by inserting and protecting inferior or propagandistic content, and they help to destroy community trust and morale through their contempt for Wikipedia's basic principles. In my view, only type C editors require the intervention of Arbcom; thankfully, even in contentious areas of the encyclopedia, such as this one, they are very rare.--G-Dett (talk) 23:50, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support. It's obvious, but this whole debate is about editors forgetting obvious and basic rules. pedrito - talk - 20.03.2009 11:03

Comment by others:

Proposed. IronDuke's statements here and here appearing to support POV editing as an acceptable part of the editing process are incorrect and disappointing. Purposeful POV editing is not acceptable and the policy on this is clear. Cla68 (talk) 00:19, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support, and agree with G-Dett's cogent analysis of how POV editing is most problematic in type C editors. The evidence presented so far indicates that we have at least one such editor as a party to this case and the disruption created needs to be addressed. Tiamut^talk 14:23, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support. All editors have a POV. But all editors should be obliged to revert, challenge or cancel anything that violates wikipedia's NPOV policy. It is especially incumbent on editors to do this in conscience when they see material that otherwise looks like supporting their personal POV, but which violates Wiki policy. It is not only correct policy. Doing this builds collegial confidence in the feeling that the aims of the encyclopedia trump personal POV-pushing.Nishidani (talk) 14:44, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support Non-negotiable policy is non-negotiable.--Cerejota (talk) 13:01, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support the first part. Asking editors to have a NPOV is like asking all editors to love one another. Wonderful in theory, useless in practice. And I'm sorry if you were disappointed by my remarks, Cla68. Know that I find your attempt to mine ancient diffs in an effort to demonize Jay equally disappointing, if not more so. That kind of punitive mentality is one of the things that makes editing in this area so difficult. IronDuke 15:52, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support, sure. – Quadell ^(talk) 16:41, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Core policy. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 01:49, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No personal attacks (NPA)[edit]

2) Accusing or implying that another editor is bigoted or prejudiced against any ethnic group without clear evidence is a violation of WP:NPA.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Support. Again, obvious surely - if there is evidence, use it to back any such claim up and editors behaving that way should quite correctly be busted. If there's no evidence, keep quiet and leave smears of this sort off discussion pages. Unfounded accusations of racism etc have been a real problem here, and have even continued across the ArbCom discussions. --Nickhh (talk) 17:15, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support, a no-brainer. In this case, not only were the accusations of bigotry unsupported, but when the accused contested them, the accusers refused to discuss the matter – while continuing, dozens of times, to repeat the charge.--G-Dett (talk) 02:52, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support per Tiamut, G-Dett and Nickhh. MeteorMaker (talk) 09:02, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Full Support. Unfounded accusations of the sort should be dealt with severely, as they are incredibly damaging to the editors involved. pedrito - talk - 20.03.2009 11:05

Comment by others:

Proposed, based on evidence presented in this case. Cla68 (talk) 00:26, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Opposed. This may seem reasonable on the surface, but when there are attack-articles and attack-edits against particular countries or people, some of the discussion may inevitably concern the motivations of the editors involved. This proposal would just create warring about whether there is "clear evidence" in a particular situation -- even with the "implying" part. If the "implying" part was left in -- well, the ArbCom should only do this if it ready to decide hundreds of cases about what it means. 6SJ7 (talk) 02:11, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: If they are indeed that many, those hundreds of cases that would otherwise have gone unsanctioned is a huge civility problem that needs to be dealt with. MeteorMaker (talk) 09:02, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Making unfounded accusations smearing someone as a racist violates WP:NPA. Such accusations, if they are made, should always be accompanied by strong evidence. If someone overreacts or reads into statements something that is not there, making the accusation once, they should not be penalized, if they are willing to acknowledge their mistake and refrain from parroting the accusation elsewhere. In this case, repeated accusations made by numerous editors against Meteormaker that he is a bigot for insisting that Israeli sources cannot be used as examples of non-Israeli usage rely on a willful omission of the context in which this discrimination is being applied. Despite multiple requests from multiple editors that those making the accusations acknwoledge this context, none has been forthcoming. As such, I think all the editors who have done so (Canadian Monkey, Jaakobou, Jayjg, are there others?) should face sanctions for persistent personal attacks. That is, unless they are willing to admit the error of their ways here, and the community decides to forgive them. Tiamut^talk 14:35, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support - of course, supporting this makes me an anti-semitic Hamas operative.--Cerejota (talk) 13:03, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Muddy pronouncements such as this provide a recipe for selective enforcement. IronDuke 15:20, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. To those with experience with such things, there is little doubt that there are editors on WP who are antisemitic, or anti-African American, or anti-Catholic, etc. Why should sanctions be placed on those who feelings are injured by bias? Why should those who are suspect, be protected by demands for "proof". This proposal is absurd. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 12:16, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Why should those who are suspect, be protected by demands for "proof"." :O MeteorMaker (talk) 14:20, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Opposed Muddy pronouncement is correct. "Implying" that an editor is "prejudiced" or "biased" against any ethnic group is murky enough, add to it the requirement of "clear proof" and you have a wikilawyering nightmare and a bad-faith orgy. Agree with Malcolm Schosha, and IronDuke. It would be a disaster for Wikipedia. Tundrabuggy (talk) 05:37, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to speak to Tiamut's point that "repeated accusations made by numerous editors against Meteormaker that he is a bigot for insisting that Israeli sources cannot be used as examples of non-Israeli usage rely on a willful omission of the context in which this discrimination is being applied." That is not quite accurate. MM rejected all sources, not simply Israeli sources. He rejected sources from all over the world. He rejected an American woman because she collected for an Israel-related charity from her synagogue. He rejected several travel agencies because their owners (or trip guides) were "Zionists." These demonstrated clear examples of non-Israeli usage, and the distinctions drawn by MM were entirely arbitrary, and go well beyond a simple "insistence that Israeli sources not be used". Tundrabuggy (talk) 05:37, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tiamut's point about "willful omission of the context" couldn't have been illustrated better. MeteorMaker (talk) 07:46, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

MM's distinction was quite logical, has nothing to do with racism, but it was interpreted as such, I presume as a tactical ploy, to raise the abused innuendo of anti-Semitism, once attempts to prove the theory that 'Samaria/Judea' was in common use outside of one particular national or ethnic cultural frame failed. If there are anti-Semites in the I/P area, I think you should get your evidence together and make a case before arbitration, as it is an extremely serious charge, and I and others would be happy to oblige in moves to ban the persons you or anyone else show are anti-semitic. On the other hand, evidence for the fact that anti-Semitism is thrown at many I/P editors is extensive. You'll find I, to name just one of many, have had it thrown at me five times, if you trawl my archives or arbitration records.Nishidani (talk) 11:27, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. First off, "implying" is tricky. It's very easy to believe that someone is implying something about you. Second, I don't think it's a personal attack (though perhaps a AGF failure) to conclude that an editor has a nationalistic bias. – Quadell ^(talk) 16:48, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Whether there is clear evidence or not will be a matter of opinion. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 01:49, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Per Quadell.—Sandahl (talk) 22:52, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redflag: threaded discussion closed, but preserved for Arbitrator attention

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Concerning antisemitism, from my point of view Nishidani's suggestion ("If there are anti-Semites in the I/P area, I think you should get your evidence together and make a case before arbitration, as it is an extremely serious charge...") is complete nonsense. It seems to me that, in the context of WP, accusations of antisemitism against users are a special case of Wikipedia:Don't be a dick. It is troubling to deal with antisemitic dicks but (speaking for myself) it is something that I learned to live with. The suggestion that the problem could be settled by an arbcom case shows a fundamental misunderstanding of what antisemitism is, and how Jews cope with the problem of antisemitism.

The garden variety antisemite does not wish that he/she could have been in charge of the gas chamber at Auschwitz. They are just people who do not like Jews, who may occasionally make snide remarks, and show a general pervasive attitude of dismissiveness and disrespect. My personal view is that probably 90-100% of the users who initiated this arbcom case, and who support it, are in that category. Fighting back that level of antisemitism, which is so common, would be like fighting back the tide; and although Jews might complain about it, they virtually never try to make any kind of case -- with formal charges -- about it. Its just one of life's crummy annoyances. Getting rid of the average antisemite, would be like trying to get rid of the average dick: unfortunately hopeless. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 13:52, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You just called a number of editors antisemites without any type of evidence backing up the charge. Lovely. Unfortunately, getting rid of the average dick who thinks that is acceptable behavior is apparently hopeless. Nableezy (talk) 15:56, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nableezy, you will note that I am not the one who initiated this thread. I did try to explain an important point on this issue, as I understand it. I am sorry if you found what I said unpleasant. It seems to me that, at its foundation, your reaction reflects the basic premise of this entire arbcam case: that you want to be protected from views that you dislike. But if the topic is disputed, it is irrational to think you can edit in that very disputed area without other editors sometimes expressing, and defending, views you very much want not to hear. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 16:37, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, what I want to be protected from is people using the charge of antisemitism without basis. If you can provide some evidence of antisemitism then please do so in the evidence section. But calling others antisemites without anything backing up the charge is something that should not be tolerated. Antisemitism, where it exists in the encyclopedia, should be systematically rooted out, just as any other form of racism. But those who make such charges to silence debate through fear of being branded a bigot should likewise be systematically rooted out. It has no place here, where we are trying to build an encyclopedia. I am sorry you cannot see that to brand somebody as an antisemite without basis or evidence, and refusing to provide that evidence, is truly despicable. The sole purpose of such a charge without basis is to silence debate. How that can be allowed in discussion amongst editors of an encyclopedia is beyond me. Nableezy (talk) 17:21, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am very much interested in a justification for keeping this thread around. Anyone?--Tznkai (talk) 21:33, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While I accept that it has gone off on a bit of tangent and is probably clogging up this page somewhat, I think some of what's been added here is quite revealing as to the underlying problems that have been going on. We have someone accusing others of being racists and anti-semites (basically anyone who disagrees with them, it would seem), and even being as bold as to say that he doesn't need to provide any proof of this - his personal suspicion is enough to allow him to cast this smear around, repeatedly; while oddly claiming that people who take offence at this simply wish to be "protected from views [they] dislike", like little girly-men or something. Other editors seem to be equally blase about such allegations and seem to believe that there is some exemption from WP:NPA that allows this kind of accusation to be made, as it has been across this debate. I'd be more than happy for ArbCom to take quite a long look at this thread and take on board some of the comments being made here.--Nickhh (talk) 22:31, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am concerned by the escalated rhetoric and combative tone - and if that is what we are demonstrating to ArbCom, they have plenty of examples. In the meantime, there is a great deal of insult and counter insult, and I'm wondering if there was a salient point anywhere.--Tznkai (talk) 22:38, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I accept that and acknowledge the problem, generally speaking. However outright and repeated accusations of racism against other editors are a big step above and beyond the occasional example of heated debate and hyperbole. And they are only coming from one direction. --Nickhh (talk) 22:51, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Nick that this thread is illuminating. You're right Tznkai that removing it would not leave the page short on verbal nastiness for the committee's delectation. But given that buckshot accusations of antisemitism is one of the issues explicitly under review here, maybe this sorry thread's a keeper. I'm sorry about my inane riposte to Malcolm. I couldn't help it, I thought it was a funny thing to say.--G-Dett (talk) 23:10, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tznkai, I would like to keep the thread because there are some important points concerning this case in it. I do not have time now to reply to the criticisms of what I wrote, but will reply tomorrow as early as possible....but please remember that I do have real life obligations on my time, so be patient. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 00:49, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Malcolm, I'm the one who started this RfArb, so, according to your comment, I am 90-100% antisemitic. Either back it up with something or delete that statement immediately. You can not float defamatory accusations of the sort and then "not have time right now to reply to the criticisms". If this doesn't happen soon (i.e. today), this is going directly to WP:AE. Cheers, pedrito - talk - 02.04.2009 07:48

Actually, other editors have already asked you to do exactly that, which you have not. I have posted at WP:AE. See you there. pedrito - talk - 02.04.2009 08:11

Malcolm has been blocked for 24 hours for personal attacks. This evidences that 1) this thread is redundant (ie AE on ARBPIA works) 2) the deep irony of Malcolm being a case in point on why this is point is being raised. Wanton accusations of antisemitism are becoming a new form of Godwin's law, in which "antisemite" takes place of "nazi", but the suspension of all generally accepted logic is the same - not to mention a total disregard of WP:BATTLE/WP:NPA. I oppose hiding this thread as Arbs need to see it. --Cerejota (talk) 12:52, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Acutally, this is a prime example of the whole process not working... Malcolm had been blocked for similar issues in January for a week and was let go with a stern warning that the next slip-up would cost him more (see here). Now he gets 24 hours. He neither has to apologise or strike his accusations. Lovely. Cheers, pedrito - talk - 02.04.2009 12:57

I've elected to split the baby here. This portion of the thread is closed, and I am warning you now I will likely interpret any attempt to continue the conversation to be disruptive to the Arbitration proceeding. If however, any users feels that another user participating in this thread has conducted themselves in a way that is relevant to this case, I invite them to add to their evidence sections accordingly.--Tznkai (talk) 13:44, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Those on one side of the Israel/Palestine disputed articles are anti-Zionists. It is known that a high percentage of anti-Zionists are antisemitic [24]. It is not WP:NPA to point out a statistical fact about a group. Also, garden variety antisemites are not all that big a deal, even if sometimes their positions are very problematic. It is important to understand that saying something is antisemitic can not be assumed a comparison to Nazis. In fact I know of cases in which low to intermediate level antisemites risked their own lives to save Jews from Nazis, because (apparently) their foundational morality was stronger than their more superficial prejudices. It needs to be remembered that there are levels of antisemitism, and there are important differences in those levels [25]. I see this particular item in the case is just an effort to gag editors, who have complaints, by ignoring the sources that support the claim, and by unfair accusations that such statements amount to calling editors Nazis. That is nonsense. The general statement that there are antisemites among anti-Zionists, as a group, does not need diffs because the statement is supported by WP:RS, and it is not -- in any case -- the extreme accusation it is made out to be.

It seems to me that, in the context of WP, accusations of antisemitism against users are a special case of Wikipedia:Don't be a dick. It is troubling to deal with antisemitic dicks but (speaking for myself) it is something that I learned to live with. The suggestion that the problem could be settled by an arbcom case shows a fundamental misunderstanding of what antisemitism is, and how Jews cope with the problem of antisemitism.

The garden variety antisemite does not wish that he/she could have been in charge of the gas chamber at Auschwitz. They are just people who do not like Jews, who may occasionally make snide remarks, and show a general pervasive attitude of dismissiveness and disrespect. It is my personal view is that probably over 90% of anti-Zionists, (including WP anti-Zionists) are in that category. Fighting back that level of antisemitism, which is so common, would be like fighting back the tide; and although Jews might complain about it, they virtually never try to make any kind of case -- with formal charges -- about it. Its just one of life's crummy annoyances. Getting rid of the average antisemite, would be like trying to get rid of the average dick: unfortunately hopeless.

This is a clarification of my previous statement on the subject. (My reply was delayed because of some whining about my pessimistic view of the situation, which whining -- combined with an administrator misunderstanding the meaning of my edit -- resulted in my getting sent into wiki-exile.) Malcolm Schosha (talk) 12:34, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Malcolm, while you are entitled to your personal opinion, this last post of yours is pure WP:SOAP which basically repeats the personal attack (i.e. that 90% of anti-Zionist editors here at Wikipedia are anti-Semites) that got you blocked only days ago. Please strike, withdraw or otherwise refactor. Tiamut^talk 12:43, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pedrito had demanded that I "back up" my previous edit, but that was when I was logged out for the day; and then I was sent into wiki-exile without being given time to further explain. Today's edit is that previously requested back up. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 13:15, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What Pedrito had in mind was backing up with some kind of evidence (preferably diffs) of the anti-Semitism you accuse 90% of the editors here of. If you can't, an apology would be appropriate (as would, IMO, a significantly harsher reprimand than your last 24-hour block for incivility). MeteorMaker (talk) 13:41, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you still talking about diffs when I have explained that refs, not diffs, are what support what I said about anti-Zionists as a group? Neither my former edit, nor today's edit, were addressed to individuals. The subject was anti-Zionists as a group, and the accusation that either edit is a personal attack misrepresents of what I actually wrote. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 13:45, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, let me get this straight. You have no diffs at all to support your inflammatory claim that 90-100% of the editors here are anti-Semites, yet you return after a 24-hour block and repeat the exact same gross incivility that caused the block. The "evidence" you present now only shows an extremely flawed understanding of how statistics and set theory work. It's like you use a survey that shows that disabled people are the least likely to play soccer to draw the conclusion that 90-100% of all people who don't play soccer must be in a wheelchair — without even knowing if the group of people you made your cocksure remark about play soccer or not in the first place. MeteorMaker (talk) 14:05, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am not talking about individual editors. Why is that so hard for you to understand? I have not accused an editor of anything. What I have said is that it is reasonable to think that a certain percentage of anti-Zionists are antisemitic. You want to present this as WP:NPA, even though there has been no personal attack. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 14:13, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That little piece of wikilawyering did not work for you the last time, and there is no reason to believe you can use it to evade a block this time either. Regardless, it's tempting to use your own argument against you: "Why should those who are suspect, be protected by demands for proof". MeteorMaker (talk) 14:21, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have explained this the way I think is correct, and I am disinclined to change because of you do not like it. My line of thinking, put simply, is this:

Some anti-Zionists are antisemitic (premise)
The group of WP editors who support this arbcom case are anti-Zionists (premise)
Some of the WP editors who support this arbcom case are antisemitic (conclusion)

But my main point never had anything to do with anti-Zionist WP editors, but with the group of anti-Zionists in general. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 14:51, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What got you blocked was your claim that 90-100% of the editors here are anti-Semites, so it's irrelevant what your "main point" was, the only thing that matters is that you choose to come here and repeat your unsubstantiated accusation again. I'm not sure if the lack of understanding of basic logic your explanation demonstrates should count as extenuating or aggravating. MeteorMaker (talk) 15:13, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anything to say beyond the accusations and threats? Malcolm Schosha (talk) 16:07, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey guys, I think it's best not to respond any more to this. He's just poking everyone with a stick. I've notified User: Tznkai and User:Sandstein about Malcolm's re-opening of this thread and the repetition of the same attacks he's been blocked for twice now. --Nickhh (talk) 16:17, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thread closed. Admonishment to follow.--Tznkai (talk) 17:38, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alright. Earlier I said concerning the pointless thread above "I will likely interpret any attempt to continue the conversation to be disruptive to the Arbitration proceeding." We could argue whether or not it was a personal attack or not, but I'd rather make it clear that it was not productive, that I've indicated that hammering it again and again would be unproductive, and that it is unproductive. Do not reopen this thread. Do not respond to someone else who reopens this thread. Find something useful to do.--Tznkai (talk) 17:42, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

N.B Malcolm has been blocked for 48 hours, and I have asked for a temporary injunction concerning this matter here. Needless to say, if I continue to see these sorts of shenanigans from anyone, they will find themselves in a similar situation. Now, for some of us it is Passover, for others Easter, for most Spring time, and for just about everyone, the weekend. Please, find an excuse to go do something heartwarming and healthy in real life, and foster some peace and reconciliation. Good day.--Tznkai (talk) 18:02, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Administrator conduct[edit]

2) Administrators, especially those entrusted with the ultra-sensitive checkuser and oversight privileges, are expected to exemplify appropriate decorum and adherance to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Oppose. None of the issues being discussed in this case are related to use of administrative tools. This proposal seems to have been crafted to fit a particular user, in an inappropriate way. The very proposal is, in my mind, a breach of WP:AGF and WP:NPA, brought on by a previous history of bad interactions between the proposer and the party he is targeting, which has nothing to do with this case. Canadian Monkey (talk) 22:31, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question How so? I mean, I would think this is a no-brianer, but before supporting or opposing, I want to her why this violates WP:AGF and WP:NPA. I am in particular interested in hearing how a general statement of principle could become a personal attack. --Cerejota (talk) 13:05, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

what is being framed here as a "principle" has no bearing on the case, in which no one has alleged administrative misconduct. There is only one party to this case who is a checkuser and has oversight rights - so what this proposed "principle" amounts to is a recommendation that applies only to Jayjg. In legal terminology, what is being proposed here is a law, or principle, which clearly targets a specific individual. Most legal systems have explicit prohibitions on this kind of thing. Masking this personally-targeted findings as a proposed "principle" is a personal attack. Canadian Monkey (talk) 23:13, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can see the point of "law", indeed a principle applicable only to one person is not a principle. However, proposing it is not a personal attack, but a leigitimate, if mistaken, part of this process - so I suggest you consider it unwise to use the term. Accusations of personal attacks are over used here, as if we were all 12 year old kids with fragile egos. I am willing to bet that Jayjg is really not in the one bit concerned or offended by this, and laughes it out as the cost of doing business. --Cerejota (talk) 06:13, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Goes without saying really. MeteorMaker (talk) 23:19, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support, though I'd prefer 'strict coherence in the application of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines'. Nishidani (talk) 21:53, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Well said. Adminship involves more than use of the tools.--G-Dett (talk) 02:55, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed. Cla68 (talk) 01:12, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Opposed as per Canadian Monkey. Tundrabuggy (talk) 05:58, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support Elementary really. Editors, particularly new editors, often look to the behaviour of admins as an example to emulate. Admins set the tone and the limits of acceptable behaviour at Wikipedia, not just through their admin actions, but also by how they interact with the community and how they edit. When an admin uses policies selectively, or as a weapon, or when he/she engages in personal attacks against others, it creates a toxic editing environment and an atmosphere of arbitrairness and impunity. Tiamut^talk 14:41, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: You wouldn't have anyone specific in mind in the way that's worded, would you? ;)

Oppose. Adminship is no big deal, and admins are expected to follow the rules just like everyone else. We're not expected to be superhuman. – Quadell ^(talk) 16:49, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the reason most administrators received the tools was precisely because they demonstrated good policy knowledge, which also means that if there is an argument between an administrator and a non-admin about policy interpretation, the admin is usually right and the other user is usually wrong (statistically speaking). It seems that this post specifically targets Jayjg, as he is the only party in this case with checkuser and oversight privileges, which could mean that this post implies that Jayjg either incorrectly interprets policy, or knows it well but purposely ignores it. The first assertion is clearly false, and through my close interaction with Jayjg I have come to know that he understands policy extremely well, as indeed administrators are expected to. As a very 'old' Wikipedian, I am sure he also knows better than most users why exactly the policies were written and what cases they apply to. Therefore, I believe the statement should not be Administrators are expected to exemplify appropriate decorum and adherance to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, but Editors are expected to take the advice of uninvolved administrators on adherence to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Having said that, I support the notion that admins are expected to set an example themselves, but fully reject the singling out of Jayjg in this case. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 00:42, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think the problem, if we are to put it explicitly, is not that Jay doesn't know policy, nor even that he ignores it; but rather that he systematically distorts, cynically exploits, and deliberately misrepresents it, due to his rather pronounced and crippling conflict of interest. His policy cynicism has lain waste to community trust on I/P pages, and is damaging the encyclopedia.--G-Dett (talk) 02:26, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The comment above by G-Dett is simply a long string of personal attacks: IE Jayjg "systematically distorts," "cynically exploits" ("cynically," of course, assumes bad faith), and "deliberately misrepresents" (further assumptions of bad faith) and finally that he has a "crippling" COI. As for laying waste to "community trust on I/P pages," one would have to imagine that if there are objective readers of these pages out there, they would roar with laughter over that one. If such comments are descriptive of G-Dett's remarks on article talk pages, she clearly bears her own responsibility for laying waste the "community trust" with poisonous assumptions about editors who may not share her POV. Tundrabuggy (talk) 17:10, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per Canadian monkey. Stating that one considers what another editor has done to be "distasteful" in no way amounts to a false accusation. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 17:00, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe nobody has claimed that either. Read G-Dett's comment above for a brief overview how this applies to Jayjg. MeteorMaker (talk) 17:18, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed findings of fact[edit]

Jayjg[edit]

1) Jayjg violated WP:NPOV with edits and talk page discussion comments that were clearly oriented towards promoting a particular POV.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Oppose. This is a content dispute, and jayjg is presenting one side of the dispute, other editors their side. No one single party here is more guilty of POV than the other, and to propose such a one-sided remedy is not productive. Canadian Monkey (talk) 22:27, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Content disputes are relatively easy to resolve when the evidence so clearly favors one side. Jayjg has failed to present anything else than synthesized or anecdotal evidence, and resorted to well-documented obstructionism, sometimes highly puerile [26][27], in order to promote his POV. Note that nobody has opposed the view that Jayjg is guilty of POV, while his opponents regard themselves as neutral (based on the fact that they promote a term that is universally regarded as neutral). MeteorMaker (talk) 13:14, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I tend to agree with this assertion, however he is not alone in this, and I'm not sure I'm in favour of singling out editors, not yet at least. If, once we've been through this process, things continue in a similar way elsewhere, that's another matter. There's a problem with nationalist/partisan editing on I-P articles masquerading as compliance with policy, and since it is mostly done by (a relatively large number) of reasonably intelligent and articulate long-standing English-speaking editors - who tend to favour what might be termed a fairly right-wing Israeli perspective on the Mid East conflict - it passes under the radar more often than the more obvious "Iran best nation in the world!" junk inserted by random IP editors. --Nickhh (talk) 17:22, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support. The evidence presented is overwhelming, and has yet to be substantively challenged by anyone.--G-Dett (talk) 14:48, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support. As per User:G-Dett. pedrito - talk - 20.03.2009 08:45

Comment by others:

Proposed. I believe the evidence supporting this is compelling. Although evidence is presented showing that other editors may also be guilty of this, Jayjg's appear to be the most egregious. Evidence also appears to show that this behavior is not isolated to this case. Cla68 (talk) 00:23, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(Response to Nickhh). I agree that the evidence shows that others may also be pushing POV and I may add more proposed findings in response at a later time. Cla68 (talk) 21:42, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Opposed. This is nonsense. This proposal is just part of the ongoing attack on a particular admin/editor and is also part of a campaign to intimidate editors who are promoting neutrality on the subject matter at issue. (This comment originally made March 15 but inadvertently left incomplete at that time.) 6SJ7 (talk) 04:25, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Opposed. A clear case of the psychological phenomenon of projection. Tundrabuggy (talk) 06:06, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support Agree with G-Dett. She and Mackan79, among others have gone to much trouble to highlight how Jayjg has selectively used and interpreted policy to pursue his POV, and not just in this latest conflagration, but in the past as well. No analysis to debunk these findings has been undertaken or presented. Tiamut^talk 14:57, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

this seems to be what the evidence shows. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 20:50, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Opposed per 6SJ7. —Sandahl (talk) 17:46, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose—almost every editor in this dispute has accused almost every other editor (of the opposing 'side', I guess) of POV-pushing. It will be a sad day when Jayjg, one of the most productive editors in this dispute and Wikipedia as a whole, is singled out for this accusation. Although I assume that Cla68's intentions were good, this 'finding of fact' suggestion seems a lot like a bad faith borderline-personal attack. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 21:58, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can you explain how this proposal looks anything like a personal attack, or like bad faith? All I see is a straight-forward proposal that Jayjg has edited contrary to a Wikipedia policy. Mackan79 (talk) 07:05, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's because he saw fit to single out Jayjg for this accusation, and later added similar accusations against others in different sections (please continue discussion on talk or user talk if interested). --Ynhockey ^(Talk) 13:32, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you're going to say that a proposal is a personal attack or shows bad faith, my thought was that you should explain why you would say that, or at least point to your explanation if it's somewhere else. Your comment strikes me as extremely counterintuitive, and unsupported. That's a comment for here, of course, and not for elsewhere. Mackan79 (talk) 18:19, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, that's not how NPOV works. Talk page discussion comments that were usually oriented towards one outcome or another; that's why we have talk pages. If the edits showed clear violations, then just say that... but in my view the evidence page has insufficient diff-evidence to show large-scale NPOV violations from this particulary user. – Quadell ^(talk) 16:54, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Generally speaking, the neutral point of view is considered an article level goal. That is, articles violate NPOV - editors do not. (Their edits can, but thats what the wiki process is supposed to handle, and we don't sanction people for being biased). What I think Cal68 is submitting here is "Jayjg (deliberately) made edits that compromised the neutrality of various articles" which is a serious behavioral accusation. I do not wish to comment on the substance of that accusation, but I do want us to get the frame for this debate settled.--Tznkai (talk) 21:40, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But the diffs are to talk page edits. Cla68 isn't saying "Jayjg (deliberately) made edits that compromised the neutrality of various articles" because they're not edits to articles. The FoF says that the talkpage comments demonstrated a POV (that Cla68 doesn't like), and that those comments violate NPOV. Which isn't how NPOV works. – Quadell ^(talk) 02:31, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. NPOV is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia, and I'm certain ArbCom has evaluated in the past where editors are promoting viewpoints in violation of the policy. The introduction of WP:NPOV is specific that its requirements are "non-negotiable and expected of all articles, and of all article editors." It's natural then that to show editing which contravenes the policy, you would include an editor's comments. I attempted to lay out this basic principle here. Mackan79 (talk) 07:45, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please explain where the difference is, in your view, if their is any, between an editor violating NPOV and an editor merely being wrong?--Tznkai (talk) 15:18, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above proposal covers some potential criteria. It's possible that an evaluation of compliance with NPOV shouldn't be the first step, though, at least with Jayjg, since the overall quality of his edits is much less the source of dispute than the general obstruction described in evidence (via revert warring and inconsistent wikilawyering, primarily). This is partly the basis for my proposal as to the main problem here. Broadly speaking I think this is consistent with Cla68's proposal, though, and the point that Jayjg's general approach shows him promoting a set of views in conflict with the goals and policies of Wikipedia. It's the "promoting" here, and the methods used, that present the conduct issue and separate it from reasonable disagreement. With others it might be repeated editing against consensus, or even just enough completely inappropriate edits in enough places. Mackan79 (talk) 07:19, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. This is a content dispute. Much of the problem seems to have been due to miscommunication on both sides: lack of clear statements about what was being argued about; as a negotiating tactic, stating only the most extreme versions of one's position; lack of clarification of meanings of terms used; different styles of communication and assuming different levels of detail when evaluating whether two things were the same or not, etc. Arbcom shouldn't rule on content disputes by evaluating whether a given piece of content violates NPOV. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 22:42, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No offence but this is like saying that Holocaust deniers merely have a "content dispute" with historians or that creationists have a "content dispute" with biologists. I'm sure that's how they'd like it characterised, but the point is rather that their content is lacking. So it is here. Jayjg does not really dispute content with "the other side", but rather attempts to create it almost out of whole cloth. No one reasonable disputes the content here. It beggars belief that anyone really thinks that "the West Bank" is not pretty much the exclusively used term for the territories in question, and I'm sure that an intelligent man such as Jay is perfectly clear that "Judea and Samaria" are in no way equivalents in the general discourse. (To claim that he is editing without pushing a POV you would have to hold the belief that he genuinely considers these terms to be equivalents, and to have argued reasonably that they are.) It's particularly laughable that other usages should be defended by editors who in other contexts have fought hard against "minority" usages that are much more common. Besides, your formulation would not allow any resolution of disputes that didn't consider solely personal issues, by allowing the "defendants" simply to claim that it was a content issue because the content of some article or articles is the battlefield. Of course, Arbcom can and should rule here. The question is not whether these territories should be called one thing or another (and Arbcom need not rule on what we should call the West Bank, since we already have policies to decide this issue), but whether it is reasonable, and within the policies of the encyclopaedia, to insist that they are called one thing or another to an extreme. Grace Note (talk) 04:50, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - those who support this finding of fact talk about overwhelming evidence but fail to provide a single example that illustrates more than a simple content dispute. --Leifern (talk) 15:32, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per Leifern et al. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 17:42, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2) Jayjg violated WP:NPA by accusing without evidence, or implying, that other editors were bigots.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Oppose. Jayjg has presented evidence for his accusations. Some may not find them as compelling as others, but to suggest that his accusations are "without evidence" is simply false, and an indication of bad faith. Canadian Monkey (talk) 22:27, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly support. Jayjg has not provided one scrap of evidence for his accusations of "distasteful ethnic discrimination", which hasn't stopped him from repeating those accusations ad nauseam despite multiple admonishments to cease. His attempts to cast legitimate rejection of clearly invalid examples in an anti-Semitic light have spread to other editors and are not only uncivil but also spectacularly unhelpful as they shift the focus away from the actual discussion and force his opponents into a defensive position. MeteorMaker (talk) 12:55, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: as per my comment above, this has been a serious problem in this debate and has gotten seriously out of hand. It is totally unacceptable, both as a personal attack and as a diversion from discussing the real point, in terms of source evaluation, regarding who uses what terminology. Jayjg has taken a lead in making these sorts of accusations, and others have followed him. --Nickhh (talk) 17:25, 15 March 2009 (UTC

Strong support, the evidence is massive and overwhelming. With an eye to Tundrabuggy's comment below, something about this proposal needs to be clarified. Attacking MeteorMaker as a bigot required the fabrication that Tundrabuggy repeats as fact below, to wit, that MeteorMaker engaged in "constant dismissal of reliable sources" due to nationality, ethnicity etc. MeteorMaker did not dismiss RSs on these grounds; that was a fabrication of Jay's. Jay had amassed a set of primary sources for the purposes of proving on the talk page that "Samaria" was not a marginal, controversial, nationalist toponym avoided by mainstream international reliable sources. A good many of his sources were in fact Israelis and nationalists (e.g. "Zionists," a word I avoid at all costs), so MeteorMaker pointed out that their use of the term "Samaria" did not demonstrate what Jay was hoping to demonstrate. Jay deliberately misled other editors into thinking that MeteorMaker was rejecting them as sources for the articles (as opposed to rejecting Jay's personal conclusions about what their use of a disputed term showed); the point of this more or less bald-faced lie was to then call MeteorMaker a bigot, and trick other editors into falling for it. Tundrabuggy's post below simply presents one half of Jay's lie as evidence for the other. I'm sorry to see Coppertwig lose a dollar to this shell game.--G-Dett (talk) 01:45, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I can only add that "Zionist" is indeed how these people describe themselves — like the National Vice President of the Zionist Organization of America, Leonard Getz, one of Jayjg's primary examples of non-Israelis who use the term. [28] (point 37). MeteorMaker (talk) 08:16, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support. As per User:G-Dett. These are severe accusations and should not be dealt with lightly. pedrito - talk - 20.03.2009 08:47

Comment by others:

Proposed. Again, compelling evidence of unnaceptable conduct by an administrator, checkuser, and oversight admin. Cla68 (talk) 00:34, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. This is nonsense, and is part of an attack on the admin/editor in question, and is also part of an effort to influence content in a POV manner by silencing that admin/editors and "chilling" others. 6SJ7 (talk) 02:16, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. The constant dismissal of reliable sources because they were "Israeli", or "Zionist," or wrote for a Jewish audience, etc etc could tend to lend itself to this interpretation. Tundrabuggy (talk) 06:16, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Again, no sources have been dismissed, only invalid examples of usage (invalid because they were examples of "X", where the proposition was that non-X exist.) MeteorMaker (talk) 08:16, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support Please see my comments above supporting the idea that unfounded accusations of racism are a violation of WP:NPA. Tundrabuggy, you might want to reconsider your comment here, since it places you among those engaging in this reprehensible behaviour. Tiamut^talk 14:44, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

this seems to be what the evidence shows. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 20:50, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per Tundrabuggy. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 01:14, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. This proposal seems to actually be in opposition to foundational WP policy for WP:NPOV, which says, on this very subject, "The policy requires that where multiple or conflicting perspectives exist within a topic each should be presented fairly" and, "The neutral point.....neither endorses nor discourages viewpoints. As the name suggests, the neutral point of view is a point of view, not the absence or elimination of viewpoints", as can be seen here. This proposal accuses Jayjg of doing what it is assumed good editors will do, and suggests that he be sanctioned for it. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 15:40, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're saying Jay has a right under WP:NPOV to insinuate that other editors are bigots?--G-Dett (talk) 15:55, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose—no evidence that Jayjg violated WP:NPA, and his evidence is some of the most well-researched of them all. By these standards, Cla68 violated WP:NPA by posting this. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 22:20, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I don't think this is the problem, regarding implications. To Jayjg's credit, I actually see him take some care to keep his comments directed away from other editors, as a general mater. That is to say, his comments are not usually personal in nature, and I think that needs to be recognized. This isn't entirely a defense, since I think his comments often amount to a form of strong political advocacy, and that his frequent accusations that an argument is "distasteful" fit that pattern. I think the comments are meant to intimidate, and that they are made cynically, since I know that Jayjg does and would himself note these types of distinctions among sources where it fit his argument.[29] To say he is implying that other editors are bigots with these comments, though, doesn't seem quite right as a central issue. Mackan79 (talk) 07:57, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, I don't see any links to diffs showing personal attacks by Jayjg on the evidence page. Could you give a clear example of a personal attack? Sanctioning users for "implying that other editors were bigots" would set a dangerous precedent. After all, some editors do have nationalistic biases, and challenging those to promote NPOV is a necessary part of how Wikipedia works. NPA specifically says "Comment on content, not on the contributor", and some editors are thin-skinned enough to see every comment on their content as a personal attack. – Quadell ^(talk) 02:31, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jayjg's comments can be seen, for one example, leading up to MeteorMaker's comments here (search the page for "Fair enough,"). A search for "distasteful" through the same page helps to see the issue. While I wouldn't get into what Jayjg is implying, neither would I say that complaints can be attributed to thin skin. Mackan79 (talk) 08:43, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wait a minute... are you referring to this edit, where Jayjg says "Wikipedia does not discriminate against sources based on alleged ethnic or national origin, based on their having once been members of Zionist organizations, and suggesting it should do so is distasteful at best"? Is that what all this fuss is about? You're calling that a "personal attack"? – Quadell ^(talk) 19:31, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jay's relentless branding of MeteorMaker as a bigot is part of the fuss here, yes. The fact that it's done through smarmy insinuation rather than forthright statement is felt by some to be exacerbating rather than exonerating.--G-Dett (talk) 15:32, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per Ynhockey.—Sandahl (talk) 18:07, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - the "overwhelming evidence" G-Dett asserts is not documented, and charges that something was "implied" require significant substantiation. It's worth noting that G-Dett is also doing a bit of well-poisoning by claiming that the only sources Jayjg presents are nationalists and what-not (making it clear that the term "Zionist" is a term to be avoided.) --Leifern (talk) 15:32, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The evidence is not documented? What does this mean? I tend to think of evidence and documentation as pretty much synonymous. If there's some unsubstantiated charge against Jayjg, let me know specifically and I'll get the diffs. Meanwhile, did I say the only sources Jay presents are nationalists? (I can't quite believe I'd call Shulman a nationalist.) And as for me "making it clear that the term 'Zionist' is a term to be avoided," etc. I don't understand what you're driving at. My reasons for avoiding the term "Zionists" haven't come up at all in this dispute; I did however state them on-wiki a couple of years ago.[30] --G-Dett (talk) 18:21, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per Leifern, 6sj7, et al. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 17:39, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. NPOV presumes that particular people will hold particular points of view. One cannot expect every editor to personally be neutral. JFW | T@lk 21:58, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Canadian Monkey[edit]

1) Canadian Monkey has engaged in stonewalling and disruptive editing.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Strong Oppose - as it is clearly not supported by the diffs. Citing 3 talk page comments and a report at WP:AE as "disrupitve editing" is really stretching things. By that standard, Cla68 is engaged in disruptive editing, by making this recommendation (and 5 others like it, all, unsurprisingly, naming parties from just one side of the conflict)

Support. Stonewalling is notoriously difficult to capture in diffs. I recommend reading a few of the relevant talk pages, particularly these sections, [31][32][33][34][35] to get a better understanding of the issue. His repeated invocations of the CIA map as evidence of widespread outside-Israel use of the terms J&S, long after it was shown to be a typical example of an exclusively locally-used name is another good example. [36][37][38][39]. MeteorMaker (talk) 12:58, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed, based on [40] [41], [42], [43], [44], [45], and [46]. Cla68 (talk) 02:42, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Oppose I see no evidence of your accusations in the diffs. If anything they demonstrate a polite but firm reaction to the stonewalling and disruptive editing of others. Tundrabuggy (talk) 19:36, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. This diffs are talk page edits. I'm not sure what "stonewalling" means in this context, but that doesn't appear to be disruptive editing to me. – Quadell ^(talk) 16:58, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2) Canadian Monkey violated WP:NPA by accusing without evidence, or implying, that other editors were bigots.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Strong Oppose - not supported by the diffs, which do not accuse other editors of anythign, merely note that to me, their ethnic-based or ideology-based disqualification of sources is distasteful. Canadian Monkey (talk) 23:51, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support. "Their ethnic-based or ideology-based disqualification of sources is distasteful" is an unacceptably accusatory thing to say, particularly if it, like in this case, has no demonstrable basis in reality, and is mechanically repeated with no attempts of substantiation. This kind of smearing should not be tolerated on Wikipedia.

Additional diffs: [47][48][49][50]

Comment by others:

Proposed, based on [51] and [52]. Cla68 (talk) 02:42, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Oppose Again, I see nothing wrong with those diffs, and in both cases any "accusation" is based on a clear rationale. Tundrabuggy (talk) 19:36, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, I don't see a personal attack in those diffs. – Quadell ^(talk) 16:58, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, remark not supported by evidence, again singling out a single editor in a content dispute. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 22:01, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OpposeI don't see anything wrong with the diffs, they don't back up the remark..—Sandahl (talk) 18:22, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: I believe the remarks are a direct result of the misunderstanding about the meaning of the term "outside Israel", which I documented in my evidence (subsections The root of the problem and Clarification). ☺Coppertwig (talk) 01:13, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unlike Jayjg, who has chosen to leave it to others to defend him, Canadian Monkey is available for checking how well your "misunderstanding" hypothesis matches with reality. Before he has corroborated it, I don't think you should put it forward as "documented" evidence. Question to Canadian Monkey: When you said eg. "Numerous example of Israeli academics using the term have been shown [...] only to be discounted by MetoerMaker on the grounds of their author's ethnicity" [53] or "The attempt to pre-judge a person's stance on the conflict based on nationality, ethnicity or his decades-old membership in an organization is not only logically fallacious, it is quite distasteful"[54], did you understand "used outside Israel" to mean something different than "used by non-Israelis"? I'd also like an explanation how pointing out that Israeli usage examples of a term are irrelevant as evidence of usage outside Israel can be described as "rejection on ethnic grounds", and how such attempts to frame the discussion in ethnic terms are not violations of WP:BATTLE. MeteorMaker (talk) 07:57, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

MM, when you exclude Israelis and anyone connected with Israel, including anyone who is now or ever was a member of a "Zionist" organisation, or are themselves "Zionist," from the list of possible sources or examples, it does seem to point closely that you are excluding a particular ethnic group. Bigotry, of course, is not necessarily racism. WP project defines a "bigot" as "a person who is obstinately devoted to prejudices, especially when these views are either challenged, or proven to be false." That you are "obstinately devoted to your prejudice" in this matter, and that this view is challenged, is certainly arguable without assuming bad faith by those who make the case. Tundrabuggy (talk) 15:58, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tundrabuggy, since I've had to explain this rather simple concept to you at least once a week for several months now, and see no indication that you even read what I write (you just ignore it and typically leave the thread), I have little hope your WP:CIVIL and WP:BATTLE violations will cease. For the benefit of other readers who don't have the energy to wade through megabytes of regurgitated accusations of racism, here's the simple fact that Tundrabuggy fails to acknowledge again:

You cannot prove the existence of non-"X" with examples of "X".

Basic logic. Now, instantiate the variable X and we get:

You cannot prove the existence of non-Israeli/Zionist usage of the terms J&S with examples of Israeli/Zionist usage of the terms J&S.

Hence the rejection of some of Jayjg's examples, which were found to be of Israeli/Zionist origin, contrary to what he proudly stated when he presented them — just like you did in a similar, later attempt, which, needless to say, also failed, only more spectacularly.

Jayjg's attempt, repeated ad nauseam, to disruptively divert attention from the simple fact that many of his examples were irrelevant and instead focus on trying to paint his opponent as an anti-Semite ("distasteful ethnic discrimination"), were a clear breach of WP:BATTLE, and, given that I clarified my argument numerous times and admonished him to cease, a knowing, blatant violation of WP:CIV. The same obviously goes for Canadian Monkey when he repeated Jayjg's wild accusations, and apparently continues to do so. MeteorMaker (talk) 17:13, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your original argument was that the terms were "not modern toponyms" and "not understood outside of Israel." Later you raised the bar. Zionism is a widely understood concept outside of Israel and various Zionists (Jewish, Christian and secularists) used the terms in examples that many of us presented to make the case that they were in fact modern toponyms widely understood etc etc. Yet the fact that some were or may have been "Zionist" somehow became an issue of disqualification for you, even if those Zionists were in the United States or elsewhere outside of Israel. This relatively simple fact seems hard for you to grasp. Further I do not appreciate the suggestion that I called you a racist when I made a particular distinction between bigotry and racism which you chose to ignore. However, there is still absolutely no justification in the disqualification of reliable sources outside of Israel because they are "Zionists" and thus support the existence of Israel as a Jewish state. Are you suggesting that because a source accepts Israel as a Jewish state ("Zionism") that its use of particular geographic terms is somehow "suspect"? It really makes very little sense except to speak to your prejudices. Tundrabuggy (talk) 05:15, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I will now assume that you have understood the basic facts (a) and (b). Further attempts from you to accuse me of being ethnically prejudiced will be considered willful personal attacks.

You entered the discussion at a later stage than others, so you're forgiven for not knowing that the group "outside-Israel Zionists" was included as J&S-users from day one, as you can see in the Judea talk pages. Since the line is difficult to draw (you define "Zionists" as anybody who "accepts Israel as a Jewish state"— which is probably true for most people), I've only dismissed the obvious cases where the purported outside-Israel user of the term/s has been shown to be a member of (or working for) a recognized Zionist organization, such as JNF or Zionist Organization of America. It's in no way controversial or "prejudiced" to state that the incidence of "J&S" use is significantly higher in this group than average.

I've also stated many times that I'm perfectly happy with formulations like "Samaria [...] is a term used in Israel and by Zionists", because that is what all the sources say, but every attempt to get this fact into the Samaria article has been shot down by Jayjg, Canadian Monkey, NoCal100, Ynhockey and others. Note that WP:NPOV in fact requires us to state it, so these editors have clearly been acting disruptively. MeteorMaker (talk) 07:23, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Amoruso[edit]

1) Amoruso violated WP:NPA by accusing without evidence, or implying, that other editors were bigots or anti-semitic.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Strong Oppose - ridiculous. Not only are the diffs a year old, as pointed out by Tundrabuggy, but Amorouso is not even a party to this ArbCom. Cla68 appears to be mistaking this page for WP:Let's sanction all the editors whose opinion I don't like NoCal100 (talk) 01:49, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The sole extenuating circumstance here is that almost one year has passed since Amoruso made those comments. MeteorMaker (talk) 08:25, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. He was a destructive or obstructive editor-warrior, totally opposed to the aims of the encyclopedia. But, given his apparent withdrawal, he should not be sanctioned for a state of affairs that has degenerated in his absence.Nishidani (talk) 10:38, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed, based on [55] and [56]. Cla68 (talk) 02:57, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Oppose -- these are two old diffs made almost a year ago now and making the same point that others, myself included, have been making for some time and meeting with the same wall of rejection. This demonstrates clearly how long MeteorMaker has been setting himself up as arbitrator and destabilizing and disrupting articles with this tactic. Tundrabuggy (talk) 19:52, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - are you serious? Amoruso doesn't even edit anymore, and is certainly not related to this dispute. Please stop trying to sanction users based on actions from months to years ago. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 02:52, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, moot and unrelated. – Quadell ^(talk) 16:59, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Amoruso hasn't even edited since October, is not a party to this and those diffs are just to old.—Sandahl (talk) 18:14, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NoCal100[edit]

1) NoCal100 violated WP:CIV by making harrassing or misleading accusations about other editors.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Strong Oppose -ridiculous. Calling an administrator's attention to a possible violation of restrictions placed by that admin is "harassing"? This one-sided blanket proposed finding against all editors on just one side of the dispute reflects very poorly on the nominator. NoCal100 (talk) 01:46, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support. The first time may be a genuine mistake on NoCal's part (he confuses "citation" with "quote"). After having had the difference explained to him twice [57][58], he keeps repeating the false accusation on the same admin's page, after having suggested "It's time for tougher sanctions": [59][60]. Additionally, he misrepresents an edit made to the same admin's exact specification as something sanctionable. That he also chose to repeat Jayjg's accusation of ethnic discrimination and to accuse other editors of hounding (while, ironically, being the hounding party himself) [61] is aggravating. MeteorMaker (talk) 07:32, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed, based on [62], [63], [64], and [65]. In the first two diffs, NoCal100 appears to purposefully try to enlarge or expand an administrator's actions using exaggeration. Cla68 (talk) 03:13, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Oppose You have not provided any evidence of "exaggeration". It was appropriate for NoCal to complain to an uninvolved admin, especially considering how long this has been going on, the fact that MM was under sanctions at the time, and that removing well-sourced material is a definite no-no. Tundrabuggy (talk) 20:03, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Oppose - not supported by the diffs, which are a civil, evidence-backed appeal to the admin imposing restrictions on an editor to review alleged violations by that editor. Again, by the standard you are proposing, what you are doing here is a violation of WP:CIVIL Canadian Monkey (talk) 23:56, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2) NoCal100 violated WP:NPOV, edit warred, and engaged in disruptive or bad faith editing.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed, based on [66], [67], [68], [69], [70], [71], [72], and [73]. The problem here is NoCal's insistence on giving the term "Samaria" equal weight with "West Bank", which isn't supported by the sources. If NoCal had said something like, "in an area that Israel refers to as Samaria" instead of simply "in Samaria, then I don't think there would be a problem. Cla68 (talk) 03:07, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Adding some new diffs showing NoCal continuing to push "Judea" over "West Bank", including edit warring, in an article during this case: [74] [75] [76] [77] [78] [79]. Cla68 (talk) 03:40, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly Oppposed Those diffs show NoCal being inclusive with the terms, not exclusive, nor do they demonstrate edit-warring. His diffs provide more specific information regarding location in articles about Israelis and places in Israel. It is entirely appropriate to add such terms in this situation! Further, it has not been established that wiki is requiring us to use these terms according to any particular formula as of yet. It is entirely inappropriate to apply sanctions on NoCal based on this weak rationale. In fact, looking at the page history [80] of the first diff provided by Cla68 demonstrates clearly that the article was stable from July 2006, until February 2009, when MeteorMaker inserted himself into the article, deleting the Israeli POV. NoCal was returning the article to its previous stable and correct form. Tundrabuggy (talk) 16:22, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see a violation. – Quadell ^(talk) 17:00, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposals by User:Mackan79[edit]

Proposed principles[edit]

Conduct only[edit]

1) The arbitration committee is the last stage of dispute resolution on the English Wikipedia, but its remit is limited. The committee will not decide issues of article content. Faced with content disputes, the committee examines editor conduct, and how such conduct is preventing the effective resolution of content disputes or disrupting the appropriate administration of the project.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Support, albeit reluctantly. A proper examination of user conduct in this case will necessarily involve some evaluation of the content dispute, but yes, the committee should probably stop short of resolving that dispute by dictate.--G-Dett (talk) 14:31, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed. Mackan79 (talk) 09:04, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

yes. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 20:51, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. (But perhaps the Arbcom would prefer to follow the "show, don't tell" advice.) – Quadell ^(talk) 17:01, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 01:49, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Follow the policies[edit]

2) Although the arbitration committee will not determine content, editors are expected to contribute productively, with collegiality, and in good faith as required by Wikipedia's behavioral policies. As importantly, editors are required to follow Wikipedia's content policies, including WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, and WP:V. Repeated counterproductive or uncooperative editing can lead to the imposition of sanctions, as can repeated, egregious violations of Wikipedia's content policies.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Support. Elementary but well said, and in the present case bears repeating.--G-Dett (talk) 14:33, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed. Mackan79 (talk) 09:04, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. – Quadell ^(talk) 17:01, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: could be interpreted in such a way that decisions about how to apply content policies to specific situations would be being decided by arbitrators or administrators. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 01:49, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Compliance with content policies[edit]

3) In evaluating editor compliance with Wikipedia's content policies without determining content, the arbitration committee must look for clear or repeated examples of misconduct which go beyond the realm of reasonable disagreement. Factors considered by the committee may include repeated editing against consensus, repeated failure to present sources for contested claims, misrepresentation of sources, or the repeated violation of behavioral policies while engaged in content disputes. Although the arbitration committee will not sanction editors for reasonable disagreements, it will intervene where editors are seen to actively and repeatedly edit or advocate material in a way contrary to Wikipedia's policies.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Support. This is the essence of the matter.--G-Dett (talk) 14:34, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support per G-Dett. MeteorMaker (talk) 14:09, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed. Mackan79 (talk) 09:04, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support the repeated pushing of terminology or content that violates policies such as {[WP:NPOV]] is a conduct issue not a content one.--Peter cohen (talk) 19:08, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak support: must be careful not to tread too close to the line of deciding content issues. I disagree with Peter cohen's approach because I believe that content decisions are best made by a broad consensus of editors rather than by a smaller group of administrators or arbitrators. It is not possible to determine in every case whether content violates policies without making such decisions. Editing against consensus etc., however, can be taken as an indication that the content likely violates policies. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 01:49, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hounding[edit]

4) Collegiality requires that editors show appropriate respect for the work of other editors, and do not repeatedly target other editors' work in a way that appears arbitrary or personally motivated. However, Wikipedia also relies on editors to oversee the work of other editors. Whether or not an editor targets another editor unreasonably can depend on factors such as the number of incidents, whether the contested edits are policy compliant, whether the editors are acting in good faith, whether disputes relate to a single issue, or whether disputes relate to a common area of interest.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Support. Allegations of hounding are easy to make and difficult to prove or disprove. They should be evaluated independently of other conduct allegations, not as a viable defense against them. In other words, if editor X says editor Y is gaming consensus and misrepresenting sources, and editor Y says X is hounding him, these two claims should be separately evaluated.--G-Dett (talk) 14:42, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed. Mackan79 (talk) 09:04, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question: What does this mean? Hounding is ok if the victim really deserves it? 6SJ7 (talk) 02:18, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure you see that begs the question of what hounding is. But, one implication may be that claims of hounding usually shouldn't change bad editing into acceptable, or good editing into unacceptable. Mackan79 (talk) 06:30, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Even in the military, complaint about what annoys is allowed; but Mackan79 wants to have a rule requiring WP:happiness even while being hassled. This proposal is silly. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 15:53, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per Malcolm Schosha.—Sandahl (talk) 18:26, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak support. It's probably OK to follow an editor around if the purpose is to correct their errors and help the project. It's not OK if it's for the purpose of bothering the editor. It may be difficult for others to tell the difference. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 17:00, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Consolidate disputes[edit]

5) When a content dispute becomes relevant over several articles, editors are strongly encouraged to attempt to find a single location in which to resolve the issue appropriately. Before consensus is reached, editors should avoid bringing the dispute to multiple articles, other than to gather relevant views. After consensus is reached, editors should not prevent the implementation of the consensus view, but should address the existing consensus. In all cases, revert warring should be avoided, and unresolved disagreements should be addressed through discussion or dispute resolution.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Support. An excellent point, and a principle which both sides to this dispute have run afoul of.--G-Dett (talk) 14:45, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed. Mackan79 (talk) 09:04, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support--Peter cohen (talk) 19:09, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support ☺Coppertwig (talk) 01:49, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SupportTundrabuggy (talk) 19:55, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tone during disputes[edit]

6) Adhering to the basic precepts of civility is as important during a disagreement as at any other time. The maxim "comment on the content, not on the contributor" should still be followed whenever possible, unless the dispute has unavoidably devolved into an examination of a particular editor's behavior, and even then, civility remains essential. Language more suited to advocacy than to the civil explanation of one's position on an issue should be avoided. Examples of inappropriate types of comments may include the assertion that because an editor edits in a given area or participates in a given WikiProject or also contributes to another website, his or her views and contributions are not entitled to respect; misuse of oversimplified characterizations in lieu of grappling with the force of another editor's actual arguments; facile allegations of user misconduct as an excuse not to engage in reasonable amount of discussion; or unduly stressing prior unrelated disputes in which a user has been engaged in lieu of discussing the current issue.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Support. Beautifully said.--G-Dett (talk) 14:46, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support. MeteorMaker (talk) 14:12, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Copied from here Mackan79 (talk) 09:04, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 01:49, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed findings of fact[edit]

Locus of dispute[edit]

1) The locus of this dispute is a disagreement over where and how the terms Judea and Samaria should be used on Wikipedia. The dispute has expanded across multiple articles where the terms have potential relevance. This begins as a content issue that lies outside the remit of the arbitration committee.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. Mackan79 (talk) 09:04, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Not just "begins", but also "ends", probably. This case really should be dismissed. 6SJ7 (talk) 02:21, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support, sure. – Quadell ^(talk) 17:03, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support ☺Coppertwig (talk) 01:49, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Tundrabuggy (talk) 20:05, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. A disagreement is not a 'locus'. 'This begins' is in the wrong tense. This is both a content dispute and a dispute on principle, since the principle is consistency of usage in wiki's I/P articles.Also, one asks if a content dispute rsolved on one article by consensus, has to be reargued on every other article where the same content dispute arises, or whether the resolution of the dispute, when consensual, can be used as a precedent in all other contiguous articles in order to secure coherence. Because these are problems in the mechanics of dispute resolution, Arbcom should clarify procedure and method. It is not efficient, indeed an open invitation to stonwalling, to require editors to reargue everything from day one over and over on every related page.Nishidani (talk) 13:24, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Issues of user conduct[edit]

2) Certain aspects of the disagreement implicate user conduct, including claimed violations of WP:Revert, WP:Hound, WP:Consensus, and other more general claims that editors have been uncivil, have misrepresented sources, or have argued in bad faith. Claims are also presented of serious violation of content policies, including WP:NPOV and WP:NOR.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. Mackan79 (talk) 09:04, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

True, claims have been made. Not sure if that's worth noting or not. – Quadell ^(talk) 17:12, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support as long as the violation of content policies is left outside the remit. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 01:49, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Revert warring[edit]

3) As a general matter, several editors in this dispute have resorted to revert warring where centralized discussion would have been preferable. However, the committee notes that extensive discussions have been pursued. Evidence regarding egregious abuse of WP:Revert, by itself, was not presented.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

With these three, proposed to see if there is anything I missed. Mackan79 (talk) 09:04, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support. True and succinct. – Quadell ^(talk) 17:14, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hounding[edit]

4) Because the locus of this dispute relates to a narrow issue regarding appropriate naming, claims of inappropriate hounding have not been adequately supported. The committee accepts that there is a good faith content disagreement, and as such, knowledgeable editors must be entitled to contest particular usages where they arise regardless of whether it involves the same editors.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

With these three, proposed to see if there is anything I missed. Mackan79 (talk) 09:04, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Opposed. First of all, negative findings should probably be avoided. Either someone did something wrong, or they didn't. And in any event, there is sufficient evidence that G-Dett hounded Jayjg. 6SJ7 (talk) 02:24, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is evidence that G-Dett has been in several conflicts with Jayjg, along with evidence that Jayjg is habitually obstructive in editing disputes to an extent that is quite difficult for most editors to deal with. Interestingly I don't believe there is any evidence anywhere that G-Dett has ever edited other than reasonably, knowledgeably, and in good faith. Of course claims have been made about incivility, although if the most recent is representative, I think it's fair to call this a distraction (I will say from previous involvements that G-Dett is not in the least bit uncivil, much the opposite, although she's pretty much universally recognized as trenchant and engaging in her comments). In any case, this was meant to address the main complaints from both sides of this naming dispute, not so much any longer term issues. Mackan79 (talk) 07:53, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree 6SJ7 (talk) 13:46, 15 March 2009 (UTC) Refactored by clerk --Tznkai (talk) 21:48, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It looks to me like "claims of inappropriate hounding" are far more substantial, and I'm not sure they can be dismissed so readily. – Quadell ^(talk) 17:16, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus[edit]

5) If consensus has been reached on certain aspects of this disagreement, sufficient evidence has not been presented to the committee. It appears that editors have reverted without regard for consensus, but extensive examples have not been presented.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

With these three, proposed to see if there is anything I missed. Mackan79 (talk) 09:04, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Amend. There might be something worthwhile here, but it seems to contradict itself somewhat. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 17:00, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good faith collaboration[edit]

6) The major problem in this dispute is a failure of good faith collaboration between the involved parties. Failures have involved an excessively adversarial approach by editors, including a lack of openness to discuss options that might address valid concerns, uncivil demands of other editors, poor representation of sources, inconsistent application of policy, facile allegations of policy violations or misconduct, unwillingness to acknowledge when sources or other points favor an opposing argument, and failures to assume good faith.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. Mackan79 (talk) 09:04, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support, this seems to be true. – Quadell ^(talk) 17:07, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposals by User:OrangeDog[edit]

Proposed remedies[edit]

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Centralised, neutral and fresh community discussion[edit]

1) The content dispute should be decided by a centralised discussion, from which the parties listed in this case are banned from participating in, save for a single, initial comment. This should prevent all existing conduct and civility issues, POV-pushing, stonewalling and IDIDNTHEARTHAT from compromising the discussion, and allow the community to reach a consensus.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Oppose. The resolution of the issue should be based on application of the relevant policies and on the facts (which both tend to become overlooked by editors fresh to the discussion) and not just the opinions of whoever happened to show up. Fact-wise, the issue was resolved long ago — what we need is simply strict adherence to policies and an end to the obstructionism and attempts to derail the process, none of which problems are likely to be alleviated by barring the by now best-informed editors from participating. That is not to say fresh views are not welcome, on the contrary. MeteorMaker (talk) 08:51, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I do not understand why you consistently claim that the the issue was resolved long ago. I understand that you strongly believe in your personal opinion (and I respect that) but apparently not everyone agrees with you. For example, a recent suggestion by user:pedrito to merge Category:Judea and Samaria to Category:West Bank [81] was rejected. As I see it even editors on the same "side" of this debate have different opinions as to when to use which terminology due to the complexity of the issue. Best. Tkalisky (talk) 08:50, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The outcome of the proposition to merge the WB and J&S cats is a perfect illustration to my point: It was settled, not on the facts (which didn't come into play due to lack of space and time), but on a small advantage in numbers for people with one opinion over the other, some of whom were more motivated to show up and vote than others. Exactly how this should not be dealt with. If one takes an unprejudiced look at the sources this long discussion has generated, which unanimously support the "J&S are partisan minority terms" position, plus the relevant policies, and compare it to the utter lack of sources for the other side, the conclusion is inevitable that this is an open and shut case, and has been so for several months. MeteorMaker (talk) 09:22, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Oppose, I don't think it helpful to exclude all heretofore interested parties. If nothing else, that will lead to socks. – Quadell ^(talk) 17:08, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Not helpful to exclude interested parties, because they are the ones knowledgeable about the dispute, and because afterwards they will have to live with whatever compromise is reached: this will happen more naturally and with less strife if they feel they have an opportunity to participate in development of that compromise. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 17:00, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposals by User:Rocksanddirt[edit]

--Rocksanddirt (talk) 21:02, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed principles[edit]

The 5 Pillars[edit]

1) Wikipedia:Five pillars. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, Wikipedia must have a neutral point of view, Wikipedia is free content, Wikipedia has a code of conduct, and Wikipedia does not have firm rules.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Support, sure. – Quadell ^(talk) 17:09, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Basic. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 17:00, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed findings of fact[edit]

Locus of Dispute[edit]

1) The locus is a content dispute regarding the use of various terms to describe the geography of a portion of Isreal/Palestine/Jordan.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment: Neither a portion of Israel (otherwise than tangentially discussing the applicability of the disputed terms outside the Green Line) or Jordan, but the West Bank. MeteorMaker (talk) 14:02, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

A Battle Ground[edit]

Jayjg (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), Jaakobou (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Canadian Monkey (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) seem to be convinced that the terms need to be battled over.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Strong Oppose - as this is completely counter-factual. As has been pointed out time and again, the dispute arose when users such as MeteroMaker. Nickhh and Pedrito decided to change a long-standing consensus on dozens of articles, and edit war the terms 'Judea' and 'Samaria" out of them - yet this proposal makes it out as if only those editors trying to keep the pre-existing versions are "battling". Canadian Monkey (talk) 22:56, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support. The dispute should have ended already when the encyclopedic sources were put forward in November. Since then, tons more sources have been accumulated, while CM's side still has nothing but synthesized evidence and chutzpah after all these months. Hence the reliance on stonewalling, smearing and other disruption tactics. MeteorMaker (talk) 00:06, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment/weak support: the presence of poor content, which has languished in several articles for some time under the radar of those editors with their NPOV antennae tuned in, is not the same thing as a "long-standing consensus". Once the massive weight of evidence showing that the terms in question are clearly partisan, minority terms, which are actively avoided in most contemporary mainstream sources, was presented on talk pages, the fight to retain them should have been gracefully given up. Instead it has continued for months. --Nickhh (talk) 00:29, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It takes two sides to battle. Only one side is named in this proposed finding of fact. Canadian Monkey (talk) 00:41, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmmm. I think it's fair to say both sides have battled. What only one side has done is thumbed their noses at WP:NPOV. NPOV is extremely clear about exactly the issue at the heart of this dispute:

Where proper nouns such as names are concerned, disputes may arise over whether a particular name should be used. Wikipedia takes a descriptive rather than prescriptive approach in such cases, by using the common English language name as found in verifiable reliable sources. Where inanimate entities such as geographical features are concerned, the most common name used in English-language publications is generally used.

One side has obstructed the implementation of core policy here, for ideological reasons, and has been lying about it on talk pages and in this Arbcom case. As a result of the obstruction of core policy and the extensive lying that's accompanied it, a WP:BATTLE has occurred, but the battle isn't really the issue here – it's a symptom and consequence of an orchestrated attempt to subvert the encyclopedia.--G-Dett (talk) 14:51, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Strong Oppose - there are clearly two sides to this "battle." One side has engaged in a campaign, and the other has (unsurprisingly) reacted to this. To name only one side is unfair. Tundrabuggy (talk) 04:50, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Campaign? Well, I'll come clean. I only entered this particular area, though it had always troubled me, when I noticed a remark to Meteormaker stating that he had been outvoted, checked the page (diffs please!!), and saw it was merely an ethnic bloc/block not voting on the merits of the argument, but out of some thematic solidarity. I didn't join a campaign. I thought politics were interfering with the goals of the encyclopedia, and that one editor, who had worked very hard, merely got hit with stacked vetoes by people who, apart from Ynhockey, appeared to know little about the subject.Nishidani (talk) 15:05, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, this isn't a finding of fact, it's a finding of seems-to-be. – Quadell ^(talk) 17:10, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Unnecessary and subjective characterization of a limited group of editors. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 01:49, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed remedies[edit]

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Template[edit]

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template[edit]

2) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed enforcement[edit]

Template[edit]

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template[edit]

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposals by User:Pedrito[edit]

Proposed findings of fact[edit]

NoCal100[edit]

1) NoCal100 (talk · contribs) has systematically engaged in bad-faith edit-warring over several articles.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. The evidence is overwhelming that User:NoCal100 knew and accepted the arguments of the opponents of the terms "Judea" and "Samaria" as well as the policies they were based on, yet continued to edit-war using disingenuous or false arguments. pedrito - talk - 20.03.2009 09:02

Strong oppose. not one shred of evidence has been presented that I "accepted the arguments of the opponents" - and the lack of diffs in this proposal is telling. NoCal100 (talk) 14:14, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That would be what we have the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/West Bank - Judea and Samaria/Evidence page for. pedrito - talk - 20.03.2009 14:17

Perhaps you'd like to call out a specific diff from that lengthy page which illustrates your claim that I "accepted the arguments of the opponents". NoCal100 (talk) 14:19, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if you didn't accept the arguments on Talk:Israeli settlement, why did you stop edit-warring there? Why did you take it to other articles? And here's you using the same arguments in a different dispute. But this isn't the place for discussion. pedrito - talk - 20.03.2009 14:30

a compromise was agreed upon, by all editors on that page - you included. That compromise left "Samaria" in the article, but out of the lead. You then subsequently went to a dozen articles and removed it, despite agreeing to the compromise. So, will you be making a proposed finding of fact that "Pedrito has systematically engaged in bad-faith edit-warring over several articles." - or shall I do this for you?

Go ahead. pedrito - talk - 23.03.2009 07:12

Comment by others:

I don't see evidence of systematic bad-faith reverting. – Quadell ^(talk) 17:12, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per Quadell. I don't see it either. Tundrabuggy (talk) 05:12, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jaakobou[edit]

1) Jaakobou (talk · contribs) violated WP:NPA by accusing without evidence, or implying, that other editors were bigots.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. User:Jaakobou has made these accusations many times, even in the discussions regarding this WP:RfArb, was challenged every time to produce evidence, and failed to do so at every occasion. False accusations of Anti-Semitism and Bigotry are as bad as the latter and should be treated as the severely as such. pedrito - talk - 20.03.2009 09:02

Support. See [82] and the discussion at his section here. MeteorMaker (talk) 14:24, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

I don't think the "implying that other editors were bigots" is helpful, and I don't think "accusing without evidence" is substantiated. – Quadell ^(talk) 17:19, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppposed I don't think the diffs support the accusation of "accusing without evidence." Agree that trying to turn "implications" into "accusations" into "sanctions" is not helpful. Tundrabuggy (talk) 05:19, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposals by User:MeteorMaker[edit]

Proposed findings of fact[edit]

Canadian Monkey[edit]

1) Canadian Monkey (talk · contribs) has repeatedly and severely violated WP:CIV with willfully misleading accusations of ban violations by MeteorMaker.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed, based on these diffs. [83][84][85][86][87][88]

CM's accusations have been shown to lack substance several times by different editors and were turned down at AE, yet he refuses to acknowledge his original mistake and has chosen to repeat his accusations in this ArbCom case. MeteorMaker (talk) 21:26, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong oppose - these diffs show CM accusing you of something you admit you have done - which is argue that a restriction prohibiting you from removing "well sourced citations" allows you to remove the material the citations refer to, so long as you keep the citations themselves in. This is Wikilawyering at its clearest. They also show an admin who was not swayed by CM's arguments on WP:AE telling you you are violating the spirit of you restrictions. NoCal100 (talk) 14:59, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I direct you to this discussion, where all your objections are addressed. MeteorMaker (talk) 15:16, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Oppose, those diffs do not support a characterization of "repeated and severe" CIV violations. – Quadell ^(talk) 17:21, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Quadell's right, non of the diffs show repeated and severe violations of WP:Civil.—Sandahl (talk) 19:53, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose It isn't in there. Tundrabuggy (talk) 04:56, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's probably worth restating that this is regarded an incivility per WP:CIV: "Lies, including deliberately asserting false information on a discussion page in order to mislead one or more editors". It's especially bad if the purpose is to get a fellow editor banned or blocked. MeteorMaker (talk) 14:31, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The dispute has reached a point where WP:RS has broken down[edit]

2) "Wikipedia articles should rely primarily on reliable, third-party, published sources. [...] The goal is to reflect established views of sources as far as we can determine them."

About 80 reliable sources, mainly academic or encyclopedic, have been collected during the course of this discussion. [89] All explicitly, unequivocally and undisputedly support one side, while none have yet been presented that supports the other. The fact that such a huge number of sources in complete consensus has proved to be inconsequential is a grave cause for concern. It's unacceptable that a small group of editors has created a situation where not even the most abundantly well-sourced facts can be reflected in WP articles.

EDIT: To answer Nishidani's objection below, by "broken down" I mean "would be rendered moot if this case was allowed to become a precedent".

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

No, it hasn't 'broken down'. One side often will refuse to accept WP:RS as relevant, or doesn't understand that there are reliable sources that get things badly wrong (as on 'Judea and Samaria'), and should not be cited wherever the best Reliable Sources go against what they want to have in the text. I experimented with this when some days ago, I noticed User:NoCal100 up to his usual tricks, when he managed once more to stalk User:Ashley kennedy3, intervene against him by joining User:GHcool and User:Canadian Monkey to cancel AK's edits at the Israeli–Palestinian conflict page, and then have William Connolley, who couldn't be bothered checking anything, to suspend him for 24 hours. I disagree with AK on quite a few things, he's an enthusiast, but he does read deeply in sources, which none of those three editors appear to do, and he happened to be basically right. All bad sources, and some good sources, say Lebanon invaded Israel on May 15, 1948 (See here). The cutting edge of Israeli historiography has since 2002, as 5 strong sources show, disposed of this myth. These editors insist on affirming that BBC News, one ambiguous line in a US State Department document, an internet thumbnail sketch by the Israeli Foreign Ministry, a book on the war writen by an amateur for US six-graders, and assorted other trash, cancels what Benny Morris, Yoav Gelber and other fine Israeli historians have established. It has taken a day of hard work to get a minimum of yielding only from GHcool, who still will not admit that these dreadful, and factually misleading sources be removed. Why? They support the old Zionist line. The absurdity here is that one finds oneself fighting a losing battle in an endeavour to restrict I/P editing to academic front-line scholarship on the region, and these people counter with government propaganda, slipshod articles, snippets from the BBC, or schooltexts for US children on serious questions of historical detail, which are otherwise amply covered by, and refuted by, Israeli scholarship! I even 'blew my cool'. What else is left for the exasperated, who wish this to be an encyclopedia representing the best quality scholarship, and not a dumping ground for moribund garbage from POV-pushing agenda sites? Surely this is a behavioural problem. The content issue is easily resolved. Nishidani (talk) 15:38, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly Support. Most of the exasperation comes from the extensive use of poor quality material googled up from internet POV-pushing sites (from either side). Were one to insist that, given the lamentable state of I/P articles, most of which are historically illiterate or unreadable, and overwhelmingly sourced to biased government sources, newspapers, or outdated books,far stricter rules should be introduced so that high quality top-shelf modern scholarly sources should be employed, unless we are dealing with recent events. The French wiki on many of these things boasts far better pages. Fewer work on them, and most of the editors read books, and don't google for stuff that supports their prejudices.Nishidani (talk) 15:54, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Oppose: Different people may be arguing about different things and will draw different conclusions from the same collections of sources. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 01:49, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SYN has been unilaterally employed as an alternative to WP:RS[edit]

3) "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. This means that we only publish the opinions of reliable authors, and not the opinions of Wikipedians who have read and interpreted primary source material for themselves. [...] Editors should avoid original research especially with regard to making blanket statements based on novel syntheses of disparate material. ...] Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in an article and should be appropriate to the claims made."

To mask their lack of sources, a concerted effort has been made by the J&S side to synthesize conclusions, drawn from a small number of alleged examples of what they have sought to prove as a general rule. [90][91] [92]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Let me illustrate. This is one of several hundred examples of a flagrant WP:SYNTH serial violation which no amount of remonstration will get the editors to alter, on the Israeli–Palestinian conflict

'Units from[30][37] five[38][39][40][41][42][43] Arab League countries (Egypt, Lebanon,[44][27][45][46][47][48][38][40][49][41] Syria, Jordan and Iraq) then reluctantly[50] invaded[38][40][41][42][43][51] precipitating the 1948 Arab-Israeli War.'

Just two or three modern scholarly books, which concur on the overall narrative, if used, would simplify this absurd patchwork, of some 26 newspaper tidbits, outdated or unscholarly books, government organ snapshots, juvenile non-fiction guides, agenda-driven polemics written by media panjandrums with no background in Middle Eastern studies etc., most of which disagree on all sorts of details. Stuff like this just should be erased with an administrative warning to all to go back to the drawboards. It is a WP:SYNTH consequence of edit-warring, by people who don't read reliable tertiary historical sources, or who keep overriding objections to one bad source by introducing another. In the real world, i.e. at a course1 history seminar at college level, this wouldn't even be graded. Whoever helped write it would be counselled to find a job flipping burgers at MacDonalds. There is a complete breakdown in what compositional methodology requires, since this is presumed to be known. Instead, the boys who work this stuff up only appear to have a mastery of the wiki rule book on policy infringement. And no amount of hectoring on basic commonsense principles for writing articles gets one anywhere. Nishidani (talk) 16:05, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Oppose: content issue. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 01:49, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CONS has been used as a stonewalling tool[edit]

4) "Consensus decisions in specific cases do not automatically override consensus on a wider scale - for instance, a local debate [...] cannot decide that for the articles within its scope, some policy does not apply. [...] "according to consensus" and "violates consensus" are not valid rationales for making or reverting an edit, or for accepting or rejecting other forms of proposal or action. [...] Wikipedia does not base its decisions on the number of people who show up and vote; we work on a system of good reasons."

On finding themselves unable to present sources to counter the evidence against their position, several editors (Jayjg, Canadian Monkey, Jaakobou) resorted to trying to invalidate the other side's evidence and flouting WP:V by claiming consensus for an unsourced version.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed, based on these diffs (and dozens of edit summaries, mainly in Samaria and Israeli settlement): [93][94][95][96][97] MeteorMaker (talk) 11:11, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

I'm not sure what "stonewalling" means in this context. Do you mean "continuing to assert a certain position"? Regardless, the rest of this is written in a very biased manner that the Arbcom is unlikely to adopt in its decision. – Quadell ^(talk) 17:25, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gaming the system and misuse of WP:V[edit]

5) Rather than provide the required evidence for wide acceptance of the contested terminology, Jayjg has purposefully sidestepped WP:NCGN by supporting an unrelated claim with highly cherrypicked partisan sources that use the term "Samaria". [98][99][100] Since that claim is now well-supported, Jayjg argues that "Samaria" is now also a "well-sourced alternative term" and "cited terminology" that cannot be removed "per WP:V". [101][102]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

You seem to be giving Jayjg's position, as you understand it. I'm not sure what your goal is there. But the text doesn't support the title, I have to oppose it as written. – Quadell ^(talk) 17:29, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per Quadell. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 01:49, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Disregard for WP:NPOV[edit]

"Articles should provide background on who believes what and why, and which view is more popular".

The J&S side has consistently removed all references to who uses the terms and all attempts to provide background sources [103][104][105][106][107][108][109][110], in some cases substituting highly misleading alternatives. [111]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Jayjg[edit]

5) Jayjg (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has engaged in repeated and extensive edit-warring (see table below plus edit histories for the other relevant pages).

Samaria-related revert stats for Israeli settlement:
	BrewCrewer	Canadian Monkey	Jayjg	G-Dett	MeteorMaker	Nickhh	Nishidani	NoCal100	Pedrito
Number of reverts:	4	19	25	5	22	5	8	8	11
First revert:	14 Jan 2009	12 Nov 2008	5 Nov 2008	17 Dec 2008	5 Nov 2008	17 Nov 2008	12 Nov 2008	27 Nov 2008	14 Nov 2008
Last revert:	14 Feb 2009	15 Jan 2009	25 Feb 2009	25 Feb 2009	14 Feb 2009	4 Dec 2008	25 Dec 2008	22 Dec 2008	24 Feb 2009
Reverts/day (avg):	0.13	0.29	0.22	0.07	0.21	0.13	0.18	0.31	0.11

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed, since ~~this charge was omitted from Kirill's Jayjg proposals~~ EDIT: Has since been added. [112]. Jayjg is consistently the most or second-most prolific reverter on the relevant pages. Other admins have also commented on Jayjg's behavior:

"We've got a former ArbCom member participating in the edit war here and that is unacceptable". [113]

Comment by others:

Very pretty chart. I think it important to check revision history of the talkpage. [114], since it indicates willingness to engage. If one takes into account talk page edits vs. article page edits, there is a different picture. Perhaps you could develop it into an equally attractive chart for clarity? Tundrabuggy (talk) 17:01, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, if one takes into account talk page edits there is a different picture of Jay's behavior. In addition to extensive edit-warring, that is, there's also stonewalling, deliberate distortions of policy, dubious arguments based on primary sources, and bogus accusations of bigotry. And yes, despite it all a "willingness to engage" – on the part of MeteorMaker.--G-Dett (talk) 17:22, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Taking talk page edits into consideration is certainly encouraged. The picture that emerges is that the edit war erupted when Jayjg started removing well-sourced content [115], after ignoring all the evidence against his position that was presented on the talk pages. He generally used bogus edit summaries like "removing OR" or "undoing TE", which only served to fan the flames of the edit war. MeteorMaker (talk) 10:11, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, MeteorMaker, it didn't start there. It started when you jumped in in September 2007, with this edit [116] with the comment: "Editing for NPOV" . Tundrabuggy (talk) 04:14, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strange edit war that left the original edit entirely untouched for six months. What is your definition of "edit war", really? MeteorMaker (talk) 15:42, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

6) Jayjg (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has attempted to use Wikipedia as a battleground along national, ethnic, or ideological lines ("You kept promoting the unsourced theory that "Samaria" was not a "modern toponym, and then attempted to excise from Wikipedia all existing uses of "Samaria" as a "modern toponym", in order to support your ideological campaign."

"The thing is, while you've been monomaniacally trying to re-shape Wikipedia's language to fit your political POV, I've actually written several Featured Articles, Good Articles, and Do You Knows."

[117][118][119][120]).

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed, since this charge was omitted from Kirill's Jayjg proposals. [121]. Jayjg has repeatedly framed the discussion which toponym is the most widely used in political terms:

Jayjg: "This article is about Samaria, not Judea and Samaria."

MM: "That is exactly what the usage note is intended to make clear".

Jayjg: "No, actually, it's designed to push your political agenda." [122]

See also Jayjg's 21 counts of claims that his opponents are trying to discriminate against sources on ethnic grounds. MeteorMaker (talk) 20:02, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

7) Jayjg (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has systematically engaged in stonewalling [123][124][125] (last section: read particularly from Nov 8).

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed, since this charge was omitted from Kirill's Jayjg proposals. [126]. NB: The examples above are only the tip of an iceberg. MeteorMaker (talk) 20:02, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposals by User:Coppertwig[edit]

Proposed principles[edit]

Which aspects of a source are or are not relevant[edit]

When discussing whether there are sources outside a country using a certain term, the only significant categorizations of a source are its place of publication, the place of residence and nationality of the author at the time of publication, and if applicable the ethnicity with which the author self-identifies. The author's race, religion, place of birth and membership in associations are irrelevant.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Too simplified. Look at the articles on nigga, Yid, Gweilo, Ya Muhammad, As-Salamu Alaykum, Zionist entity, Shrove Tuesday, List of British words not widely used in the United States to name but a few where the ethnicity, religion, and nationality of the source do matter. If the dispute, like in this case, is about the geographical extent of a term's acceptance, it's pretty self-evident that the most significant factor in determining the validity of an example is nationality and nothing else. If the term has also gained nationalistic ideology overtones, we look at the stated ideology of the users in the examples and exclude those who describe themselves as subscribers to that particular nationalistic ideology. Pretty basic really. MeteorMaker (talk) 23:37, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. This is a serious, good-faith proposal, and a welcome departure from the crass insinuations of bigotry so prevalent on this page. Nevertheless, I find it inappropriate both as a response to this specific case and as a more general statement. Nationalist bias among sources on both sides of the I/P conflict does not easily resolve to place of residence and nationality. If this case were reversed – that is, if it centered on an attempt by editors to demonstrate that "Palestine" was a standard, widely accepted designation for the West Bank, Gaza, and East Jerusalem collectively – I would expect other editors to question the degree to which primary-source use of the term by, say, Edward Said and Rashid Khalidi successfully demonstrate this. Khalidi is not a Palestinian national, and he resides in the U.S.; ditto for Said when he was alive. But I'd see nothing wrong with editors pointing out both men's close affiliations with the PLO, Said's status as the academic voice of Palestinian nationalism, and so on.--G-Dett (talk) 20:02, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. It is designed to get round the problem that Israel-specific usage was being promoted as not specific to that cultural, national and political environment, when virtually all examples adduced underlined the fact that the usage is Israel-specific and nationalistic. The proposed rule can be dispensed with by insisting simply on stricter requirements for sourcing to highly reliable academic imprints ion editing the I/P area. That that been in place, we should never have had this problem, for the best academic sources unequivocally state J&S is Israelocentric, with a right-wing POV, territorially appropriative in its usage, and Israelocentric. In addition, this is very much about nationalism, and nationalistic cultural mindsets do exist. To note that is not a crime. All historians evaluate implicitly or otherwise 'where the author is coming from'. As editors, on key questions like this where a national POV is being pushed against the encyclopedia's goal of neutrality, we are obliged to take note of where the source(s) are coming from. Nishidani (talk) 16:52, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Suggested. It doesn't much matter to me which aspects are or are not included, but it's important for everyone to be on the same page as to which points are valid discussion of reliable sources and which are off-topic. I don't want to see the Arbitration Committee making decisions about content, but I think the Committee can decide something like this, which indirectly affects content while allowing flexibility in case the real-world situation, including the preponderance of sources, changes. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 21:46, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose content issue. I, as an editor, want the right to argue the validity or invalidity of a given source by any means necessary. As part of countering systemic bias, we should be able to frankly and fully discus all sources. This proposal approaches censorship, even if it not the intent.--Cerejota (talk) 05:09, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support. The only test should be reliability of the source, certainly not extraneous nonsense such as race, religion, place of birth and membership of the author as outlined by Coppertwig. I would only add neither political or ideological orientation, which Meteormaker used to reject my American travel sources, claiming that they were "Zionists" or were now, or had been members of a Zionist organisation. This is McCarthyism pure and simple, where sources are blacklisted because of their political or ideological orientation. Tundrabuggy (talk) 05:20, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You've got it backwards: your conclusion (that the WB "is known today as Samaria by millions of Christian travelers") was rejected, not the "sources" (which consisted of five alleged examples of usage by Christian travelers, one of which incidentally turned out to be about the ancient city Samaria/Sebaste). I find four things appalling:

That you believe five (or four) examples of usage prove anything else than that five people have used the term "Samaria" once
That (even if the sources had stated anything all about who and how many use the terms, which they did not), you believe blogs and travel agencies count as reliables sources
That you choose to completely ignore the main point of the rebuttal and focus on what I clearly presented as bonus information (the documented political motivation of two of your five examples).
That you've forgotten that I've told you all this already. MeteorMaker (talk) 13:26, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to MM. Examples of usage comprise a perfectly acceptable rebuttal to your thesis that the terms are little known or understood outside of Israel. They were rejected, because you rejected them on ideological grounds. Now you claim that four or five such examples are insufficient. I could have found many more, but considering your rejection of travel agencies apparently on principle, what would have been the point? One of these travel agencies talks of thousands of trips to Judea and Samaria, but this to you still counts as one usage. Travel agencies outside of Israel are clear examples of the terms' usage and understanding by non-political agencies outside of Israel. Non-political travel blogs also illustrate this point. It isn't as if these were the only illustrations or sources that you have rejected, as there always appears to be some reason that none of the sources/examples that have been offered qualify as acceptable to you or other editors on your side of this debate. As for the politics of this, this campaign to remove or denigrate this terminology throughout wiki strikes me as highly political, and arguably the beginning of a wider renaming effort [127][128] by some of the editors that have commented in this proceeding. -- Tundrabuggy (talk) 19:24, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My four points above (unsurprisingly) still stand, because you didn't address more than one of them, and that with a reply that demonstrates that you have a somewhat spotty understanding of WP:NCGN and haven't fully grasped the concept of "widespread usage". Four (or even four thousand) examples of usage is not evidence of such. Re the diffs you gave, do I understand you correctly that you think Nablus is in Israel and that correcting that error in WP is evidence of a "highly political" "campaign to remove or denigrate this terminology"? MeteorMaker (talk) 19:53, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I should add that Nableezy (whose diffs you, Tundrabuggy, cite as evidence of 'political campaigning'!!!), who fixed the template whose defects I remarked on, is not me, and has not involved himself in this proceeding. We are not interchangeable. 80 sources say 'Judea and Samaria' are political terms, and, for showing this, those who challenged their use as violations of WP:NPOV are now said to be engaged in a political campaign. Will this dissemination of confusion ever end?Nishidani (talk) 19:59, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are mistaken, Nishidani. On 19 March above, Nableezy involved himself in this proceeding. Judea and Samaria may have political ramifications for some people, but Judea or Samaria exist nonetheless, and neither is equivalent to the West Bank. I do not disagree with the thesis you express on your talk page that "naming" is/can be a political act, and is an exercise of power. Where we disagree is as to the "who." Tundrabuggy (talk) 04:54, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also note that the resolution of the Susya issue was done by Ynhockey, not by me. The Palestinian territories template is complete non-issue, and bringing it here serves no purpose. Ynhockey also helped me out a great deal with that, and I asked him to look over my work and he saw no such sinister motive as you attribute to me. You want to call me out for making a template for locations in the Palestinian territories to say that they are in the Palestinian territories? Or for having the restraint to not use 'Occupied Palestinian Territories'? Nableezy (talk) 20:07, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I did not say "sinister" - I said "highly political." Tundrabuggy (talk) 04:58, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to call using a map of the Palestinian territories that has the alt text 'x is located in the Palestinian territories' for places located in the Palestinian territories, rather than showing 'x is located in Israel' highly political feel free. It isnt, but dont let that stop you. Maybe if I made it so that y city in Israel were to say 'y is located in Palestine' you could make that point, or even z city in the Palestinian territories to say 'z is located in Palestine', but as has been pointed out to you before the bogeyman you see in your 'opponents' try to abide by NPOV Nableezy (talk) 05:15, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cautious support—nationality and especially ethnicity shouldn't be a factor either. For me, ethnicity = race. Otherwise I support the concept. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 21:40, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What sources are needed to show that a term is used outside a region[edit]

To demonstrate that a term is used outside a region, it is enough to show that there are sufficient numbers of such publications published outside the region and sufficient numbers of others with authors residing outside the region; it's not necessary to find individual sources which simultaneously satisfy all of a set of such criteria.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

"What sources are needed"? A reliable source that explicitly says "term X is used outside region Y". Alternatively, if such a source cannot be found, a positive result of applying the methodology described in WP:NCGN. Mere examples of outside-region Y usage is not sufficient, and attempts to draw conclusions from such material must be considered a clear breach of WP:SYNTH. I think all this is already spelled out in WP:V and WP:NOR. In this particular case, I would say the conditions in WP:REDFLAG also have to be met, since all sources presented so far show that the terms J&S are not used other than very marginally outside Israel. MeteorMaker (talk) 22:42, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Short version: If by "sufficient numbers", Coppertwig means sufficient numbers per WP:NCGN, support. If he means "a handful of anecdotal examples", oppose. Perhaps Coppertwig could clarify? MeteorMaker (talk) 08:42, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Wikipedians should not be evaluating primary sources trying to prove or disprove who uses a term and where, period. We rely on secondary sources for this sort of thing (when it's relevant). In this case, Jay did not like what the secondary sources had to say, so he assembled a compendium of primary sources in an effort to disprove them. As always happens with primary-source-based research by Wikipedians, other Wikipedians contested the logic of their selection and the conclusions about what they showed. In short, big can of worms. But the solution to this sort of problem is to reaffirm the basic WP principle that we should rely on secondary sources and avoid primary-source-based research by Wikipedians – not to try to come up with some sort of set of rules for how to evaluate and interpret primary-source use-patterns when it comes to controversial nationalist terminology.--G-Dett (talk) 15:57, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed. It shouldn't be necessary to find an author who is not Jewish, was not born in Israel, is not an Israeli citizen, has not set foot in Israel and has not otherwise ever in their lifetime in any way indicated an interest in that general area of the world (in that case, why would they be writing about it?) More seriously: those who claim that a term is used rarely outside a region need to come up with a reasonably simple hypothesis such as "rarely except in material published in the region" or "rarely except in material written by people living in the region": not "rarely except in material which is either A or B" (or C...) ☺Coppertwig (talk) 21:46, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Meteormaker "claim[ed] that a term is used rarely outside [Israel]" in an edit summary, not in article space. In article space he added sourced statements to the effect that the term was "used in Israel." Knowing that MeteorMaker's article edits were well-sourced, Jay began amassing primary sources in an effort to disprove casual remarks in edit summaries, stray comments on talk pages, etc. Everything about the nationality of sources arose in that context: a metadiscussion of Jay's original research – his attempt, that is, to prove through primary sources that statements from secondary sources were false. Get that straight: Meteormaker presents sourced material; Jay introduces a hypothesis that the sourced material is false, supporting his claim with arguments about primary sources; MM challenges Jay's conclusions about what the primary sources show. --G-Dett (talk) 23:08, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Actually, not. These articles were stable and the terms were properly referenced before Meteormaker began his campaign of removing these terms altogether. If my arithmetic is correct according to Jayjg's evidence, we are talking about some 69 different! articles for User:MeteorMaker and some 57! for User:Pedrito. User:Jayjg and User:Canadian Monkey and the other editors mentioned here, attempted to find sources to satisfy Meteormaker's objections to the use of the terms, only to find all of their sources rejected on the grounds objected to in this proposal. Unlike, Meteormaker and others, Jayjg never tried to remove references to West Bank, only to maintain the references that allowed the terms to co-exist. Tundrabuggy (talk) 05:38, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The fundamental question which no one appears to ask, is why did Jayjg and several other editors seed into, beforehand, so many I/P articles over the years usage that is disdained by mainstream Israeli newspapers, and academics because it reflects the POV of a political, religious, nationalist annexationist movement under the pretence it was broad 'Israeli' and not, as it now turns out to be, 'infra-Israeli'-partisan terminology, in violation of WP:NCGN. There are lots of verbal messes and badly-sourced material, accumulated over the years, throughout these articles. All MM and Pedrito did there was to begin to bring some policy-based order into this extraordinary state of affairs. And for this, we now get their efforts, and edits, summarily cited as proof of edit-warring. All of Jayjg's evidence is based on a flawed fundamental assumption, that what he and others did was allowable. It isn't, if we subscribe to the idea that this is a global encyclopedia, in English, written to WP:NPOV criteria, privileging standard international usage in such cases to secure neutrality. The corollary of this flawed working assumption appears to have been: 'slowly get fringe usage established throughout articles and, when someone comes across it and exposes its state of non-compliance with wiki principles, challenge their attempts to correct the abuse of policy by calling their efforts to edit in the proper neutral terms 'edit-warring' against consensus. Nishidani (talk) 14:51, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unlike other encyclopedias, Wikipedia sports terms that every news and government source outside Israel has rejected. MeteorMaker (talk) 08:42, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support. It just makes sense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tundrabuggy (talk • contribs) ^[129] 14:36, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

People need to state clearly and often what it is they're arguing about[edit]

Editors are encouraged to include prominently, within each discussion thread, clear statements of what position they are defending.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Support. In this case, we are arguing about whether J&S are used as terms for the modern West Bank outside Israel or not. MeteorMaker (talk) 22:50, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak support. A good general principle, but in this case the problem has not been a failure to include clear, prominent statements about what they're disputing. Everyone's done that. The problem is that these clear, prominent statements are frequently dishonest. So for example in the example you give, Jay began that discussion by writing that "User:MeteorMaker has been trying to promote the theory that the term 'Samaria' is 'not a modern toponym' or 'not understood outside of Israel'," and linking the reader to WP:NOR, giving the reader the impression that MeteorMaker is inserting these claims into articles. In fact these are simply casual formulations in MM's edit summaries. MeteorMaker might equally have started a thread beginning "User:Jayjg has been trying to promote the theory that the term 'Samaria' is an 'updated term' for 'West Bank'," citing Jay's edit summary to that effect, but MeteorMaker isn't out to trick anybody. The reason Jay wanted to trick people in that situation is that he knew very well that MeteorMaker's actual article edits were rock-solid and impeccably sourced, and he didn't want to admit that he, Jayjg, was amassing primary sources in an effort to disprove MM's secondary sources. Hence all the weird language games and impenetrable coyness. If you can come up with a workshop proposal calling for editors to summarize clearly, prominently, and truthfully whatever it is they're defending or disputing, that would be more on point, and I'd sign off with a "strong support."--G-Dett (talk) 02:45, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed. The page Talk:Samaria/Discussion of sources contains a lot of careful arguments but seems to me to have a shortage of statements at the top of the page as to what it is the editors are arguing about. (Allegedly Jayjg is not proposing a hypothesis but only arguing against hypotheses by MeteorMaker, ("Again, I have no hypothesis, you do." [130]) yet the only statement at the top of the page is signed by Jayjg and contains only brief quotes, not whole statements, from MeteorMaker; it's not clear whether or not the two editors have agreed on what point to debate, and if they have, they're not letting outside readers in on their secret.) Both for the benefit of others who might want to join the discussion, and for clarity of communication among the editors already involved, the points being argued about need to be stated clearly as sentences. Another example: the Proposed findings of fact by ~~Canadian Monkey~~ MeteorMaker^{(00:21, 25 March 2009 (UTC))} above contains the statement "All explicitly, unequivocally and undisputedly support one side" but leaves the reader scratching their head wondering what assertion or proposed action the editor is saying has been supported. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 21:46, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You probably mean this section (by me, not CM). The sentence containing "All explicitly, unequivocally and undisputedly support one side" supports the proposed finding of fact directly above it, the standard format for WP workshop pages as I understand it. I'm open to suggestions how it can be improved if it's currently too confusing. MeteorMaker (talk) 00:30, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry: I was confused as to whose section it was. Do you mean that the sources unequivocally and undisputedly supported the statement ""Wikipedia articles should rely primarily on reliable, third-party, published sources. [...] The goal is to reflect established views of sources as far as we can determine them.""? I don't see how sources outside Wikipedia could directly determine Wikipedia policy. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 00:21, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, the sources I'm talking about in the second sentence are the same as the sources I'm talking about in the first sentence: "About 80 reliable sources, mainly academic or encyclopedic, have been collected during the course of this discussion." MeteorMaker (talk) 01:07, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Would you please state the position you're saying these sources support when you say they support "one side"? ☺Coppertwig (talk) 12:27, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to oblige: In this case, we are arguing about whether J&S are used as terms for the modern West Bank outside Israel or not. The sources support the side that says "not". In case it's also time to state this again, I again mention that no sources presented so far support the other side. MeteorMaker (talk) 14:47, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Only because you are making up the rules as to what qualifies as support. Sources must not be Israeli or Israeli-related. They may not be Zionists, or have been members of any Zionist organisation. They can't be Christian and/or supportative of Israel. It matters not that they are perhaps American or teaching in American universities or published by a general international publisher. If it talks of the archeology of the region it is "ancient," according to your standards. How this qualifies as an honest attempt to find consensus or demonstrate good faith I don't understand! Tundrabuggy (talk) 05:54, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kindly provide a diff to where I have stated those "rules", or consider changing the pronoun in your opening sentence to first person.

Coppertwig may have had you specifically in mind when he made this proposal. Again: You and others have tried to find sources that say J&S are used as terms for the modern West Bank outside Israel, but failed. To counter the immense amount of sources that say they're not, you have tried to synthesize evidence by collecting a number of purported examples of outside-Israel usage. The majority of these sources are pretty unconvincing, having conclusively been shown to be examples of Israeli usage. Even so, they have been acknowledged (as the anecdotal evidence of Israeli use they are) on the Discussion of Sources page. If you check out that page, you will also find a great number of Israeli, Israeli-related, Zionist, and (possibly) Christian sources, of American and many other nationalities, many supportative of Israel and published both in Israel and by general international publishers, all saying that J&S are Israel-specific. Many of those sources were in fact collected by your side. MeteorMaker (talk) 09:47, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for repeating your position. I'm sorry I asked you to repeat it when you'd said it just above. I'll try to remember where it is after this. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 18:47, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your support, MeteorMaker. You said, "In this case, we are arguing about whether J&S are used as terms for the modern West Bank outside Israel or not." Please clarify: when you say "used ... outside Israel", what do you mean? What about a source written by an Israeli and published outside Israel? What about a source written by a non-Israeli and published in Israel? What about a source written by a non-Israeli who is in Israel at the time? What about a source written by an Israeli who is outside Israel at the time? What about someone who was born in Israel but is not an Israeli (if there are such people)? Etc.; although I hope this discussion may become moot; see the draft guidelines. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 15:53, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By "used outside Israel", I mean "written by non-Israelis" (ie, the original writer, not the publisher). By "Israeli", I mean a person who has Israeli citizenship. Israeli emigrants tend to retain the terminology they grew up with, so for the purpose of this discussion, they count as Israelis too. In addition to this group, there is the much smaller group "people who subscribe to the Zionist ideology", which also favors the disputed terms. Note however that this discussion is a bit of a red herring, because we already have conclusive evidence from a multitude of reliable sources (as well as from applying the WP:NCGN procedure) that J&S are used only very marginally outside Israel. Of the relevant (ie non-historical) Google hits for Samaria, roughly 90% are from undisputedly Israeli sources. Of the remaining 10%, about half are from Zionist sites and/or individuals who are members of Zionist organizations. A couple of non-Israeli examples have been presented in this discussion (eg Gilbert and Druks, points 8 and 33 here) that are indeed of outside-Israel use, but a few isolated examples do not trump the massive evidence that the terms are Israel-specific. MeteorMaker (talk) 19:36, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One of the two is borderline. Gilbert is a great historian and a life-long Zionist. Druks was I think a lecturer at Haifa Uni before he took up a job at Brooklyn College. His book is certainly a partisan account, reflecting a strong Israeli perspective. You would never gather from its account of Carter's intense negotiations with Begin at Camp David, where 'Samaria and Judea are used in the narrative voice, that top-ranking historians of the period highlight Carter's consistent objection to Begin's use of 'Samaria and Judea', and his explicit demand in the protocol that the talks were about 'the West Bank'. I checked last week some 75 works on Arab, esp. Jordanian history, military works, and Israeli, US diplomatic exchanges for the period 1949-2009, and found that the narrative voice privileges invariably 'West Bank' for the whole period. There is no 1967-1970 break.Nishidani (talk) 20:11, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

People need to clarify the definitions of terms being used in discussion[edit]

To promote clear communication and progress in discussions, whenever it seems likely that there might be a difference in how different editors interpret a word or phrase that appears within the comments in the discussion, editors are encouraged to discuss the meaning of the term and to strive for consensus as to how that term will be understood within that discussion. At all times, editors are encouraged to choose their words in such a way that the words are most likely to be interpreted by others (especially the editors with whom they are directly engaged in discussion) in the way that they are intended, and editors reading comments are encouraged to interpret the words in the way that they seem to be intended by the writer.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. At Talk:Samaria/Discussion of sources there were apparently differences of opinion about the meanings of the terms "historical usage" and "straw man"; these differences impeded the discussion and do not appear to me to have been resolved during the discussion. Neither party stated what they consider the term "historical usage" to mean, and only Jayjg stated what he considers "straw man" to mean. For example: "Clearly published in 2004, not historical usage" [131] ☺Coppertwig (talk) 21:46, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed findings of fact[edit]

G-Dett has been blocked 3 times re personal attacks or incivility[edit]

G-Dett has previously been blocked 3 times with personal attacks or incivility cited in the block summary (July 4 2008, August 4, 2008 and November 11, 2008 [132])

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Support. Yes I have.--G-Dett (talk) 13:25, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 12:27, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, support. Looks uncontroversial. – Quadell ^(talk) 17:34, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please see G-Dett's civility blocks and the appearance of silencing legitimate dissent. Are you planning on addressing this? Or just ignoring it? Tiamut^talk 12:38, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for the link, Tiamut. I'll probably comment on this later. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 00:41, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I followed some of the links and saw some interesting things. However, it's not my role here to evaluate or form an opinion on the merits or lack thereof of past blocks. The point I was trying to make with this finding of fact is that G-Dett, having previously been blocked with incivility and personal attacks being cited, is well aware of those policies and that one can get blocked for violating them (regardless of the merits of each actual block). I might also add that the same applies to the Decorum section of a previous arbitration case, per which G-Dett has been blocked specifically: this means that G-Dett is well aware of this principle. The finding of fact could be changed to "G-Dett, having previously been blocked per WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA and the Decorum principle, is well aware of these policies and principles." ☺Coppertwig (talk) 18:33, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

G-Dett's remarks about Jayjg[edit]

G-Dett has made numerous ~~pejorative~~ likely-unwelcome^{(00:24, 2 April 2009 (UTC))} remarks about Jayjg during this discussion. (Link to evidence subsection)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment. You might want to clarify what you mean by 'pejorative'. I have accused Jayjg of editing obstructively and dishonestly, which he has indeed done. If you think my rhetoric has been too colorful, say so. If on the other hand you think accusations of dishonesty period don't belong on Wikipedia, even when conduct is at issue, then you need to rethink your latest flurry of posts about me, which, however soporifically written, are indeed accusing me of dishonesty.--G-Dett (talk) 13:31, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose on the simple grounds that "likely-unwelcome" is an undefined neologism that is wide open to interpretation. Perhaps the known entity "unwelcome" could be substituted with clarification from Jayjg. MeteorMaker (talk) 14:53, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 12:27, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong oppose I see nothing pejorative in G-Dett's remarks. Any negative characterizations of Jayjg's actions are accurate descriptions. Again, it seems that WP:CIVIL is being used as a weapon against G-Dett, to silence her and prevent her and others from discussing genuine problems posed by by a selective invocation of policy, stonewalling and misrepresentation among some editors, and particularly by Jayjg. Why Jayjg's actions are above and beyond all reproach to some people is really beyond me. While some of his contributions are very good (particularly the synagogue articles), others (particularly those relating to Israel-Palestine) are not and are in fact deeply problematic due to his tendency to apply policy selectively to uphold his POV. Tiamut^talk 12:46, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to be true, but I'm not sure it's relevant to the scope of this arbcom case. – Quadell ^(talk) 17:36, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment In my common parlance pejorative usually refers to insulting terms. "Kike" is pejorative for example - and no one has accused anyone of using that term last I checked. Is there another word that you could use to make it clear what you mean?--Tznkai (talk) 21:56, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I've changed "pejorative" to "likely-unwelcome". I'm referring to remarks such as I listed in my evidence. I think it could reasonably be expected that a person would dislike having such remarks made about them; therefore such remarks tend to discourage the development of a collaborative atmosphere. I'm not intending to criticize here a statement made in good faith, with diffs, in an appropriate forum (e.g. here) and without subjective language, that someone has been dishonest or obstructionist. I assume G-Dett's accusations are in good faith, but I also see accusations without diffs or in inappropriate forums, and I see what I call subjective language, such as "giant egg". Saying "dishonest" once here may be OK (e.g. with diffs etc.) where the accusation can be properly examined; saying "shell game" in a number of places including an article talk page and the talk page of a third party (i.e. myself) isn't so good in my opinion. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 00:24, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In reply to G-Dett: I'm sorry about anything I've said that led you to believe I was accusing you of dishonesty. I'm not accusing you of dishonesty, and I haven't accused you of dishonesty. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 18:33, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I might add the word "incivil" somewhere in there. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 02:18, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

G-Dett has mischaracterized Jayjg's position[edit]

G-Dett has stated that Jayjg said ~~things, which were inaccurate representations~~ something, which was an inaccurate representation^{(15:48, 13 April 2009 (UTC))} of what Jayjg actually said. (Link to evidence subsection) This was a misunderstanding which has been cleared up. Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/West Bank - Judea and Samaria/Evidence#Clarification. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 19:10, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Oppose. That "something" isn't even specified. MeteorMaker (talk) 14:58, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 12:27, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. This is simply false. Tiamut^talk 12:47, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Coppertwig has made numerous allegations of this kind against me, both on the evidence page and on his talk page. Most of his accusations of "misquoting" or misrepresentation are pure bluff, supported with no evidence whatsoever; others are supported with very poor or even ridiculous evidence, requiring a great deal of strained interpretation, special pleading, and pettifogging on his part. (A representative example of Coppertwig's hermeneutic contortions: he points to this diff of Jay's and claims Jay doesn't demand an exact verbal formulation in it, and accuses me of "misquoting" Jay on this score.) Anyone curious about the substance of Coppertwig's accusations should read this section of Coppertwig's talk page, but I warn you, you'll need the patience of Job to get through it.--G-Dett (talk) 14:17, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I'd say this is arguably a fair characterization, but it's irrelevant. Lots of people misunderstand or mischaracterize their opponents' positions. – Quadell ^(talk) 17:38, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I consider that miscontruing is a totally normal part of discussion. Ideally such misunderstandings get straightened out as the discussion progresses. This is not just about G-Dett misunderstanding or mischaracterizing peoples' positions. This is about G-Dett mischaracterizing under the following circumstances:

after having been asked "never attribute anything to me that I have not explicitly stated" [133], and in the same incidents
without indicating that it's a paraphrase by using a phrase like "What you seem to be saying is..." or "Is this what you mean?" and in the same incidents
not acknowledging the error when it was pointed out.

G-Dett seems to be continuing to insist that it was not a misquote to say "Jay then starts demanding sources for exactly that verbal formulation", (see subsection of my evidence) even after it's been pointed out to G-Dett that Jayjg has clarified that he was not insisting that the source had to use the exact same words, as seemed clear to me when I originally read his comments. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 18:33, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, as I've explained to Coppertwig, misquotation is a binary yes-it-happened/no-it-didn't-happen kind of thing. I'm fairly certain Coppertwig understands that I have never "misquoted" Jay or anyone else, in the actual meaning of that term. What Coppertwig appears to mean is that I've mischaracterized or misunderstood Jay, or quoted him out of context, or something along those lines. Why Coppertwig won't simply say what he means, after he's had his basic verbal error pointed out to him several times; why he continues to abuse the word "misquote," thereby abusing the trust of the community by misrepresenting the nature of the infraction he's accusing me of (right there in a subheading on an Arbcom page!); is beyond me. That he's packaged all this misrepresentation as a pious demand for verbal accuracy is ironic, of course, but it's also unconscionable, and frankly exasperating, as is the following:

Having contested my claim that Jay was demanding "exactly" a certain verbal formulation, Coppertwig accuses me of "not acknowledging the error when it was pointed out." Um, over a week ago now I refactored "per Coppertwig", then promptly informed Coppertwig that I had refactored per his objection, and further explained to him that the entire issue of exact vs. approximate quotation had been a red herring; that my point was simply that Jay was applying the rigors of WP:NOR (however he conceived those) to casual talk-page formulations instead of proposed article content. As for Jay's "clarification" – solicited by Coppertwig four months after the fact – about what he meant, it's utterly beside the point. Even if we assume Jay's good faith, it's absolutely, totally irrelevant. The statement of mine disputed by Coppertwig was not about Jay's state of mind, or what he intended by his apparently careless verbal formulations; it was simply about what Jay was actually saying and doing. What he was saying was, 'Sigh. Which one of those sources states "Samaria and the West Bank... different-epoch names for the same area"? Please quote them saying it' (emphasis in Jay's original). And what he was doing was refusing to discuss why he thought MeteorMaker's sources failed to support his proposed content: 'I note that not one of your sources says "Samaria and the West Bank" are "different-epoch names for the same area". Thanks for proving my point.' That's all the rationale he would offer for rejecting MM's sources: which of your sources state quote, X, unquote? Ah, I see, none of them state quote, X, unquote. You lose, then. Again, I don't care what editors think; I care what they say and do. That Jay is supposedly open to equivalent verbal formulations does not matter in the slightest, if he's not actually willing to discuss why a given formulation isn't equivalent.

Finally, regarding Jay's dictum, cited repeatedly and reverentially by Coppertwig – "never attribute anything to me that I have not explicitly stated" – I should make very clear that I find any such demand not only illegitimate but in fact totally laughable. Paraphrase is necessary for brevity, of course, but that's not why the demand is absurd. It's absurd because aggressive paraphrase is in fact the soul of argument. From Socrates on – whether we're talking about bare-knuckled bruisers like Christopher Hitchens, or genteel philosophers like Richard Rorty – the tradition of argument has always included reformulating your opponent's position so as to reveal its latent flaws and inconsistencies. Of course those thereby paraphrased are never happy about it, but it's their job to respond either by (a) revealing the flaws of the aggressive paraphrase, in the process rephrasing their own position so as to dramatize its robustness; or (b) acknowledging that the paraphrase indeed reveals flaws in their position, and reformulating it accordingly. Meanwhile if you're strawmanned, you say how; you show for example what was artfully omitted or altered by your interlocutor. What you don't do is just stand there at the podium with your veins pulsing and your feet stamping and your head and neck empurpling and your mouth mouthing, "That's not what I said! That's not what I meant! I've been misquoted! Strawman!"

The only people I've ever heard resort to this sort of thing in a debate context are Wikipedians. Often experienced Wikipedians, interestingly enough. Prolonged exposure to the unusual taboo here against "original research" does odd things to the brains of some WP veterans, it seems. They begin to think that just as source material is protected from analysis, interpretation, and critical paraphrase, so too are their own statements.--G-Dett (talk) 20:59, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I feel silly about this, because apparently a large part of the disagreement between G-Dett and me was because we were assuming different definitions of the word "misquote", a misunderstanding which we seem to have straightened out [134] after G-Dett suggested using the word "mischaracterize"; while I'm the one who had said "People need to clarify the definitions of terms being used in discussion". I should have realized at an earlier stage that clarifying terms might help. I'm changing the heading from "G-Dett has misquoted Jayjg" to "G-Dett has mischaracterized Jayjg's position". G-Dett, I'm sorry for using a word that could be misunderstood and not clarifying what I meant by it, and for thereby causing a lot of trouble. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 17:58, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

G-Dett, I apologize for not having replied earlier to your striking out of the word "exact". Your striking out of this word was an act of good faith and I thank you for it. I noticed it at the time, but then got distracted and forgot about it.

I hope we'll be able to continue this discussion in the more positive spirit we seem to have established. If there are further misunderstandings, I hope we'll be able to discover them and straighten them out.

Your statement as it now stands on the evidence page (after striking out the word "exact") says "Jay then starts demanding sources for that verbal formulation". Would you please explain what you mean by this? To me, the phrase "verbal formulation" seems to mean a specific arrangement of words. To me, therefore, "verbal formulation" and "exact verbal formulation" mean pretty much the same thing, which is actually the main reason I didn't reply earlier to your striking out of the word "exact". (Although I had intended to reply, and should have, since it didn't seem to me to change the meaning significantly it didn't seem as important to me as you might have expected.) Maybe "verbal formulation" means something different to you than it does to me, but I wonder how you can keep that statement on the evidence page in that form after Jayjg has clarified that he was not insisting that the source had to use the exact same words. Would you please explain? Do you still think he was "demanding sources for that verbal formulation"? What do you mean by that? I know that you've said above that this was not the point. However, it is the point that I'm interested in at this moment. If you're not interested in it, perhaps it would be simplest to just strike that sentence from your evidence.

I like your description of the heart and soul of rhetoric. Very appealing. However, I suggest that that technique of paraphrasing one's debating partners can be carried out quite effectively by saying things like "What you seem to be saying is ... " or, if one wants to sound zestier than that, then things like "That's tantamount to ... !" or "If we can never ... " etc. If your debating style requires actually making assertions that someone said something which they didn't actually say, there's definitely a problem. You said that something was a red line for you; [135] I suppose this is perhaps a red line for me. (Whatever "red line" means.)

By the way, you said that Jayjg was "refusing to discuss why he thought MeteorMaker's sources failed to support his proposed content" and to illustrate this you quote Jayjg saying "'I note that not one of your sources says "Samaria and the West Bank" are "different-epoch names for the same area"." To me, this should require no further explanation: obviously, the statement Jayjg is saying is not supporting by the sources is equivalent to an assertion that "Samaria" and "West Bank" are the same thing: something that apparently nobody has claimed. If anyone wanted to further the discussion they would simply have had to clarify that that statement was not what they were claiming the sources supported, and specify what assertion they were claiming the sources supported. If someone had made the statement about "Samaria and the West Bank" being "different-epoch names for the same area" earlier in the discussion, they would have needed to retract it before the discussion could progress; or if nobody had made the statement, someone could have replied to Jayjg that nobody was claiming that, and specify what they actually were claiming: as I've said ought to have been done more often during the discussion. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 23:50, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you took my red line seriously, so let's see if I can return the favor. Of the options you've given me, "That's tantamount to..." seems the least leaden, the most aerodynamic. Henceforth I'll try to attach a light, bright ribbon with that disclaimer on it to every arrow in my quiver. Your droll use of "zestier" above made me laugh; I was startled and delighted to detect the pulse of life through the thick, heavy, five-ply fabric of your prose style.

When I say that Jay was requesting sources for "that verbal formulation," I simply mean that formulation ("Samaria and West Bank are different-epoch names for the same area," from MeteorMaker's casually phrased talk-page statement) as opposed to the verbal formulation MeteorMaker was actually proposing to add to the article ("Samaria is a term used for the mountainous northern part of what is today the West Bank"). Note that the problem you're identifying – that Samaria and the West Bank are not the same thing – was not a problem for MeteorMaker's actual proposed content, which specified, in exactly the same way that Jay's version specified, that Samaria refers to the "northern part" of the West Bank. In other words, if you're right that this quibble – Samaria ≠ West Bank – was the self-explanatory reason for Jay's dismissal of MM's sources, then that supports (rather than counters) my charge that Jay was being disruptive, because his opposition was focused on a casual inaccuracy in a casually worded talk-page comment – a casual inaccuracy not contained (this part is crucial, Coppertwig) in MM's actual proposed content.

I strongly disagree with your statement regarding this casual inaccuracy, that MeteorMaker "would have needed to retract it before the discussion could progress." That's like saying if I accidentally called you "Cappertwig" I'd have to formally retract my error before discussion could progress. There was no daylight whatsoever between Jay and Meteormaker's proposed ledes with regards to the geographic boundaries of Samaria. Jay was saying it's "a term used for the mountainous northern part of the West Bank," while MM was saying it's "a term used for the mountainous northern part of what is today the West Bank." That what is today clause was all they were disputing, period. For discussion to progress, Jay would have needed to acknowledge the locus of their dispute, and talk about it in plain, straight terms, that is, with (a) no more nonsense about "pleonasm," and (b) straightforward discussion about whether the proposed phrase "what is today" was supported by cited sources like Britannica ("modern West Bank territory"). My reading of the exchange, which has not substantively altered since you and I began discussing this, is that it was exceedingly obvious that the sources, including but not limited to Britannica, amply support "what is today," with any conceivable phrasal dispute easily resolved by adopting language even closer to Britannica's (e.g. "Samaria refers to the central region of ancient Palestine, corresponding roughly to the northern portion of the modern West Bank territory.") In my reading, that is, it is precisely because the sources so obviously and irrefutably support the phrase MeteorMaker was proposing and Jay was rejecting ("what is today") that Jay turned his attention to MeteorMaker's casually phrased talk-page formulation, and began demanding sources for that instead. In my experience, this sort of switcheroo is a fairly common component of Jay's editing strategy.--G-Dett (talk) 20:36, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you thrice, G-Dett. More later. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 14:07, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm refactoring the above proposed finding of fact, to reflect the fact that based on your refactoring and explanation, my evidence section now only presents one instance of you asserting that Jayjg said something which he apparently didn't say. I'm also replying further at Meta-discussion on the talk page, where I explain why I disagree with your assertion that Jayjg was being "disruptive". ☺Coppertwig (talk) 15:48, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Misquotation by MeteorMaker[edit]

MeteorMaker (MM) has indicated repeatedly, using quotation marks, that Jayjg accused MM of "distasteful ethnic discrimination" [136] [137] [138] [139] [140], yet no diffs have been found of Jayjg using that particular phrase or even just "ethnic discrimination" in this discussion. When this was pointed out, MeteorMaker neither acknowledged nor corrected the error, but again quoted the same phrase A while providing many diffs none of which contain the phrase. B Withdrawn. 12:25, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Oppose. Jayjg's phrase "distasteful attempts to discriminate against sources based on alleged ethnicity" exists in numerous variations (20 examples here) and it's not a misquotation to condense it into "distasteful ethnic discrimination". Coupled with the attempt to invoke WP:POINT, this exercise in barrel-scraping really takes the cake. MeteorMaker (talk) 23:20, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To say "What Jayjg said can be condensed into ..." might not be a misquotation; it might or might not be a mischaracterization. ~~But to say "he claims", and then present a phrase within quotation marks which the person did not use, is definitely a misquotation.~~^{(12:25, 15 April 2009 (UTC))} When quoting from a source, do you say "The source states", then put something in quotation marks which is a different pattern of words from what appears in the source? If you "condense" or paraphrase what someone says, fine, but don't present your condensed or paraphrased version in quotation marks after "he claims", as if it's a direct quote. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 00:52, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I assume Coppertwig can now produce a diff to where I said "he claims [I have engaged in] 'distasteful ethnic discrimination'"? MeteorMaker (talk) 06:34, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly. It's the first diff I gave above, [141] where you said "(eg when he claims, repeatedly, that I engage in "distasteful ethnic discrimination".)" This statement (as well as a number of similar statements about that phrase) still stands on the talk page of this evidence page; I would appreciate it if you would refactor them. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 12:54, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Grr, it would have been such a glorious checkmate if you had been exposed as yourself doing what you accuse me of. I'm kicking myself for missing that single quote.

OK, my next assumption: You will afford me the same courtesy as you afforded Jayjg, [142] to ask me if I actually intended the quotation marks to indicate an exact sequence of words, or if I possibly could have been using them as scare quotes. MeteorMaker (talk) 15:09, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It wouldn't have been a checkmate at all. I would simply have apologized and refactored my comment.

Happy to oblige: MeteorMaker, did you actually intend the quotation marks to indicate an exact sequence of words, or could you possibly have been using them as "scare quotes"? ☺Coppertwig (talk) 00:07, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Glad you asked. Of course I didn't intend the quotation marks to indicate an exact sequence of words. I could have chosen to say "Jayjg claims I have engaged in distasteful ethnic discrimination'" (without quotes), but that would have appeared as if I accepted the validity of his accusation (even though I dismissed its applicability in my case). By using scare quotes, I distanced myself from the concept itself: that dismissing examples of "X" as proof of non-X is a "distasteful and inappropriate attempt to disqualify sources based on ethnicity".

Now that we have cleared up the misunderstanding, I would appreciate if you refactored or removed your recent 8 comments that all say "Note: no diff of Jayjg saying "distasteful ethnic discrimination" has been found. See Misquotation by MeteorMaker. Please don't move this comment." Perhaps an apology to all the editors who have lost hours here and elsewhere replying to this nonsensical sophistry would also be appropriate. MeteorMaker (talk) 11:29, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your clarification, MeteorMaker. I'm withdrawing the proposed finding of fact, and I apologize for not having thought of the "scare quote" interpretation. Since there was more than one interpretation, it was wrong of me to accuse you of "misquotation". I'm influenced here by Abd, who says that it wouldn't be OK to use quotation marks like that in an article, but that one can do it in informal discussion.[143] I'm not sure I entirely agree with that, (or whether accusing someone of lying should be included in that sort of "informal discussion") but I have to accept that others might not choose to communicate in exactly the same ways I would. This was a distraction, and I'm sorry for the time that was taken up with it.

In future, I would appreciate it if you would provide clues to help people realize what you mean if there's a possible ambiguity like that; especially, if you use quotation marks in a context (such as following "he claims") where they could easily be interpreted as direct quotation, I would appreciate it if you would help out the reader by putting the words "(scare quotes)" after them or something. I'll also try to be more aware of the various possible meanings that might be present. I suppose it didn't occur to you, when I asked you for diffs, that I wasn't aware of the "scare quotes" interpretation. I think we all need to try to be aware of possible misunderstandings like that, and to try to clarify things in order to avoid them.

This isn't a zero-sum game like chess, by the way. We're working towards a common goal: communicating, understanding each others' POVs, and finding a consensus that we can all be happy with (or can at least accept). I'm ready to help you, too, when the opportunity arises. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 12:25, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Apology accepted, now let's move on. MeteorMaker (talk) 13:17, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Yes. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 13:22, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not even worth discussing: erm, Coppertwig you have gone through the links properly haven't you? Jayjg has quite clearly made this (unfounded) accusation on many occasions, as have others following his lead. If you wish to follow Jayjg's example, you could always claim that the phrase "distasteful discrimination" is different from "discrimination that is distasteful", and that it is a clear breach of WP:SYNTH to claim they are more or less the same accusation, but no one is going to buy that, obviously. --Nickhh (talk) 00:20, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nickhh, please provide a diff of Jayjg saying "discrimination that is distasteful" or refactor your comment to clarify that you're not claiming he said that. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 12:54, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, but I can provide a link which explains that the phrase "follow the example of .." is used to refer to general behaviour, sometimes illustrated by a hypothetical example. This pettifogging is getting a little out of hand, and in fact - exactly as I was trying to suggest - it is one of the reasons we ended up here, due to editors exploiting rules and wikilawyering in a bid to avoid the obvious conclusions about what the rest of the world calls certain areas in the Middle East.--Nickhh (talk) 13:36, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Coppertwig. You proposed to mediate a compromise on the problem as a neutral party, and at the time have shown in this thread an extraordinary ultrapartisan alacrity for trying to nail Meteormaker in the very way Jayjg did. In performing the latter you have burnt up your credentials for the former. Indeed your method recapitulates every absurdity in Jayjg's own textbook manner. By endless equivocation you appear to wish to muddle a simple issue that is as plain as day. You have outheroded Herod in this wikilawyering. You are endeavouring, as most of Jayjg's comments on 'Judea and Samaria' did, to exhaust and befuddle everybody's clear perception of a point by an obsessive quibble. It reminds me of the OJ Simpson trial where the strategy was to so exhaust the jury's attention by exacerbated microscopic equivocations on the nuances of minutiae that they failed to see the obvious point about the glove, and the blood analysis.

That Jayjg repeatedly uses the three words 'ethnic', 'discrimination' and 'distasteful' in sequenced remarks in the 20 odd phrasal variations of a generic statement that contained a veiled suggestion MM's method was racist is proven beyond reasonable doubt. MM, under minute pettifogging cross-examination justified his synthesis of the three words in 20 contexts as legitimate. It is indeed, for he is not editing a page of an article where WP:SYNTH rules apply, he is, for brevity's sake, summing up what Jayjg's reiterated keywords all drive at, and he does that by the use of inverted commas. With MM's link to the 20 statements anyone can see that this is a reasonable synthesis of Jayjg's remarks. It is not material to the evidence that a faithful representation of Jayjg's phrasing would require (. . + . .+. . . ). There is madness in this method. Nothing can ever be discussed or resolved in this technique of missing the wood for the trees, of insisting that everything be repeated in the ipsissima verba of one's interlocutor in extenso in a rational argument. Human discourse does not function this way. It summarizes, recapitulates, synthesizes before one's interlocutor, who may challenge it as misleading as a synthesis. But one should never say the use of inverted commas constitutes incorrect verbal attribution when the conceptual attribution is unchallengeable. I.e. that the phrase sums up definitely, indisputably, what Jayjg meant. If your point is not just a formalist method of making MM's precision look unreliable, then you should say here and now, whether the synthesis 'distasteful ethnic discrimination' distorts what Jayjg, using those three words, repeats in 21 distinct statements, or whether, as MM, I and many others think, these three words, for argumentative brevity (hence . . .) embody precisely the concept Jayjg enunciates on all those occasions. If you think they misrepresent Jayjg's reiterated view, then you may have a point. In that case MM's synthesis would be untruthful, and a malicious misrepresentation. Unfortunately, they represent with high fidelity Jayjg's point.

Your use of the technique is disturbing, for it is precisely Jayjg's mastery of this methodological distraction by infinite equivocation which led to the Arbcom dispute in the first place. One simply cannot edit rationally in wikipedia with this war of niggling attrition, where formal equivocation stamps out content, or concept. Excuse my frankness, but I find this concentration of trivia in talk pages takes up an enormous amount of time intelligent adults would better spent simply reading up on the scholarship, mostly ignored by editors, mastery of which is a prerequisite for securing quality in wikipedia articles in the I/P area.Nishidani (talk) 15:55, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your frank comment, Nishidani. I apologize for having allowed unrealistic expectations to have developed by not explaining, when I entered this discussion, what my intentions were. I don't wish to be labelled as being on one "side" or the other, but neither do I agree to be neutral. I've tried to explain my role on my user page: I have the right to express opinions about article content just like anyone else; I'm not agreeing to take on a neutral role. However, I may at times be somewhat neutral, or more neutral than some other people.

I was aware of the discussions about the term "Samaria" weeks before the arbitration case started, and intended to get involved, but was busy with other things. One reason I decided to get involved was because I thought (arrogantly?) that I could help facilitate compromise and consensus. Another reason was that I thought it would be interesting for me because I found the dispute interesting, which implies that I had opinions about it or thought I was likely to form opinions if I learned more about it. These two reasons are somewhat contradictory; nevertheless, as I see it, that's the way I usually participate in editing Wikipedia articles, for example Circumcision or Chiropractic, and I find that it generally works well. Possibly I could be more effective in facilitating compromise if I acted in a more neutral manner: but then, the same could be said of anyone, and I'd rather express my own opinions sometimes than always help others negotiate to express theirs.

You said I was endeavouring to exhaust and befuddle. Not at all. The reason I asked MeteorMaker to refrain from (what I saw as) misquotation was to remove a source of irritation, in order to improve the atmosphere so that we could collaborate more effectively.

G-Dett pointed out something which was a "red line" for her. [144] I understood that in order to be able to collaborate, I would have to find some way to respect that; and I did, although at first glance it didn't seem feasible. In turn, misquotation is a "red line" for me. I didn't pursue it in order to annoy or befuddle. I did it because it was important to me. How would G-Dett have felt if, in reply to her "red line" comment, I had said "Oh, you're just being pedantic. Stop complaining. I'm not going to change the way I talk just for you."? We need to respect each other, even though what seems important to one person seems unimportant or inscrutable to another.

To me, the phrase "distasteful ethnic discrimination" has significantly different connotations, and probably a different meaning, from what Jayjg actually said. Since it's being used as a basis for accusations of lying etc., this is not an insignificant point. When Jayjg went to the trouble of typing a longer phrase rather than that short one, I believe he had reasons for doing so. I choose my own words carefully, and don't appreciate having some other words that I didn't choose attributed to me. I disagree, however, that this would imply maliciousness on MeteorMaker's part: there's no reason to assume that. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 01:29, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If MM wrote: 'Distasteful' 'ethnic/ethnicity'-based 'discrimination', even you would have to admit that the formulation exactly represents what Jayjg argues 21 times in those sentences. Instead you argue, and it is a masterpiece of unique equivocation, that writing it this way means something different from writing 'Diasteful ethnic discrimination'. Semantically, the two ways of summarizing Jayjg's point, are identical. No amount of moving the ~~goalposts~~ placing of the inverted commas alters the semantic content. The former is a precise, irrefutable synthesis of Jayjg's position precisely because Jayjg uses those three words with a mantra-like repetitiveness: the latter has an ambiguity of direct attribution. The difference is one between direct citation and synthetic citation, and while you are at liberty to hew to your opinion that they have different meanings, this insistence is extremely idiosyncratic. It is, my friend, wikilawyering. As to Jayjg 'going to the trouble' of typing a long phrase, he didn't. If you check the 21 examples, you will note (and this is part of his style) most of them are off a template. They are not composed for the occasion, as all technicians of classical prose know, since they are as formulaic as Homeric epithets and half-liners. Nishidani (talk) 14:49, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. I would not admit that. To me, what he said has a different meaning. You can't just take three words a person used, put them together in a new combination, and claim that that's what the person argued. It may be OK if you understand them to mean the same thing; but you shouldn't assume that I, or Jayjg, or the arbitrators will necessarily understand them to mean the same thing. In my experience, people usually have better luck correctly paraphrasing material they agree with, than material they disagree with. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 21:30, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Let's cross-examine in turn. Evidence.

(a)Your attempts to discriminate against sources based on their alleged ethnic or national (origin) is distasteful and inappropriate." (Jayjg 21 times)

(b) Distasteful ethnic discrimination. MM's shorthand for 21 variations on (a).

What is the difference in meaning you detect between the two semantically, conceptually? Nishidani (talk) 21:54, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Answering that might lead into a long discussion, so to save time I'll decline at least for now. I think that what I think they mean is irrelevant, because I'm neither someone who made one of those statements, nor one of the ones who was offended. I only offered the information that I perceive them to mean different things in order to get people to realize that there's a possibility that Jayjg may perceive them to mean different things. However, if one of the arbitrators asks me, then I'll answer; or there could be other reasons I would decide to answer. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 22:14, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, nothing long. The Socratic elenchus is the natural form called for here to clarify the logical status of propositions. Here there are just two. Still, it's a free world, and no one is under obligation here.Nishidani (talk) 08:43, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. This proposal represents pedantry for pedantry's sake, both POINTy and pointless.--G-Dett (talk) 18:14, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please AGF. The purpose here is to ensure that arbitrators and others don't get the impression that Jayjg actually used a certain phrase which he didn't use (and which is being used as a basis for accusations of lying etc.), and also to avoid irritating Jayjg: I would find it very irritating to have statements posted that seem to assert that I'm saying something that's different from what I actually said, especially in such a context. Whether or not you agree with them, to me these are significant, important purposes, not mere pedantry. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 19:15, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Probably a moot point now, as the proposal has been struck. But for the record, I haven't doubted your good faith. Speaking generally here, pedants almost by definition believe sincerely in the importance of their pedantry. They are – again, generally speaking – exasperating but entirely trustworthy.--G-Dett (talk) 20:54, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, okay, I'll own up, but I'm not entirely trustworthy (I'm, at my age, entirely truss-worthy, and that minute phonological difference isn't the result of trying to make and drink that weird strawberry daquiri you just mentioned.).Nishidani (talk) 21:08, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, G-Dett. I'm sorry for any exasperation. I'm more trustworthy when I say I have done something, than when I say I'm going to do something (I might forget, etc.) ☺Coppertwig (talk) 21:30, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed. Misquoting other editors simultaneously adds heat and subtracts light to and from a discussion. It took me nearly 5 minutes to verify that none of the diffs given in diff A to support the accusation contained that phrase; does MeteorMaker expect each arbitrator to spend that much time on this? In diff A, MeteorMaker mentions something I had said about the meaning of quotation marks; could this be a POINT violation? ☺Coppertwig (talk) 22:20, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It took me, and I presume Meteormaker, several days of lengthy source analysis to examine, over several hundred pages, extensive word usage in some 120 books (mainly) and articles, 80 of which specifically identified as Israeli POV usage 'Samaria and Judea' and 30 of which came from Israelocentric sources, and the unequivocal analysis from our work was ignored, as Jayjg kept splitting hairs. Five minutes over ... finds you tired enough to raise complaints about time spent on a hairsplitting distinction you yourself raise? Put yourself in our shoes, pal, having to prove and reprove for months what any natiove English speaker knows to be obvious, and rethink your complaint about 5 minutes of your time wasted. Nishidani (talk) 19:33, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed remedies[edit]

Personal remarks[edit]

Editors are encouraged to avoid making likely-unwelcome remarks about other editors unless they are relevant to the forum, stated in neutral and objective terms, and supported by diffs.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment: Where is the term "likely-unwelcome" defined? Does it involve mind reading? Can the proposed remedy be circumvented by denying malicious intent? How is it different from the existing WP:CIV? MeteorMaker (talk) 15:04, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 12:27, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I believe this is already covered by the previous ARBPIA and that editors are still ignoring that decision is, to be frank, distressing. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 02:20, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

G-Dett cautioned about remarks about Jayjg[edit]

G-Dett is cautioned to avoid making remarks about Jayjg unless they are relevant to the forum, stated in neutral and objective terms, and supported by diffs.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Oppose. I think we've yet to see an irrelevant, unsupported comment from G-Dett. A diff to such a remark, if Coppertwig has one, would be helpful. MeteorMaker (talk) 15:10, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 12:27, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose "Neutral and objective" in the context of this entire presentation by Coppertwig comes off as euphemism for "Don't describe things as they are." Coppertwig and I are reading the same material, but coming to vastly different conclusions about the accuracy of G-Dett's descriptions. Again, the singular focus on G-Dett by some editors seems to be a "shooting the messenger" kind of thing, and a diversion from dealing with the underlying problems posed by the behaviours she and others have accurately described. Tiamut^talk 12:58, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. My comments about Jay are always relevant and supported, as Coppertwig knows. His point about neutrality and objectivity is well-taken; I have no problem being asked to tone down my rhetoric, as long as doing so is not a pretext to avoid considering evidence of serious wrongdoing (as it was in the case of Khoikhoi's block of me).--G-Dett (talk) 14:22, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't like the way this is worded. I think a "G-Dett is cautioned to be WP:CIVIL" would be more appropriate, with sanctions if it appears that previous similar cautions have been ignored. – Quadell ^(talk) 17:42, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quadell's suggestion works better for me. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 02:22, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

G-Dett restricted from remarks about Jayjg on article talk pages[edit]

G-Dett is restricted from making remarks about Jayjg on article talk pages for a period of six months, and should restrict comments on such pages to comments about article content only.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Oppose: Generally speaking, this seems to be a fairly extraordinary kind of sanction, of the sort that could be easily twisted to inhibit, as noted, genuine talk page discussion - when one editor spotlights or picks apart flimsy logic, double standards or bad content being regularly employed or inserted by another editor, that should be welcomed. Edits are made by editors, and it is not always that easy to address one without addressing the other. WP:NPA can be invoked when there is a real problem of incivility, but the underlying principles there should not be used as a shield to bat off criticism of poor editing or talk page practice. And, on the specifics, I think more editors should be encouraged to flag up the double standards of others where they occur, for example here, where a certain editor – probably correctly in my view – notes that a particular formulation is clumsy and over-burdened with detail. However when it would appear to suit their purposes, includes precisely the same sort of phrasing, with the added bonus that in this case the wording is actually utterly misleading and misrepresents what terms the named publications actually use in their neutral voice. --Nickhh (talk) 16:03, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Of course, if strictly applied, this means over the board, on extremely difficult pages, all argument is reduced to recitatives of policy of the kind: 'Please reviewWP:Civil, WP:AGF, WP:Whatever, when a serious difference of opinion is at stake, and demands evidence, argument, and some collegial flexibility. We are all experienced, and know these policies, but they are being cited ad infinitum out of context, impertinently, in order, as often as not, simply not to reply to the substance of another editor's argument. It is not enough to distract eyes with policy banner-waving. And if this is included, there should be provision for something of the kind, 'Do not cite policy when it is inapplicable, irrelevant', 'Avoid the pretextual use of vagrant policy indications, and reply to the gravamen of each editor's comments' etc. As a personal view, Jayjg is a master of policy. His use of it often substitutes for topical analysis of what his interlocutor is arguing, and that gives many the impression of systematic wikilawyering, of the variety that temps our Detts into rhetorically colourful, but legitimate, remonstration. This, I should add, is not limited to Jayjg. Many adopt this policy waving in order not to reply. Nishidani (talk) 08:25, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per Nickhh and Nishidani. MeteorMaker (talk) 15:12, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 12:27, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose as unnecessary. Again, this comes off as an attempt to unfairly circumscribe valid discussion surrounding inconsistencies in the positions adopted by Jayjg from page to page. If at one article, Jayjg invokes one policy to include a source he likes and then rejects the application of that policy to discinclude a source he doesn't, it is fair for editors to ask why the policy could be applied to the first case and not the second. G-Dett and others have done this on article pages, not to pick on Jayjg, but to try and understand how to address his objections so as to be able to move forward. This has been a considerable waste of time, to be sure, since a coherent explanation regarding the discrepancies is often sought but never found. This is not "making remarks about Jayjg", but trying to build consensus regarding editing policies and practices and the pursuit of answers to these questions is essential to article improvement. Tiamut^talk 13:07, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support It should go without saying that the point of discussions here is content, not remarking on persons. Unlike Tiamut above, I think the diffs show considerable remarking on individuals, particularly Jayjg, well above and beyond this content dispute. Tundrabuggy (talk) 05:50, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

G-Dett cautioned about characterizing Jayjg's position[edit]

G-Dett is cautioned when quoting Jayjg or when stating that Jayjg has said something or is holding a certain position etc. to ensure that what Jayjg has said is precisely and accurately represented in such statement. G-Dett is reminded that verbatim quoting is always available as a method of ensuring the accuracy of quotes (provided they are not taken out of context).

'Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Strong oppose. This ill-conceived proposal arises from Coppertwig's anger and frustration following a long exchange on his talk page. In it, Coppertwig makes a series of dubious claims that he and/or Jayjg have been misunderstood, along with a series of flat-out false claims that they have been "misquoted"; meanwhile he routinely strawmans almost everything I say.

Here's an example of me misquoting/misrepresenting according to Coppertwig. Coppertwig writes, "Jayjg includes precise quotes in his comments. However, nowhere in his comments does he state that he is asking for a source that includes those precise words. Rather, he appears to be asking for a source that supports the idea, whether that idea is expressed in those words or in different words." So in a subsequent post I refer to "your [Coppertwig's] claim that Jay does not demand precise verbal formulations, that he is open to equivalent phrasing and is prepared to discuss why a given phrasing is not, in his mind, equivalent." Coppertwig then quotes these words of mine, and follows them with the following lecture:

I feel that you've misquoted me here. I would appreciate it if you would strike that out and replace it with a quote of my exact words. From now on, please be very careful not to misquote me. One way to avoid misquoting me (as long as you don't take things out of context) is by quoting only my exact words. Here, I am asking for precise verbal formulations: I'm asking you to use my exact words when you represent what you think I've said. One exception to this is when you're asking me what I meant; then it's OK to paraphrase in a sentence like "Do you mean that ... ?" because that would not be asserting that I've said the equivalent of your paraphrase. It can be very useful to do this, to discover and clear up misunderstandings. I don't follow at all the point you were making here, since I think your point depends on assuming I said what you said that I said, rather than what I actually did say. I don't even know what I said that had you thinking I'd said that.

One gets so caught up in the spirit of Coppertwig's harangue that it's easy to forget that he never says what was inaccurate about my paraphrase. It's easy to see why he doesn't, however: because he can't, because my paraphrase was bulls-eye accurate. It's really ridiculous, and the whole thread on Coppertwig's talk page is filled with this kind of nonsense. It's like he's writing a parody of pedantry, while forgetting that even the most tiresome pedants usually have some point, however niggling.

Coppertwig has made a superb proposal here. It is a very nuanced, forward-looking proposed solution to the content problem. I suggest he focus his efforts there, rather than in ill-conceived proposals hatched in anger, serving no communal purpose, only the private purpose of lashing out in the wake of a lost argument.--G-Dett (talk) 15:11, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is fair to think that Coppertwig's proposal is ill conceived, I am less convinced it is fair, useful or relevant to speculate on Coppertwig's emotional state and motivations for making it.--Tznkai (talk) 22:01, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Another proposal that should have been retracted rather than watered down once it was clear to Coppertwig that it was based on a misunderstanding on his part. MeteorMaker (talk) 15:20, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed. As I said on my talk page, if one feels one has to paraphrase what someone said in order to transform it into convincing evidence of wrongdoing, then maybe what the person actually said isn't that bad. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 12:27, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

G-Dett, I really very much appreciate the positive subjective language you've used to describe the Draft guidelines for use of placenames I posted at IPCOLL. I've just edited a copy of them largely to respond to comments posted there, and hope to receive further comments and collaborative editing of the draft guidelines. Tznkai, thank you for your comment as well: much appreciated. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 00:53, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

G-Dett, I'm sorry if I've inadvertently strawmanned things you've said. I didn't do it deliberately. I think it's only natural that people misconstrue things at first, and then they can be explained further to clear up misunderstandings. I suggest that you bring up on my talk page any such issues that you still think are worthy of discussion. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 18:47, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm changing the heading from "G-Dett cautioned about quoting" to "G-Dett cautioned about characterizing Jayjg's position", with apologies to G-Dett. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 17:58, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Support for direct quotes as opposed to indirect quotes. This goes to "implications" etc. This in itself would resolve pages of discussion over mischaracterised quotes, often no doubt mischaracterised in good faith. It is hard to argue one's way out of a direct quote. Either one has to support it or retract it. However, the pages and hours consumed in understanding, defending or explaining someone else's characterisation of one's words are a horrible waste of time that can never be retrieved. Tundrabuggy (talk) 06:03, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Restrictions on adding or removing "Samaria" or "Judea"[edit]

Any editor who has had this remedy brought to their attention is restricted from adding or removing the terms "Samaria" or "Judea" to or from more than three articles in any 60-day period, except articles to which the editor is at the time engaged in making significant and substantive changes, or except when the edit has been proposed at least three days earlier on the talk page and no opposition has been expressed. This remedy will be in effect for a period of one year. It does not constitute an entitlement to make changes; other guidelines and principles still apply, particularly WP:CONSENSUS.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Oppose. This would just invite a lot of trash edits in order to become eligible for adding/removing the terms. MeteorMaker (talk) 23:01, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed. I believe a restriction of this type would work synergistically with the guidelines that are being developed. It might also act as an incentive to improve articles. When I say no opposition has been expressed, I really mean anyone who has expressed opposition had withdrawn their opposition, but I thought that would be too wordy and that it's obvious (under IAR) that that's what's meant. It would have to be clarified whether parties and participants in this case would be automatically considered to have had the remedy brought to their attention (however that's usually done). ☺Coppertwig (talk) 18:33, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

MeteorMaker cautioned about quotation[edit]

MeteorMaker is cautioned to be careful when quoting or characterizing the positions of other editors to ensure that such quotes or characterizations are ~~accurate~~ presented in such a way as not to be easily interpreted as indicating an inaccurate quotation or characterization.^{(12:32, 15 April 2009 (UTC))}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Shrug. Good advice for us all, but the grounds for singling me out appear to be shaky to say the least. MeteorMaker (talk) 22:51, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't remember anyone else misquoting someone in this discussion, let alone continuing to insist on the misquotation after it's been pointed out. And as Tundrabuggy pointed out, when making an accusation it's particularly important to quote accurately. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 12:58, 14 April 2009 (UTC)^{(11:53, 16 April 2009 (UTC))}[reply]

And of course, to check that the points of accusation are at least passably valid. MeteorMaker (talk) 16:30, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to amended version: An already bland proposal has been watered down to homeopathic nothingness. Since even a decision that merely cautions me to be careful to avoid making characterizations that can theoretically become misinterpreted may be misconstrued by malicious editors to mean I'm not allowed to discuss their arguments at all, I must sadly oppose. MeteorMaker (talk) 17:19, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly Oppose. It's framed as a gag order on one editor. A large part of one's experience in the I/P area is that editors consistently refuse to listen and reply closely to problems of method and evidence, which is certainly not the case with MM. Texts are customarily misquoted, positions are constantly misrepresented, weird ideas (Samaria is in Israel) are pushed. To make an issue for formal remonstrative sanctions of what one side insists is a(n infinitesimal) slip involving a (correct) 'synthesis' of Jayjg's known views, through several hundred interactions over months of dialogue is to make a huge rhetorical mountain out of a miniscule molehill, and creates a parlous precedent for wikilawyering, and the triumph of formal gamesmanship over substance, i.e. over the primary aim of this encyclopedia. Nishidani (talk) 17:59, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed. See finding of fact #Misquotation by MeteorMaker. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 22:23, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Modified. I still think caution is needed; but given MeteorMaker's clarification, the caution is not against blatantly inaccurate quotation (which has not occurred) but against writing which can easily be misinterpreted as presenting a verbatim quotation when it is not. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 12:32, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support At the very least. Particularly when making accusations against other editors. Tundrabuggy (talk) 02:33, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Absent any allegation of substantive mischaracterization, quibbles over the proper use of inverted commas are no different from quibbles over the proper use of upright commas: it's pedantry for pedantry's sake. Take it to WP:MOS; it has no place on an Arbcom page, and represents here, at best, a total waste of time. Given that it appears designed to insinuate substantive mischaracterization without openly alleging it (certainly the ball butterfingered Tundrabuggy is running off with), this proposal could represent something rather worse than a total waste of time. I'll just add that in light of the context – MeteorMaker responding to systematic, deliberate, collective, and grotesque distortions of his positions and breathtakingly bogus and bad-faith accusations of bigotry – this sort of pedantry, focusing as it does solely on matters of style not substance, seems especially perverse.--G-Dett (talk) 18:04, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposals by User:Cerejota[edit]

Proposed principles[edit]

ArbCom Doesn't Rule on Content[edit]

Content issues are to be resolved by the community, using the dispute resolution process and following our content policies.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Oppose, unless there are suggestions for the introduction of more efficient mechanisms for dispute resolution. The record is that one or two, with a will, can hold up for donkey's ages simple commonsensical edits. At the moment, esp. in the I/P area, wikipedia has become a talkpage forum, and not an encyclopedia where articles are written to GA level. Its GA level output is piddling: its talkpage volume and dispute resolution history Byzantine in its labyrinthine, Borghesian complexity. We need some 'fast-track' mechanisms for areas that are chronically conflicted. Otherwise we will have articles in a steady state of entropic, or anti-entropic fluctuation.Nishidani (talk) 17:57, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Support. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 01:49, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Disrupting Wikipedia by disregarding core content policies is not a content issue[edit]

There is a difference between a content dispute, and the willful violation of content policy. ArbCom can determine that a violation of content policy is disruptive, and hence not related to the content itself, but to the behavior of the editor(s) introducing the content.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Support. This is not a content issue per se, but a behavioural issue. pedrito - talk - 23.03.2009 07:15

Support. As per Pedrito. Nishidani (talk) 17:58, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Oppose. It's not possible to enforce this without making judgement calls about content disputes. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 18:33, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Editors are expected to interpret core content policy consistently[edit]

Editors should not apply core content policy selectively, or provide contradictory arguments. Honesty is expected. Evidence to the contrary is not a a content issue, but a behavioral issue.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Strongly support. Wild swings in interpretation of the same policy, over different pages, according to what an editor wants in or out, is one of the most disconcerting characteristics of several editors. Policies are wielded instrumentally to win arguments, include or elide information according to personal preference. If coherence of rule interpretation were imposed on editors as a priority, and evidence of policy manipulation over different articles deemed sanctionable, a good deal of frustration would be avoided.Nishidani (talk) 11:57, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Comment - I agree with Nishidani's comment: the core issue here is a bad faith approach to editing policy. People seem to be playing nomic, instead of applying consistent principles to editing. I find this very frustrating, specially when I find myself in agreement with an editor on one article, and then in disagreement on another, without my position on policy changing. This makes it extremely difficult to think that people are not pushing a POV. A good example, in this particular case, is the insistence on using a general consensus of sources to support/oppose the usages of "Judea and Samaria", while the same approach is used to oppose/support "Gaza massacre" in the Gaza war article. You can literally copy and paste the arguments, switching the editors, and you would have the same results. It is very disheartening to see such blatant inconsistency. --Cerejota (talk) 14:24, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is wrong to disrupt Wikipedia to make a point[edit]

As per WP:POINT. Editors are expected to follow our content policies, including developing, in good faith, a rough consensus. Trying to introduce or remove content alleging it is consensus when there is overwhelming evidence to the contrary is disrupting Wikipedia to make a point.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Wikipedia is not a battleground[edit]

We report what reliable sources say about a topic, but do not fight the battles being reported in Wikipedia.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Support. Given that an overwhelming mass of articles are written from journalistic, agenda-driven sites, government PR sources, or 'reliable sources' of dubious relevance, and conflict over these is endemic, the bar should be raised. The I/P area is one of the areas most intensely covered by high quality academic scholarship. First-rate books on every aspect, tumble by the month from university presses. A great deal of conflict could be avoided if I/P editors were required to privilege above all academic, specialist sources for most of these articles,(excluding those covering recent events) or 90% of page content. Nishidani (talk) 12:05, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Wikipedia is a global encyclopedia[edit]

Articles in wikipedia should reflect a global view on the topics being covered.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Strongly Support. I think it good practice to review what one has written always with this in mind. This 'Judea and Samaria' dispute would be unimaginable to a literate Chinese and Japanese, for instance. 'Judea and Samaria' itself is not even an area in the Japanese wiki but an Israeli administrative division in the region of the Jordan river's West Bank (ヨルダン川西岸地区にあるイスラエルの行政区画である)。 The area both in China (約旦河西岸地區（short term西岸地區) and Japan is named 'Jordan River West Bank region'. Samaria and Judea are known only to a small minority of Christians in either country. Samaria in the Japanese wiki is defined as follows:'Calling the northern part of the West Bank region Samaria is preferred by people with a Zionist perspective, and they call the Jordanriver West Bank region Judea and Samaria ('西岸地区北部をサマリアと呼ぶことはシオニズム的な立場にある人々に好まれ、彼らはヨルダン川西岸地区をユダヤ・サマリアと呼ぶ)。 A global encyclopedia is written well when it takes into account that not only English native language speakers are reading it, but many non-Westerners as well, who would find hammering away on the Israeli-specific term quite obscure, if not to say misleading. Nishidani (talk) 22:15, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Support. When choosing sources to list as references, English-languages sources are preferred if available, but when assessing due weight and deciding what the article should say, sources of all languages are ideally consulted. The exception is that decisions about terminology are based on English-language sources. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 01:49, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

These articles fall within the scope of the WP:ARBPIA ArbCom desicions[edit]

Editors are reminded that these issues have been addressed before by ArbCom.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Support ☺Coppertwig (talk) 01:49, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 02:25, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Truthful edit summaries[edit]

Editors are expected to provide truthful and descriptive edit summaries, in particular in articles where there is controversy.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Support. It saves other editors time when the page history has meaningful edit summaries. Using good edit summaries is a show of good faith and a collaborative effort. Making a controversial change without noting it in the edit summary could be seen as underhanded. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 01:49, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Editors are expected to discuss fairly[edit]

Editors are expected to discuss the inclusion or removal of content and developing consensus. In order to ensure that these discussions are reasonable and in good faith, meatpuppetry is forbidden. Editing consensus should be developed by consistent editors of the article (or parent/sub articles), not by gathering like-minded editors to skew consensus.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Support. I believe that usually an article talk page is not an appropriate forum to discuss user conduct. Instead, user conduct needs to be discussed in appropriate forums, usually beginning with the user's talk page. Repeating accusations on an article talk page serve no useful purpose other than to attempt to further the position of the accuser (though it can backfire by making the accuser look bad) and cause significant harm by making editing unpleasant and driving editors from the project. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 01:49, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Editors are expected to use the dispute resolution process[edit]

Accusations and innuendos without any action only serve to poison the well, and do not create an atmosphere of cooperation and productivity. If editors feel that there are behavioral issues that warrant community attention, they should pursue dispute resolution. Accusing editors of misbehavior while not pursuing dispute resolution around the alleged misbehavior is in itself disruptive.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed remedies[edit]

1RR[edit]

1RR per article, per day limit on all WP:ARBPIA articles for all editors. Upon first violation a warning will be placed on the talk page of the editor, and this logged in the ARBPIA log. A progressive series of bans and blocks can be used by non-involved admin discretion for further violations.

This doesn't include adding material, only removing, nor maintenance tasks, such as spelling or fixing tags and markup. Uninvolved admins performing administratives tasks are exempt, as long as their edits are as part of performing their role.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Oppose: 1RR is a very blunt tool. WP articles are full of poor content, and there are plenty of editors who wish to retain it. This would basically permit disruptive editing, and sanction those who tried to deal with it - good editing involves removal and deletion of material as much as it does addition and inclusion. Muhammad al-Durrah suffered from this - it's now relatively stable, yes, but also a sprawling and WP:UNDUE mess, full of details about a marginal and obscure conspiracy theory. The key to stability and avoiding edit warring, while at the same time creating decent articles, is getting clear consensus based on following fundamental policies. --Nickhh (talk) 22:59, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If everyone is under 1RR, the issues you mention are minimized - as re-introducing content is not allowed after two editors remove it. 1RR is the only way to actually determine true consensus when there are contentious editing conditions.--Cerejota (talk) 20:22, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Support—this seemingly simple proposition will solve a lot of problem. Edit-warring is a huge issue with I–P articles. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 22:43, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am already on a self-imposed one as per WP:IPCOLL except for technical stuff like fixing refs etc. It will solve 99% of the edit-warring issues, and weed out the disruptive editors who won't resist puppetry because they are dicks of which there are plenty in all sides.--Cerejota (talk) 04:52, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Unsure. I already follow 1RR voluntarily. Note that 1RR is not the same thing as the 0RR which was used at the Muhammad al-Durrah article. It could be beneficial. I'm not sure whether it's necessary. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 01:49, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mass changes forbidden[edit]

Editors are forbidden to make the same change to more than one article per day. These changes must be discussed. Editors can be subjected to progressive topic bans of up to one year in length, by any uninvolved admin.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Comment: You need to specify what you mean by "these changes". Some sort of restriction like this may be helpful. I proposed one as well here. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 01:49, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1) Whatever the mass change might be. 2) I am opposed to ArbCom ruling on content as a matter of principle, so I cannot support a propossal that specifically addresses a term. I can, however, support ArbCom creating conditions, based on editing experience, for resolving or at least mitigating, some of the issues. One of the things the evidence shows is editors doing mass chancges in multiple articles: regardless of the nature of these edits, doing so is disruptive, unproductive, and one of the key behavorial issues: there where mass inclusion and reversions of the terms (Judea and Samaria/West bank) in multiple articles, with little discussion. That is something ArbCom can and should address by banning, since none of the involved editors acted correct, IMHO.--Cerejota (talk) 04:01, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I think I understand: I think you mean that if an editor makes the same change to multiple articles, then it must be discussed, and it must be no more than one article per day. That sounds reasonable. Since there's often disagreement as to whether there was consensus for a change or not, then even after centralized discussion it may still be helpful to limit the rate at which the changes can be applied to multiple articles.

I see no need to ban retroactively. Once the Arbitration Committee has clarified, in decisions such as the above, what behaviour is or is not acceptable, then bans can be used in case of any violations that subsequently occur. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 16:25, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. I think we agree completely on this point: the rate of editing leads to quick snowballing that leads to overheating that leads to otherwise high-functioning editors to revert to reptilian behaviors. Slowing this down, and promoting discussion, addresses part of the issues that lead to this ArbCom. As I said above on another thread, retroactive application is nasty, so I agree with that too (I will touch upon this on the talk page). --Cerejota (talk) 17:59, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Disruption to prove a point is not tolerated[edit]

Editors can be subjected to progressive topic bans of up to one year in length for continuous disruption of the consensus process, by any uninvolved admin.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Meatpuppetry will not be tolerated[edit]

Editors can be subjected to progressive topic bans of up to one year in length for meatpuppetry, by any uninvolved admin.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Not pursuing dispute resolution is disruptive[edit]

Editors can be subjected to progressive topic bans of up to one year in length for repeatedly accusing editors of misbehavior without pursuing dispute resolution, by any uninvolved admin.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Comment: I generally support the direction this is going but the sanction might be too severe. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 01:49, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I want to set a top limit, but generally admins understand that sanctions are not punitive and use their common sense. Since these are topic bans, not blocks, participation in talk pages is still allowed, and furthermore, appeals - in particular in view of good behavior, are possible. I do not think they are severe suggestions - it actually is pretty standard from ArbComs I have seen or taken part in.--Cerejota (talk) 04:04, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm curious, what does it mean to pursue dispute resolution, and do comments on noticeboards count? Or, how strong does a criticism have to be to count? Ideally editors would be able to raise conduct issues in ways that would be resolved before an arbcom case or such, so it isn't entirely clear to me how this could be evaluated without some clarifications. I do think there's something to the principle. Mackan79 (talk) 08:20, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:DR defines what dispute resolution is meant in this context. So yeah, noticeboards, user talk, medcab, etc. One of the things the evidence shows is a failure to use this process in good faith, and constant poisoning of the well with arguments and counter-arguments in a big circle of hate, with no resolution being evidenced as being pursued. --Cerejota (talk) 18:10, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Who What Where When how?--Tznkai (talk) 15:18, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I do not understand. --Cerejota (talk) 18:10, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Who must persue dispute resolution, Who is an uninvolved admin What qualifies as dispute resolution, What qualifies as an accusation Where is this dispute resolution to take place When must it take place, How do we enforce this? Those sorts of questions.--Tznkai (talk) 18:25, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1) Any editor, involved or uninvolved, who sees a pattern of accusations 2)Uninvolved admins are generally seen by the community as being those who have not edited the given topic area in the past, and who have no connection or established bias around the topic - as a clerk, I am surprised you ask because this has been established time and time again by ArbCom 3) WP:DR - The community has a clearly defined dispute resolution path - and I imagine that it would also include WP:AE is there are enforceable sanctions. The general idea is to eliminate the bad faith accusations and counter-accusations so frequent in this dispute: if someone is anti-semite, take it to WP:DRAMA, if someone is stonewalling, take it to WP:DRAMA. If someone repeatedly fails to do so but insists on filling the talk pages with accusations, then any one can take it to WP:AE were an admin will act on evidence. We need to find a workable solution to mitigate the nastiness, and I feel using the process that works is the way. Some of those who oppose this process are those who oppose its underlying principles, like WP:BATTLE, and apparently want to turn wikipedia into a blog.--Cerejota (talk) 20:42, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposals by User:Sm8900[edit]

Proposed principles[edit]

Wikipedia is not a battleground[edit]

Wikipedia is not a battleground. Editors should pursue conensus through WP:CON and find some compromise once it is evident that multiple editors of good-faith hold views on both sides on any particular issue, as is the case in this issue area.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Question: The phrase "once it is evident that" seems to imply that some evidence in addition to the default WP:AGF exists for the claim "multiple editors of good-faith hold views on both sides on any particular issue, as is the case in this issue area". I'm curious, what glimpse of light in the apparent total stonewall-lined darkness has User:Sm8900 spotted? MeteorMaker (talk) 23:46, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for your engaging comment. My answer is simply this: use of the terms "Judea and Samaria" usually is based on some clear and notable historical and cultural sources, regardless of what other agendas or motives may be involved. So in my opinion, we can use a phrase such as "some prominent cultural and political groups use the terms Judea and Samaria, " or some similar formulation. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 13:24, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely, many of the battles could have been avoided if NPOV had been adhered to by using formulations like the one you suggest. My understanding of WP:NPOV and WP:WEASEL is that the groups should ideally be identified, so I suggest going further. MeteorMaker (talk) 13:39, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, attribution is very important. --Cerejota (talk) 00:53, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposals by G-Dett[edit]

Proposed principles[edit]

Parameters of the dispute[edit]

The content dispute is not about an attempt to purge the terms "Judea" and "Samaria" from Wikipedia. It is about two far narrower issues, distinct but related to each other: (1) Can the disputed terms "Judea" and "Samaria" be used in Wikipedia's neutral voice to designate the southern and northern West Bank respectively? (2) When discussing the disputed terms qua terms in a modern context, can Wikipedia include information from high-profile, mainstream reliable sources that these are "biblical names," that they are used "by Israelis" or "by Israel," and/or that they are considered contentious?

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Mischaracterization of the dispute has led to confusion among uninvolved parties, and possibly (though hopefully not) even among arbitrators.--G-Dett (talk) 21:35, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support (though at my age I should write truss). The more light thrown on the subject, the more Nacht und Nebel. Nishidani (talk) 21:43, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support. This must be stated clearly so it doesn't have to be explained over and over. MeteorMaker (talk) 15:27, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Comment: The content dispute here is about the attempts by some people to purge the terms in question from Wikipedia. This proposed finding is just an attempt at "spin". 6SJ7 (talk) 04:18, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is plain false. Nobody has attempted to delete the articles Judea, Samaria, or Judea and Samaria. What people have said is that Wikipedia's narrative voice should not use antiquated or heavily biased terms when there are sources that explicitly state that those terms are either antiquated or heavily biased and other terms are widely used and recognized as relatively neutral. Nableezy (talk) 04:32, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Opposed. In fact it is spin, and it does indeed attempt to purge Judea and Samaria in favor of "northern" and "southern" West Bank, neither of which terms are in common usage, as has been shown. The other alternative offered is to non-partisanrequire a specific and artificial formulated phrase for every article in Wiki in which Judea and/or Samaria are or might ever be mentioned. Perhaps Arbcom can create a doubleplusgood list for us, not just in this nationalistic area, but for all areas of dispute. Offensive words or terms such as these can be relegated to OldSpeak. This would clearly eliminate all disputes throughout Wiki. Tundrabuggy (talk) 05:11, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pots calling kettles black. I have seen few wikipedians more keen on censoring content than yourself: sources, images, talk page contributions, anything that you disagree with should be eliminated, in your opinion. You claim Al-Jazeera is not RS because they have a "pro-Arab ra Yet, when it comes around and it is done to you, you go "OH NOES! BIG BROTHER!". Regardless of the validity of the overarching point (which I see in some cases) it is precisely your "we have always been at war with ~~Eurasia~~ Eastasia" denial-of-reality that I have a huge problem with. And other editors suffer of this too, including some of your rivals - from whom I have defended you. But it is very hard to defend people who make arguments that approach Godwin's law levels of not making sense. --Cerejota (talk) 05:13, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Orwellian rhetoric aside, J&S are indeed "oldspeak" in the sense that they are biblical terms that have demonstrably fallen into disuse outside Israel. "Doubleplusgood lists" already exist in the form of numerous style guides and WP:AVOID. MeteorMaker (talk) 08:26, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Observation: the frankly bizarre claim that northern/southern West Bank are "[not] in common usage, as has been shown" kind of sums up the problem here in terms of continuing misrepresentation of the record, and I trust that the claim itself will not be taken seriously by any passing reader or arb, while at the same time it will serve as clear evidence of what has been going on here. Please, humour me TB by reading the voluminous evidence presented at great length on all these talk pages, for starters maybe the three pieces I posted here. Or, for example, you could simply search the term "northern West Bank" on the New York Times website and see what comes up. Then search for, by way of comparison, "Samaria" and see how long it takes you to trawl through the references to boats, films and gorges before you find ANY example of the newspaper of record using the latter term in modern times to refer to a region in the Middle East in its narative voice. And yes, of course if certain terms are indeed "oldspeak" or "partisanspeak" in the real world, they should be exactly that here as well. --Nickhh (talk) 16:55, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder: neither "northern West Bank" nor "southern West Bank" is a "term," any more than "southern Israel" or "eastern Massachusetts" is a term. West Bank is a term, as are Israel and Massachusetts; northern and southern are just ordinary adjectives. (Southern California by contrast is a term.) For neophytes to the labyrinth of I/P gamesmanship on Wikipedia who might be wondering who the hell would ever think otherwise and how the hell it could ever matter, here's the deal. Those who want to use the rare, partisan terms "Judea" and "Samaria" in Wikipedia's neutral voice often argue that they're "more specific." When it's pointed out that "southern West Bank" and "northern West Bank" are as or more specific, it is often argued that these are "chic neologisms," "terms not in common usage," etc. The game, in other words, is to feign a disinterested desire for greater specificity, then pretend that adding that specificity (in the form of an ordinary adjective) creates a "neologism," and that the only way out of the quandary is to use a rare, controversial, partisan term. A rare partisan term that happens, for connoisseurs of irony, to be geographically ambiguous.--G-Dett (talk) 02:42, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Labyrinth of I/P gamesmanship", indeed. The above is a perfect example of trying to define the debate so you can't lose. It's very clever approach, but it should not be endorsed by the ArbCom. 6SJ7 (talk) 03:14, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above, pace your comment, is a very lucid exposition of a point of view showing knowledge of the evidence, and acuity about language use. If there is something clever (in the slightly pejorative shading: when classical Greek tragedy put down the otherwise admired Odysseus/Ulysses, it has a speaker hint that he is 'clever') in it, perhaps those of us who care for nuance and precision in articles are wasting our efforts here.Nishidani (talk) 13:11, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I removed some off topic bickering here earlier, and I'm rather tempted remove more. Instead, I'll say this: I look very dimly upon comments whose sole constructive value is a statement of disagreement followed by excess words adding insult or accusation. In other words, if you don't have anything useful to add, just note your disagreement, and say nothing else.--Tznkai (talk) 22:05, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support Certainly the issue that has struck me arriving at this dispute having found it references elsewhere is the use of the terminology "Judea" and "Samaria" belonging to the partisan and extremist discourse of a Greater Israel. As I have noted in my evidence, the terms are shunned by the Jewish Chronicle and other sources belonging to the mainstream Jewish community let alone by the general English-language press. Their unqualified usage as geographical terms is to me incompatible with WP:NPOV. Points 1) and 2) above go to the heart of the matter.--Peter cohen (talk) 11:47, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I think there's more to it than that: there's the idea of the distinction between geographical and political terms; there's the idea that terms such as "Samaria" may refer to an area of land such that no other common term refers to exactly the same land area. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 01:49, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Implications and precedents[edit]

Resolution of this dispute will have broader implications for the use of (and description of) other controversial partisan or nationalist terminologies in Wikipedia's neutral voice.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. This is clearly not an isolated terminological question. It will have implications for other issues, including the use of and description of the term "Palestine" for the occupied Palestinian territories collectively.--G-Dett (talk) 21:35, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support. This whole issue has been clouded by the failure to use a wide comparative focus. It is essentially one national terminology (in a two nation dispute, one party to which remains silent) vs. international terminology dispute. And the precedent set will affect all other wiki articles on national, or subnational nomenclature disputes. Caveant magistri.Nishidani (talk) 21:47, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Too many months have already been wasted debating adoption of terminologies that all other neutral sources have already been using for decades. MeteorMaker (talk) 08:32, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Comment: This is meaningless, and it looks like you are trying to "set up" something. 6SJ7 (talk) 04:14, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm trying to prevent something.--G-Dett (talk) 11:37, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we can know whether this is true or not. – Quadell ^(talk) 17:54, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Arbitration Committee does not consider itself to be bound by its previous decisions.--Tznkai (talk) 22:07, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rhetoric and responsibility[edit]

Debate – hell, life itself – would be dull without rhetoric. Editors should be wary however of importing rhetoric from real-world political/military conflict into allegations about their fellow editors' agendas. Cynical or exploitative rhetoric would include allegations that a group of editors are attempting to "ethnically cleanse" Wikipedia of disputed terms, or that another group is trying to "colonize" Wikipedia through extensive use of them. Any editor who does use colorful rhetoric should be prepared to rigorously defend their analogies in detail, and specifically address criticism of same. Simply repeating such memes while ignoring substantive challenges should be seen as evidence of bad faith.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Incendiary rhetoric and exploitative framing devices have too often substituted for substantive debate, indeed in some cases making it impossible.--G-Dett (talk) 21:35, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support reluctantly, for I can already hear the sound of glass tinkling as my verbal chandeliers crash undfer the proposed dispensation.Nishidani (talk) 21:49, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Support. I applaud this proposal, and also nishidani's eloquent and generous respnse. Enough disingenuousness here. stop appropriating historical analogies and catchphrases which have no place here, and which further are often taken completely out of context, and often are used simply to escalate any particular specifc article conflict. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 16:14, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. This sounds nice in theory, but I don't think the ArbCom should create yet another "rule" that becomes a trip-wire for the unwary editor who in discussing a particular subject, may use an analogy that happens to be the same as a phrase that has been used in the real-world conflict, and then there has to be an inquiry into, did they know how loaded a term it was, is it something used in everyday speech anyway, and so on and so forth. And then predictably we will have editors lining up, for and against, depending on who the editor in question is. These things are often in the eye of the beholder, as an example unrelated to this particular dispute, since 9/11/2001 I have tried not to use the word "hijack" as an analogy -- in other words I think it should only be used to mean taking over an airplane (or whatever) at gunpoint (or whatever). And yet, most other people (not necessarily anyone here) seem to still think it's fine to talk/write about someone else "hijacking a conversation" or "hijacking a thread" or whatever. It's sort of my own version of Godwin's law and yet, since I don't own Wikipedia or any other forum, I don't get to enforce it on others. None of us here own Wikipedia, and therefore I don't think anyone should be enforcing their own ideas of what analogies are appropriate and which are not. If you want to write an essay advocating that such analogies not be used, go ahead. Making a rule out of it is not a good idea. I also cannot help noting that the person who has made this proposal has used inflammatory analogies many, many times. I'll find some of them if I need to. So this proposal, in addition to being a bad idea, kind of lacks credibility as well. 6SJ7 (talk) 18:32, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Here come the language police. Tundrabuggy (talk) 04:39, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that references to Stalinist/Orwellian political tyranny are simply a way for Tundrabuggy to clear his throat (even if meaningful utterances don't always follow), but 6SJ7's thoughtful post above is another matter. It has put me in the position of having to ask a very silly question. By drafting a "statement of principle" here, am I proposing a "rule"? If so, I'm sorry to have wasted people's time – I certainly don't think there should be a rule against any particular kind of rhetoric. A statement of principle on the other hand would be a good thing. A great deal of "argument" in this long, bitter dispute has taken the form not of evidence-based analysis but simply replication and dissemination of memes. Arbcom's formal recognition of this degeneration of discourse might have a salutary effect.--G-Dett (talk) 11:57, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Generally speaking, principles do not make "rules" although "remedies" do. Principles are basically the committee wagging their finger and pontificating. That having been said, there are many editors who genuinely read every word the Committee writes as some sort of legal principle or declared fact - and more than a few editors who will act that way as part of a way of winning the encyclopedia game. There are many more editors who look at statements of principle as the Committee's collective opinion, and respect that opinion in line with their respect ( or lack of it) for the Committee.--Tznkai (talk) 22:12, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Editors need to be sensitive to how their choice of words may make others feel, especially if they say things about other editors. People react to the same words in different ways. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 01:49, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You are no doubt right in what you say, but if we can't say "colonize" or "ethnically cleanse the language" or "hijack" (or heaven knows what will be considered "incendiary") in order to make our points clear on discussion pages, not only will we beggar the language, but people will be running for arbitration every other page yelling "Fire!". Remaining wp:civil and wp:agf ought to cover this one. Tundrabuggy (talk) 05:35, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed remedies[edit]

Sample remedy[edit]

Proposals by Kirill Lokshin[edit]

Proposed principles[edit]

Purpose of Wikipedia[edit]

1) The purpose of Wikipedia is to create a high-quality, free-content encyclopedia in an atmosphere of camaraderie and mutual respect among contributors. Use of the site for other purposes, such as advocacy or propaganda, furtherance of outside conflicts, publishing or promoting original research, and political or ideological struggle, is prohibited.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Standard. Kirill ^[pf] 02:36, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely, per the whole WP is not a battleground theme. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:16, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like a fairly standard reiteration of what Wikipedia is and is not. --Vassyana (talk) 09:59, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Strong support. The rules are there to serve an end, high-quality articles.Nishidani (talk) 09:06, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Support with exception To prohibit political or ideological struggle would be to count out most of the articles in the I/P conflict area. One would first have to determine just what content falls under those auspices, and then of course which editors are guilty of it. The "atmosphere of camaraderie and mutual respect" ought to cover it. Tundrabuggy (talk) 05:26, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I disagree with the observation that most of the articles in the I/P conflict area are used as weapons in an ongoing political or ideological struggle, and that articles would have to be "counted out" (whatever that means) if they were not used in such a fashion. There is always a neutral way to describe things, and other encyclopedias have shown that it can be done. MeteorMaker (talk) 15:36, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support. This has to be reminded because we are far from there on the articles related to the I/P conflict. Ceedjee (talk) 15:34, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 02:00, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support. – Quadell ^(talk) 14:05, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support with ironic grin. Given the nature of public discourse, some forms of battle cannot be prevented. If all opinionated people were banned, we'd never achieve anything. It must be possible for people to do battle using only their natural powers of persuation and consensus-forming. Were all battles like that, soapboxing and promotion could be harnessed. JFW | T@lk 22:03, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Conduct of editors[edit]

2) Wikipedia users are expected to behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously in their interactions with other users; to approach even difficult situations in a dignified fashion and with a constructive and collaborative outlook; and to avoid acting in a manner that brings the project into disrepute. Unseemly conduct, such as personal attacks, incivility, assumptions of bad faith, harassment, disruptive point-making, and gaming the system, is prohibited.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Standard. Kirill ^[pf] 02:36, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Standard fare reiterating well-established principles. --Vassyana (talk) 09:59, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Strong support, with the proviso that arbitrators reviewing behaviour should bear in mind that some forms of behaviour can cleave strictly to the rules of civility, (being stringently, laconically 'technical'), while systematically ignoring the civil duty to respond to the gravamen of one's interlocutor's argument and evidence. A discretional intelligence is often required that can thresh out the difference between formalistic bad faith, and remonstrative good faith. Nishidani (talk) 09:18, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Strong support as proposed. --Tundrabuggy (talk) 05:29, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support but direct consequence of WP:CIVIL. Ceedjee (talk) 15:35, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 01:59, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support – Quadell ^(talk) 14:06, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia editorial process[edit]

3) Wikipedia works by building consensus through the use of polite discussion – involving the wider community, if necessary – and dispute resolution, rather than through disruptive editing. Editors are each responsible for noticing when a debate is escalating into an edit war, and for helping the debate move to better approaches by discussing their differences rationally. Edit-warring, whether by reversion or otherwise, is prohibited; this is so even when the disputed content is clearly problematic.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Standard. Kirill ^[pf] 02:36, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My only hesitation is that the concluding statement should note the exception for copyvios, BLP violations, and blatant vandalism. --Vassyana (talk) 09:59, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Strong support. In supporting a fellow editor however (tagteaming is frequent) the secondary editor should preface his edit by a reasoned justification for it on the talk page. Merely popping in to play the numbers game, while refusing to provide a rational justification for one's edit, is not acceptable. Nishidani (talk) 09:21, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Need to be nuanced The editorial process is first to use WP:RS secondary sources to put forward points we consider important. Editors would not discuss or quarrel that much if they would use this process. Far too often the problem comes from the facts whether not secondary or not reliable or no source at all are used. Concerning the current issue, the solution would be to see what scholars use the most often in the context of the topic covered. Ceedjee (talk) 15:41, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 01:59, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support – Quadell ^(talk) 14:07, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Common sense[edit]

4) Not every aspect of Wikipedia activity can be exhaustively prescribed by written policy; experienced editors are expected to have a modicum of common sense and understanding, and to act in a constructive manner even if not explicitly forced to do so.

Comment by Arbitrators:

From Eastern European disputes. Kirill ^[pf] 02:36, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is a very good principle. It may be worthwhile to link WP:RAP and/or WP:COMMONSENSE, both of which touch on the points raised here. --Vassyana (talk) 09:59, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Strong support. Commonsense is what is almost never observed in these articles, precisely because attention to policy and its uses seems more efficacious in pushing a POV than attention to the requirements of the article being written.Nishidani (talk) 09:23, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Strong support. Still, good luck legislating common sense and understanding! Tundrabuggy (talk) 05:35, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To be nuanced. Strong support to the second part of the statement but the first one could be used by some to claim WP:V, WP:NPoV or WP:V are not to be used, which is not correct. Maybe a statement such as "sometimes our founding principles can lead to contradictory or no conclusion..." Ceedjee (talk) 15:44, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support, Support, and disagree with Ceedjee, who doesn't seem to understand it the same way I do: it seems to me to be saying that the policies and guidelines set some rules, and that in addition to following those (not instead of following them), editors are also expected to use common sense to divine additional rules (based on basic principles such as the benefit of the project, the golden rule, the spirit not merely the letter of various policies and guidelines, etc.) and follow them as well. Perhaps Ceedjee could suggest a wording change to clarify it. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 01:59, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support – Quadell ^(talk) 14:07, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The word "forced" seems awkward. Would "directed" fit the intended use? The principle is correct, but we don't often twist editors arms and "force" them to type any particular thing. GRBerry 14:12, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Detrimental editing[edit]

5) The core purpose of the Wikipedia project is to create a high-quality free encyclopedia. Contributors whose actions are detrimental to that goal may be asked to refrain from them, even when these actions are undertaken in good faith.

Comment by Arbitrators:

From Stefanomencarelli. Kirill ^[pf] 02:36, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This kind of principle has been reiterated in multiple cases and I would not oppose this wording. I would, however, prefer something more direct and forceful than the phrasing "may be asked to refrain", such as the similar principle passed in the Ayn Rand case. --Vassyana (talk) 09:59, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Emphatic support. Editors entering difficult articles esp. should show some knowledge of the article's content. It would help if those who battle over one line of text, take some time to edit the whole article to show they are familiar with the content, and not just there to control the perceived POV balance (which is the problem with 90% of our work).Nishidani (talk) 09:27, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Support—a point I can completely agree with. A lot of the actions undertaken by users in this dispute were done in good faith, and likely violated no policies, but were not in the best interests of the project as a whole. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 22:53, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support Makes eminent sense, as proposed. Tundrabuggy (talk) 05:40, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support but only in the sense that somebody can be mislead by a bad source. Not if somebody is mislead by an alleged misunderstanding of a wikipedia policy. Ceedjee (talk) 15:48, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support, all good points, and relevant. – Quadell ^(talk) 14:08, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Purpose and role of the Arbitration Committee[edit]

6) The occurrence of protracted, apparently insoluble disputes—whether they involve conduct, content, or policy—is contrary to the purposes of the project and damaging to its health. The chief purpose of the Arbitration Committee is to protect the project from the disruption caused by such disputes, and it has the authority to issue binding resolutions in keeping with that purpose.

Comment by Arbitrators:

From Ireland article names; second portion omitted. Kirill ^[pf] 02:36, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would abstain from this principle. I am uncomfortable with the potential interpretation that the committee has the authority to directly impose content or policy solutions. --Vassyana (talk) 09:59, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Strong support.Nishidani (talk) 09:29, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Strong support. I remember asking such a decision in 2006 when was discussed a case about user:Zeq. Ceedjee (talk) 15:49, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. I agree with IronDuke here and I believe that constant tension between different editorial POVs about what an article should look like under NPOV helps form and maintain good articles. If disputes are resolved, fine; if they're not, compromises may be made; but sweeping the dispute under the rug or resolving it summarily would be, in general, to the detriment of the articles, which need flexibility to be constantly open to development. This also sounds as if it's leaning towards decisions on content by the Arbitration Committee. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 01:59, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that constant tension between different editorial POVs about what an article should look like under NPOV helps form and maintain good articles.

In plain man's language, inability to concur on NPOV policy by the parties secures good articles, which are defined in part by their achievement of NPOV. G.K.Chesterton would have loved the paradox, but he would have had better things to do with his time than spend months gleaning 120 sources to prove that 'uprising' is standard neutral English, a one-word edit that was held hostage for month after month better spent in not being obliged to prove the obvious to those dumb to all proof at Al Aqsa Intifada. As phrased this looks like a commendation for attrition, something that consistently wears out able editors' desire to build an encyclopedia. Ynhockey says my recent edits are all on talk pages, and that tells against me. Why? Because one is sick and tired of having to argue the obvious instead of actually writing articles, and sticks round only in an advisory capacity. Where are good articles in evidence in the I/P area?17:37, 25 April 2009 (UTC)Nishidani (talk)

Support – Quadell ^(talk) 14:10, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Naming conventions[edit]

7) Wikipedia:Naming conventions, a longstanding policy, provides that:

Generally, article naming should prefer what the greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature.
This is justified by the following principle: The names of Wikipedia articles should be optimized for readers over editors, and for a general audience over specialists.
Wikipedia determines the recognizability of a name by seeing what verifiable reliable sources in English call the subject.

Comment by Arbitrators:

From Ireland article names. Kirill ^[pf] 02:36, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nickhh has a point here, in that many of the articles under dispute are referring to this region only in their body as opposed to their title. Perhaps adding Wikipedia:Proper names#Place names, particularly the section reading "In general, refer to places by the names which are used for the articles on those places", would be useful to fill out this principle.

In response to Ceedjee, the encyclopedia is written for its readers, not scholars. We have an article on water (the common English term) rather than "dihydrogen monoxide" (the scholarly term), as one example. Risker (talk) 20:43, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I support this with Risker's addendum. --Vassyana (talk) 09:59, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Agree but needs to go further: TB is correct that currently the article names for West Bank, Judea and Samaria, Judea and Samaria per se are not in dispute, even if some of the content perhaps is somewhat. The real problem has come more in respect of when those areas are referred to in other, often fairly stubby and short articles (eg is Town X in "the northern West Bank" or "in Samaria"?). WP:NCGN specifically says as well, perhaps unsurprisingly, "Within articles, places should generally be referred to by the same name as is used in their article title, or a historic name when discussing a past period". --Nickhh (talk) 17:36, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Emphatic support. The rule applied in one area should exemplify the principle governing all articles, i.e., standard English and international usage prevails over partisan usage. If there is a grey area, the adoption of partisan usage requires that both sides of a conflict have their terminology equally represented. I would note that Peter cohen's remark below however raises a serious problem which has not been addressed. There is a profound ambiguity in making an administrative district in territory that is not part of Israel, part of Israel. Judea and Samaria is not properly a territory, but a district, but the district classification makes it part of Israel. The solution is simple. It is an 'Israeli administrative district', not an 'administrative district of Israel'. One sees this also in many maps. Nishidani (talk) 09:34, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Comment -- I don't see how this is relevant; no-one has advocated changing the names of any articles, e.g. renaming the "West Bank" article to "Judea and Samaria" -- Tundrabuggy (talk) 05:18, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Despite claims above, I have actually disputed one of the article names [145], proposing that Judea and Samaria be renamed Judea and Samaria area which is the official name for it as given in Districts of Israel and which would put it in line with Haifa District, Jerusalem District etc. No one has replied in the best part of a week since I posted my proposal on the talk page.--Peter cohen (talk) 21:56, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let's please keep that for after the case, since it appears that you proposed it while the case was going on. I don't think we should make new proposals for the articles themselves outside of this case, or to consider them within the framework of the case itself. --Ynhockey ^(Talk) 14:26, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

opposed to a part. "English speakers" has to be replaced by "English scholars, specialized in the topic discussed". Else we will go against the purpose of writing an encyclopaedia because there are too many topics usual reader don't know. More, in some cases, the "collective memory" don't name facts the same way they are aknowledge in the academic field. If it seems to me that West Bank has to be used most of the time here, we cannot use this for events of the 1920-1948 perio where Judea and Samaria has to be used, whatever usual English speaker think about this. Ceedjee (talk) 15:56, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Recidivism[edit]

8) Users who have been sanctioned for improper conduct are expected to avoid repeating it should they continue to participate in the project. Failure to do so may lead to the imposition of increasingly severe sanctions.

Comment by Arbitrators:

From John Gohde 2. Kirill ^[pf] 02:41, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is standard good practice. Noting Nishidani's concerns, it appears to me that they are more a commentary about the improper/imperfect/unbalanced enforcement of the rules (of which civility is but one), rather than a substantive objection to this principle (which covers conduct including edit-warring, soapboxing, and so on). --Vassyana (talk) 09:59, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

I don't know about this. We have lost over the years very good, highly informed content editors because they have been subject to stalking for policy violations, have made serial outbursts that make their record for 'etiquette' look bad, though if you look at their contributions, they have much improved the quality of articles. Perhaps one needs an amnesty. Set in more rigorous rules (with more emphasis on commitment to content improvement), and judge behaviour from the moment the new rules are in place. For me the problem has never been irritation over words thrown my way (antisemite). It has been that most conflict and frustration arises from the use of rules and wikilawyering to thwart substantial improvements to an article's quality. I've rarely seen a wikilawyer with a bad record for lapses in etiquette. I've seen numerous content editors ruined by punitive pettifogging over ostensible lapses in etiquette that just reflect profound frustration. They are wrong to vent this, but arbitrators following these things should, in applying policy, bear in mind that the aim of our work is to improve the quality and content, not to produce an elysium of impeccably well-mannered editors who never actually build articles. Nishidani (talk) 09:49, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Support. We also lose editors who are driven away by incivility. We need to strike a balance; and increasing sanctions (as opposed to immediate banning on first offense) is part of that balance. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 01:59, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support. it goes without saying that repeating violations and ignoring the policies is harmful to the project. I feel this is covered by the ARBPIA though. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 02:40, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support, absolutely. – Quadell ^(talk) 14:11, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators[edit]

9) Administrators are trusted members of the community. Administrators are expected to lead by example, to behave in a respectful, civil manner in their interactions with others, to follow Wikipedia policies, and to perform their duties to the best of their abilities. Occasional mistakes are entirely compatible with adminship—administrators are not expected to be perfect. However, sustained or serious disruption of Wikipedia is incompatible with the status of administrator, and consistently or egregiously poor judgment may result in the removal of administrator status.

Comment by Arbitrators:

From C68-FM-SV, somewhat condensed. Kirill ^[pf] 04:41, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seems right. I don't see how this is a departure from our practices, let alone a harmful one. Cool Hand Luke 07:46, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is spot on, in my opinion. ArbCom has a serious responsibility to address cases of administrator misconduct because the community has no other recourse. There should be no controversy over the assertion that disruptive behavior and/or a pattern of poor judgement is not compatible with the community trust implied by the bit. --Vassyana (talk) 09:59, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is worth noting to those citing WP:RFDA that Wikipedia:Administrators is the relevant official policy, which contains the exact same wording as this principle. Over a year ago, it contained the same essential point.[146] Its presence in that policy has generated no previous controversy. This general principle has also been expressed in multiple arbitration cases. This general principle is in no way coming out of left field to set a new precendent, but rather sticking to established policy and multiple previous arbitration precedents. Interestingly, the few objections to the principle in other arbitration cases were based not on some perceived unfairness to the administrator or lack of relevance to holding the bit, but out of a fear that it would encourage administrators to view themselves as apart from and above the community. --Vassyana (talk) 12:48, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Strong support. Administrators, whatever their personal interests, are elected by a community because democratic review has established their credentials for subordinating those to the fundamental principles of the encyclopedia, which are above partisanship. They set us, by their example, the model we must hew to, and must strive to hold themselves above the fray of POVs particularly when their own views are known.Nishidani (talk) 09:52, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Conceptual support, practical oppose—I definitely support the idea and what is said in the statement. However, I do not believe this is relevant to the case. Three of the listed parties are administrators, and as far as I can tell none of them violated any policies in relation with the articles within the scope of this case, or exemplified behavior not fit for an administrator. Admin tools were also not used in any of the I–P disputes by any of the three listed admins. Moreover, this statement seems to be geared towards Jayjg, as Elonka and ChrisO aren't really part of this dispute, despite being parties. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 22:14, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose for now. I think it needs to be clarified what "sustained or serious disruption of Wikipedia" and "poor judgment" specifically means. I was under the impression that admins can only be desysoped if they are clearly abusing their admin powers (i.e. blocking someone they are in a content dispute with) In fact, WP:RFDA states, "Throughout the history of the project, there has been a convention that adminship may be removed only in cases of clear abuse. Users have proposed a variety of processes to ensure that admins have the continued support of the community, but none have gained widespread acceptance." The current wording, as it stands, seems to set a new precedent. Khoi khoi 22:29, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per Khoikhoi. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 01:59, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose for now as well. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 02:43, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per Khoikhoi. --Tundrabuggy (talk) 04:37, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Stating the obvious. Unfortunate that it needs stating. Amazed that anyone would oppose. ++Lar: t/c 05:06, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I respect your opinion very much as always, Lar, and I don't expect to convince you otherwise, but I hope to possibly reduce your amazement slightly (though I almost hate to, as that amazement is rather becoming). I agree with the statements in the proposed principle. However, I oppose making it a principle in this particular case. The issue here is that (as far as I've noticed) no one has alleged in this case that there has been any abuse of admin tools; this case is about editorial behaviour. Similarly for 10 and 11. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 15:13, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is inappropriate for an admin to behave in a way that would be looked askance if he or she were an ordinary editor. More so than if he or she were only an ordinary editor. Why? Because... " Administrators are expected to lead by example, to behave in a respectful, civil manner in their interactions with others, to follow Wikipedia policies" Some of the parties to this case are admins. And they have behaved inappropriately. Therefore the principal is relevant. QED. ++Lar: t/c 02:31, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This seems valid. Stifle (talk) 13:19, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per Khoikhoi.—Sandahl (talk) 19:24, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I have advocated this many times, to no avail. If this principle were to be applied in this case, it must have a precedent for all admins. As it is, I think there must be evidence that one or more of the parties have used admin powers improperly. --Leifern (talk) 20:07, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support – Quadell ^(talk) 14:12, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Appearance of impropriety[edit]

10) All editors, and especially administrators, should avoid engaging in conduct that creates a reasonable appearance that significant site policies are being violated. This includes, for example, an administrator's repeatedly taking administrator actions that can reasonably be perceived as being taken to further the administrator's position in a content dispute, even if the administrator actually has no such intention; or an editor's repeatedly editing in apparent coordination with another editor under circumstances giving rise to persistent and reasonable suspicions of sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry, even if the allegations are disputed or untrue.

Comment by Arbitrators:

From C68-FM-SV, second half omitted. Kirill ^[pf] 04:41, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good finding then and now. Admins should be held to a higher standard, period. If they cannot, they should not remain admins. Cool Hand Luke 07:50, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would likely abstain from this principle. I agree with the general ideal, but fear the potential for abuse and system gaming. However, I do not find objections that this unfairly targets a particular administrator or is an exceptional/unexpected principle convincing. --Vassyana (talk) 09:59, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment. If administrators are stuck in some warring, and on one side, it would be wise to ask the parties on the page to nominate some one or two outside administrators to look over the dispute, at an early stage. Informal on page resolution is quicker than endless threads or arbitration. Calling on fellow editors to nominate such outside review shows good faith, and dispels any suspicions, warranted or not, that the said administrator is abusing his authority.Nishidani (talk) 09:57, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Oppose, this makes me very wary. First off, it singles out administrators without a clear reason. WP:ADMIN doesn't say that admins need to make sure that others don't misinterpret their actions, at least not more than other editors should. None of our behavior policies (WP:CIVIL, WP:3RR, etc.) say that they apply more to admins than other users. We admins have added responsibilities commensurate with our added powers, but they don't go beyond that to the level described here. Or at least, our policies don't say we do.

I also don't think it's a problem for editors to agree with one another. If an editor edits "in apparent coordination" with another editor, giving rise to "suspicions of sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry", but those suspicions are completely untrue... then I don't think the editor has done anything wrong. I regularly agree with User:Stifle in debates on WP:FFD, and I sometimes even use my admin abilities appropriately to close these debates. If someone accuses me of sockpuppeting or meatpuppeting based on this, and that suspicion is deemed "reasonable" (though completely false)... does that mean I should have avoided agreeing with him so often? – Quadell ^(talk) 19:51, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: I'm aware that this comes verbatim from a previous decision, but I think it was poorly worded there. Also, that decision dealt with accusations of an administrator misusing his tools, which would make admin-status relevant. That doesn't seem to be alleged here. – Quadell ^(talk) 20:09, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose—I could agree with a statement saying that administrators need to exemplify high standards of behavior, but this statement basically prevents any administrator from doing their job properly. I did a few dozen speedy deletions for example, many of them were contested by new users. Does that mean I should stop doing speedy deletions? The statement seems counterproductive. Moreover, it appears to be geared toward Jayjg in particular, given the 'finding of fact' statement posted. --Ynhockey ^(Talk) 22:18, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per Quadell and Ynhockey. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 01:59, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - wording indeed seems to target admins and Quadell raised important points on this. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 02:46, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Appears to target Jayjg, yet no one has accused him of misuse of his administrative tools (as in "an administrator's repeatedly taking administrator actions... to further his position"). In fact I was the target of a recent "sockpuppet" accusation that was considered reasonable and was investigated, yet it was discovered that I edit in the U.S and my "sock" edits out of UK. In fact we are so close that I have forgotten his wikiname. This may be from the rulebook, but it's wrong -- doesn't work as written. Tundrabuggy (talk) 04:51, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Stating the obvious. Unfortunate that it needs stating. Amazed that anyone would oppose. ++Lar: t/c 05:05, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per Quadell. Far too wide. Stifle (talk) 13:18, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Bending over backwards to target a single party; implies misuse of admin tools when none is evident. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 19:25, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. This dispute is not about administrator actions. JFW | T@lk 22:05, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Functionaries[edit]

11) Wikipedia functionaries are a select group of highly trusted users within the project. Because of their uniquely prominent positions, they are expected—more so than even other administrators—to lead by example and to avoid engaging in conduct that would bring the project into disrepute.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed. Kirill ^[pf] 04:41, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To Ynhockey and Jpgordon: This is a principle that would apply to all functionaries. It should be implicit, but when expectations fail, it needs to be explicit. Do you have comments about this principle as written? Or do you believe that hasnt been misconduct that would bring the project into disrepute? If there isnt evidence to support "conduct unbecoming", it should be omitted. I have mixed feelings about it, as "conduct unbecoming" should be supported by a very clear evidence pack, preferably demonstrating that the project was actually brought into disrepute, or private evidence which would bring the project into disrepute if exposed. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 06:37, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would prefer a principle that simply states that "conduct unbecoming" (phrased in whatever fashion) is incompatible with the high level of trust invested in the users of such tools. That is, I'd rather see a principle focused on the heavy trust aspect than the lead-by-example perspective. Some may consider that a minor point and would not change their position on this principle based on the alternate focus, but it is a substantive distinction to me. --Vassyana (talk) 09:59, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would be happy with either approach, as I strongly believe that setting a good example on user conduct is important. It is certainly a selection criteria for our functionaries, and that good example should be maintained while the person retains the tools and access that go with it.

I do think 10 more Essjays would harm the external opinion of the project, but more importantly I think that a good number of contributors would quit after the third Essjay. We need to learn from our mistakes, where possible, or build those mistakes into our model. For example, we do expect mistakes during administrative activity. It just isnt possible to be right about everything. That is why we have review forums. If a "functionary" makes administrative mistakes, it shouldnt be viewed as "conduct unbecoming", as they are just human as well. But, in the event of a mistake, what matters most is how one deals with it. We expect all users to admit mistakes, and help fix them. Admins more so. For functionaries, this should be expected. That is leading by example.

I would prefer this principle to be framed around "conduct unbecoming" rather than "[bringing] the project into disrepute" which has a real world edge to it, making it much much harder to supply evidence for as we have no established means of evaluating external opinion. i.e. unless there is obvious RS to support the disrepute (e.g. Essjay), we would still be using our internal conduct expectations, and trying to suppose would bring the project into disrepute.

Due to the evidence I think a principle along these lines is necessary in this case. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 12:44, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

I have seen no example on I/P articles that would lead one to distrust Wikipedia functionaries. Where conflict is exasperated, their authority, brief, decisive, would not be intrusive, but most welcome.Nishidani (talk) 10:00, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

From comments below I gather that Jayjg is a 'functionary'. If this is so, then I must refactor to support as per ++Lar. Nothing personal. I just regard his behaviour as anomalous to everything one expects of arbitrators/functionaries/higher-ups in Wikipedia. It may reflect my ignorance of wider conduct, but I am not familiar with other examples of functionaries and administrators taking such a hectic partisan role in editing, and monitoring edits made by people whose perspective on the area differs from his.Nishidani (talk) 08:50, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Oppose. I agree with Nishidani. Unless there is some evidence that Wikipedia functionaries in this case have used their powers to advance their position in this dispute, this proposed principle is moot. Functionaries are indeed prominent members of the Wikipedia community, but they also understand that these positions are separate from their positions as editors contributing to content. For example, simply because someone has CheckUser, does not mean that they are prohibited from editing Wikipedia in a manner of that of a non-functionary. It also needs to be more clear as to what "engaging in conduct that would bring the project into disrepute" means. Khoi khoi 22:47, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per Khoikhoi. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 01:59, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. per Khoikhoi. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 02:54, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Stating the obvious. Unfortunate that it needs to be stated, but frankly, hard to see how anyone could oppose. ++Lar: t/c 05:03, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Practical oppose—same reasoning as for the administrator section, also per Khoikhoi. The statement in the context of this case seems to be geared exclusively at Jayjg, and I am disappointed that this was not stated outright. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 05:23, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Neither relevant nor particularly important. Stifle (talk) 13:38, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Unnecessary. Backhanded targeting a single party. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 19:26, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jay -- as an arbitrator, I generally tried to oppose stating principles unless they were germane to the resolution of a case. (I probably wasn't consistent with that, but so it goes.) In this particular case, there is exactly one "functionary" involved (have I mentioned what an unpleasant term that is?), and, as you say, there is no evidence that Jayjg has "brought the project into disrepute" (unless you guys have some Secret Evidence of Jayjg's malfeasance and disgusting behavior, but if that's the case, just do a summary execution and be done with it.) I agree with others who have suggested this is looking like a "Get Jayjg" party; but those, like blanket parties, are best done in secret. This one shouldn't stand the light of day. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 22:37, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously correct and true. I have no idea if it is relevant to the case, as I have not read the evidence page and linked evidence in enough detail. GRBerry 14:16, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support The argument that functionaries are effectively tenured so long as they don't plainly abuse their specific user rights is extremely weak and poorly considered. Admins number in the several hundreds, and do not have any significant access that isn't widely overseen. As such, wide latitude -- without any compelling reasons to the contrary -- makes a lot of sense. Functionaries are in contrast very few in number, and have extensive rights that cannot be overseen. These include discussions about private information, and more; I won't attempt to offer a laundry list but people who have been around long enough recognize that functionaries are trusted to a high degree, because the nature of the positions requires it. As Luke suggests, they are also exemplars of the community to the extent that it reflects poorly on Wikipedia, and is basically ineffective, to attempt to sanction new editors for only doing what its functionaries do every day. Whether this is relevant is better discussed under the proposed findings, but I think it has long and widely been recognized that the bar should be high for these positions. Mackan79 (talk) 07:53, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly Oppose This is an issue that has haunted Wikipedia for at least six or seven years: as we grow, we need people who have specialized skills or extra time and good will on their hands to help out, and as we grow more, we need to formalize those roles. Does this create a hierarchy? I remember a time when a sysop was heavily repremanded (and eventually de-sysopped) because he presumed to have some kind of leadership role in resolving disputes, simply because he was a sysop. At that time there was a strong community feeling that we do not want a hierarchy, and if we need people with pecialized powers, we need to be very careful to be clear: their responsibilities do not extend beyond their powers (or, put another way, their technical powers have nothing to do with editing/creating the encylopedia). Apparently some people just love the idea of hierarchy. If we must have a hierarchy, this is what I propose: editors on top - newbies on the very top, despite the fact that many of them make irritating mistakes, because our success depends most of all on constantly bringing in new blood - so I say, those who hav the fewest edits are at the top of the prestige hierarchy. Thanks for helping us! Below newbiews, regular editors, the largest group but clearly among the most important people here, as they are doing the real work of writing the encyclopedia. Below them, admins, who really are just custodians. Look, I do not mean to knock custodians or janitors - they do important work too. I am just saying, cleaning up and making sure the hinges on the doors are oiled and the lights work is important and all but it is not the same thing as writing the encyclopedia. Below admins, I would but bureaucrats, and so on. That is the hierarchy I see. Now as for this proposed principle, the idea that someone should be a leader, an example to others, I just do not get it. I am an editor. I work hard on certain articles. I research them as much as I can. Why should some "functionary" who may know nothing about what I am researching be my leader? I just do not get it. If Wikipedia is the encyclopedia anyone can edit, then anyone can be a leader. What makes them a leader is their making great edits. This is subjective of course and cannot be codified and votes, even things like FA, are at best polls of a sample of opinion, I just mean they do not represent all the great edits a host of people make. We know a good edit when we see one, and each one should be an example and an inspiration to us to keep at it.

The reputation of Wikipedia depends on great articles, and we need a lot more of them. For that we need more editors. Anyone who thins the reputation of Wikipedia depends on the conduct of "functionaries" is just on an ego-trip. There can be ten more Essjays, on the front page of the NYT even. As long as most people think that looking at a Wikipedia article first is their best chance to get reliable information on the web, those Essjays will not damage the reputation of Wikipedia - they will just entertain those people who prefer gossip instead of news. So what.

Functionaries: do your jobs, I appreciate the time you put into the project, do not abuse any special powers you have. (Yes for the record I am all for being very strict when functionaries clearly abuse the special tools they have). But "lead by excample?" Give me a break. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:17, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per Jpgordon. I wasn't even aware that Jayjg was a "functionary" until this case. (Are "functionaries" part of the illuminati as well? --jk) Point being functionaryship can't be an overly "prominent" a position if the average editor is not even aware of it. In fact, most administrators don't advertise their adminship when they edit, (much less the functionaries) and unless they are acting in "official" capacities, most of us don't know who "is" and who "ain't." So by that token, all editors should "lead by example." Tundrabuggy (talk) 17:56, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Seems to target someone who did not act in the capacity of a functionary. JFW | T@lk 22:07, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support All editors should be able to look to functionaries (and admins too) as examples of exemplary conduct. This does not mean that they are "right" in editing disputes, simply that they conduct themselves in accordance with policy. As far as the hierarchy theory goes, functionaries have access to sensitive information, unlike janitors (and whoever is below janitors). Therefore, the standards for their behavior and the consensus of the community in their trustworthiness is imperative. untwirl(talk) 19:57, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I know a Japanese who set up a company for his daughter, and appointed himself janitor, which he thought the best job position for knowing everything that employees below the chairman might do, or think. My experience is that this is not unusual. Don't underestimate them. I've known one or two with advanced degrees.Nishidani (talk) 22:00, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the substance of this principle; I have no opinion about its applicability here. I would, however, like to object to the term "functionaries". I understand why it was necessary for the mailing list (though I still favour "sexy-beasts-l"), but it is not necessary here. You can be verbose and use phrasing like "users with elevated privileges". [[Sam Korn]] ^(smoddy) 20:17, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template[edit]

12) {text of Proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact[edit]

Locus of dispute[edit]

1) {placeholder}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Editor findings[edit]

Brewcrewer[edit]

2.1) No actionable evidence regarding any substantive violation of policy by Brewcrewer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been presented.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed 2.1. Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 04:53, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Canadian Monkey[edit]

2.2.1) ~~Canadian Monkey (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has engaged in edit-warring ([147]).~~

2.2.1.1) Canadian Monkey (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has engaged in repeated and extensive edit-warring ([148], [149], [150], [151], [152]).

2.2.2) {placeholder}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed 2.2.1. Kirill ^[pf] 04:53, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Struck 2.2.1, proposed 2.2.1.1. Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 03:21, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Supported by the evidence. --Vassyana (talk) 09:59, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Support but should be upgraded to Repeated and extensive EW, based on the evidence. MeteorMaker (talk) 07:21, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support but should be upgraded per MeteorMaker. Also I would make exactly the same observations as I made for User:NoCal100 here in terms of their general MO. --Nickhh (talk) 16:10, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

ChrisO[edit]

2.3) No actionable evidence regarding any substantive violation of policy by ChrisO (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been presented.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed 2.3. Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 04:56, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the objections below, ChrisO is not even mentioned in passing on the evidence page. In that context, this finding should not be very surprising and it's the literal truth. If you have actionable evidence, please craft a proper presentation of it at the evidence page. --Vassyana (talk) 09:59, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Strong oppose as completely counter-factual. There is strong evidence that ChrisO has repeatedly edit warred [153] and edited disruptively leading to page-ban sanctions [[154]. Following the example of the proposed finding against Jayjg below, I suggest the following with regards to ChrisO:

ChrisO (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been a party to a number of arbitration cases. Findings regarding his conduct were made in Kosovo, where he was found to have "engaged in edit warring, as well as inappropriate use of the administrative rollback button in content disputes" and was "warned not to engage in edit warring, and to engage in only calm discussion and dispute resolution when in conflict. He is instructed not to use the administrative rollback tool in content disputes." ; Israeli apartheid, where he was "admonished not use [his] administrative tools without prior discussion and consensus, and to avoid using them so as to continue an editing dispute" and "reminded to use mediation and other dispute resolution procedures sooner when conflicts occur"; Canadian Monkey (talk) 17:18, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you have evidence to present regarding ChrisO's conduct and how it relates to the matter at hand, please do so; I'm not a mind reader. Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 01:21, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure why I'm listed here or even as a party in this case, since I've had no involvement in the dispute other than offering to help the involved editors work out their problems. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:26, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

At the moment, you're listed here simply because you're in the list of parties, and that's how I put together the placeholder sections. Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 02:43, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if we are going to apply consistent standards, I don't see why we wouldn't use the same criteria applied to accusations against Jayjg (bringing up a year+ old issue which has no relationship to the Samaria naming dispute) to explore things like ChrisO's edit warring [155], disruptive editing which has led to page-bans [156] etc... Canadian Monkey (talk) 17:40, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He was sanctioned, and severely. Jayjg, even for the Dec 2007 lapsus, and what many perceive as consistent edit-warring thereafter, hasn't to my knowledge, ever been reined in. That admitted practice of off-line coordination should, at the least, have narrowed infra-administrative focus on oversight on a colleague. Yet, despite bad practice and example as an admin in the I/P area, he is often said to enjoy an extraterritorial impunity for things everyone else is admonished for.Indeed, perhaps the very lack of such measures of review in his case is responsible for that excess of confidence he shows in reverting, and splitting hairs to make what otherwise look like commonsensical edits nigh on impossible. Quis custodiet ipsos custodes, as Plato might well have quipped in another life. Chris0 has his. Elonka looks constantly over his shoulder, and that is well regarded by many editors in here who however would argue for a state of exception in Jayjg's case. Where is Jayjg's? That is the distinction you miss.Nishidani (talk) 18:07, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, coordinating a conspiracy to affect Wikipedia content is a somewhat more serious charge than having edit warred a year ago. MeteorMaker (talk) 18:11, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've not been following this arbitration so I have no comment about the appropriateness of bringing up old accusations against Jayjg, but since I haven't even been involved in this dispute other than offering to help editors to work it out, bringing up old accusations against me is completely inappropriate. I would appreciate it if Kirill could remove me from the list of parties and this section from the workshop page. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:12, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If it's appropriate to bring up old and unrelated accusations against one party, it's appropriate to bring them up against all parties. If it is not appropriate to bring them up against you, then the same goes for Jayjg. You did not object to being named as a party when this case was opened 2 months ago, and in fact submitted a statement as an involved party. I understand that it now appears like a very bad idea, now that this ArbCom has farcically turned into a pile-on of old, unrelated issues, with potential sanctions for those old, unrelated issues, but there's a simple solution for that - let's limit the discussion to the actual scope of the case - behavioral issues related to the Samaria content dispute. For starters, you could voice strong opposition to the proposed finding of fact against jayjg. Canadian Monkey (talk) 18:32, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That amounts to blackmail; I'm not going to play that game. You should be sanctioned for that suggestion. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:24, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I should be sanctioned for suggesting that you be held to the same standards as those being applied to other parties to this case? That's certainly an interesting perspective. Canadian Monkey (talk) 17:18, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You seriously strongly oppose this, despite there being no mention of ChrisO in the evidence? Do you have any evidence to add? 82.132.136.218 (talk) 19:27, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, i seriously strongly oppose this, and have presented evidence for my position, MR. Anonymous IP editor, with all of 5 edits on WP, 4 of those today, 2 of which are vandalism. You wouldn't happen to be a sockpuppet of some party to this ArbCom by any chance? Canadian Monkey (talk) 20:55, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Canadian Monkey. Perhaps Arbcom will decide to restrict this to a simple issue. However, one would think that the evidence throughout has shown that the 'Judea & Samaria' crux is merely symptomatic. Perhaps I labour under the misimpression that this occasion should be seized on to put some working order into what otherwise is the unworkable nature of I/P articles generally. What happened at 'Judea & Samaria' is what Ezra Pound would have called the 'accelerated grimace' of problems that recur over hundreds of pages here. And it should be noted that all of us are thoroughly familiar with policy (well, I'm not really, but I recognize it more or less when told). The problems subsist irrespective of policy, or policy refinements, or sanctions, because the 'cultural wars', line by line monitoring for national interest or adversarial POV implications, has totally washed out from perspective the fundamental goal we should all be held to, to write articles in a neutral voice using quality sources. If this is to be an exercise only in punishing misbehaviour over one article, and not an opportunity by the executive to try to find some efficient mechanisms to make editing here more productive, and editors more committed to encyclopedic goals than they are to furthering their politics (on whatever side) then it will be pointless. Nishidani (talk) 20:57, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suppport (amended finding - no evidence): In all the comments here to the effect that "well Jayjg's being hauled up for past alleged errors not directly related to this case, so why not ChrisO?", which at last count three editors are now pushing, it seems to have slipped all their minds that - regardless of the rights or wrongs of bringing in past issues - ChrisO has simply not been involved in this dispute, and his only contribution even to the Arb case that I recall was to post a short statement early on saying he didn't think it needed to go to ArbCom, and also offering to help editors who were in dispute work on compromise guidelines. Hence he shouldn't be here at all. Jayjg obviously should be, and it then becomes a separate issue, open to genuine debate, as to what broader behaviours are put under review in his case. Conflating the two issues and treating them as like for like seems to smack a little of over-eager vendetta to me. --Nickhh (talk) 15:45, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Comment If this arbitration is presumably about "putting order into...I/P articles" by banning or otherwise censoring editors and administrators who have edit-warred or (apparently) used their tools in the area, ChrisO would be a clear-cut candidate. Canadian Monkey is 100% on when he points out the flaw in the proposal by Kirill: "If it's appropriate to bring up old and unrelated accusations against one party, it's appropriate to bring them up against all parties." Tundrabuggy (talk) 03:13, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment—firstly, Tundrabuggy is correct. We cannot apply double-standard here. That brings me to my next point: Kirill has presented a statement against Jayjg about Jayjg's involvement in multiple arbitration cases. This applies also to ChrisO. Additionally, many of the things presented against Jayjg fully apply to ChrisO as well, especially the things related to administrator conduct. As I said in Jayjg's section, I don't think these points should be used against either editor, but if they are indeed used against Jayjg, I strongly support using them against ChrisO as well. In other words, either both editors or neither editor. Anything else would be quite biased. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 14:37, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Observation: Ynhockey was significantly more involved in the original dispute than ChrisO. It's only coincidence that the latter was designated as "involved" and the former not, and not the other way around. MeteorMaker (talk) 08:24, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I wasn't involved in the original dispute in any way, and only voluntarily involved myself after this case started, because ArbCom cases always have far-reaching consequences. Please don't try to pin false accusations on other editors. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 10:34, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Same as ChrisO then, plus you've engaged heavily in this ArbCom case, unlike him. Re "false accusations" and "I wasn't involved in the original dispute in any way", you may have forgotten your comments in this section. MeteorMaker (talk) 07:20, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per Canadian Monkey, Tundrabuggy and Ynhockey. Let's have some fairness here. 6SJ7 (talk) 03:08, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Elonka[edit]

2.4) {placeholder}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

G-Dett[edit]

2.5.1) G-Dett (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has engaged in incivility, personal attacks, and assumptions of bad faith ([157]).

2.5.2) ~~G-Dett (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has engaged in edit-warring ([158], [159], [160]).~~

2.5.2.1) G-Dett (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has engaged in repeated and extensive edit-warring ([161], [162], [163], [164], [165], [166], [167], [168], [169], [170], [171], [172]).

2.5.3) G-Dett (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has unduly followed Jayjg's edits, and by doing so has aggravated and escalated the present dispute ([173]).

2.5.4) {placeholder}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed 2.5.1. Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 03:27, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed 2.5.2. Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 03:29, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed 2.5.3. Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 01:48, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Struck 2.5.2, proposed 2.5.2.1. Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 03:29, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support revised findings. Regarding 2.5.1, I would prefer if the finding were supported by some example diffs (which appear available, for example: [174], [175][176][177]). Regarding 2.5.3, I find it questionable (at best) to assert that following another editor to revert their edits and oppose their positions does not have an aggravating effect on a dispute, especially in an area where the dispute become so acrimonious and bad blood abounds. --Vassyana (talk) 10:59, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Support. Except the part about "assumptions" of bad faith.--G-Dett (talk) 10:45, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose 2.5.3, particularly the conclusion. There is no evidence at all that the dispute deepened when G-Dett entered the fray, on the contrary, she was instrumental in building compromises [178] and keeping the focus strictly on policy. [179]

Comment by others:

Support, especially the assumptions of bad faith and following Jayjg. Even as part of this case/page, G-Dett has made unwarranted assumptions of bad faith against Jayjg (see 2.7 discussion), clearly implying that Jayjg did not have the best interests of Wikipedia in mind. We all know who has made more significant contributions to Wikipedia between the two editors. We all make mistakes and sometimes assume bad faith, but stating that someone is detrimental to Wikipedia and/or does not have its best interests in mind is egregious and should not be a lightly-thrown accusation, and much more so against editors who have been constantly contributing to the project for years, including writing featured articles and doing administrative and functionary work. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 02:12, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Quotes of G-Dett outnumber quotes of other editors in the "unwelcome statements about editors" section of my evidence. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 15:13, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support per Ynhockey, and comment by Coppertwig. Tundrabuggy (talk) 04:47, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Per MeteorMaker above, I am unsure with 2.5.3 what evidence there is that G-Dett has escalated this dispute. I noted that Sandahl said this, but I did not see the point supported. I'll say I find little to suggest that absent G-Dett there would have been any sort of productive agreement, if this is what's being suggested. The sections linked by MeteorMaker strongly suggest the opposite (here and here).

I generally disagree with 2.5.1 as well, at least based only on a block log. In my view the recent block by Sandahl should not have happened for the reasons discussed here, and indeed I would be surprised if ArbCom saw the comment that precipitated the block as sanctionable. If other comments show incivility, personal attacks, and assumptions of bad faith, I would hope to see them, as I suspect it may have been overlooked how limited and focused G-Dett's criticisms generally are (at least that I have seen).

As far as edit warring, my sense is that there are editors who revert as a substitute for discussion, editors who revert along with discussion, and editors who really avoid reverting nearly altogether. Based on the evidence here I would place G-Dett in the middle group, and accordingly while I consider these distinctions important I think the proposal is basically correct. At least "repeated," if "extensive" may go too far in suggesting an editor more of the first variety. Mackan79 (talk) 08:28, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re Vassyana: If I may clarify, I do not see that G-Dett has sought out Jayjg, and certainly do not see that her tendency has been to revert anyone. The fact is that, in this area of Wikipedia, a type of gaming has been rampant for years that centers around reverting but includes various types of obstruction. This has resulted in a stream of content disputes in which efforts toward standard consensus building -- editors address relevant issues, others chime in with their views, and the problem is worked out with respect for the encyclopedic purpose -- have been ineffectual. One important aspect of these disputes is that to accomplish anything, within policy, an editor is forced into protracted discussions involving dozens or hundreds of talk page comments and immense amounts of time.

What G-Dett has done is to comment in these disputes where she has relevant information or insight. Additionally, she's been willing to continue where others lose patience and leave. As it happens, these factors have brought her into repeated and extended conflicts with Jayjg. The idea that G-Dett has sought out Jayjg's edits, however, does not follow. If the above problems have been rampant in this area of Wikipedia, and if the disputes disproportionately involve Jayjg, then it can't be wrong simply to have repeatedly contested his positions, or his manner in pursuing them. The question has to be whether it has been done inappropriately, and on that, I think the evidence misses the boat. Yes, G-Dett has sometimes attacked other editors; what you have to look closely to see is that she is attacking them for things like bad grammar or poor research, and not for things like a lack of basic integrity. This isn't a small distinction on an encyclopedia project, and I am certain it is not lost on her targets (who are, as a rule, sharp critics themselves).

If ArbCom wants to clamp down on edit warring I won't disagree, and even on civility I can see reasonable disagreement. To suggest that G-Dett's comments have been misplaced, however, is in my view ill-informed. It is contradicted by the events in this dispute, and to the extent it represents a broader issue it is also remarkable in that the person said to be targeted, Jayjg, has not even made the claim. If he had, I am certain that numerous editors would have challenged the claim and supported G-Dett's actions in much greater detail. This is a very limited discussion of the problems with this proposal coming in this case, but is probably about what can be provided here. Mackan79 (talk) 11:07, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Long term inappropriate behavior, which I hesitate to call "stalking", but if it isn't stalking, comes as close as possible. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 19:29, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support – Quadell ^(talk) 14:15, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jaakobou[edit]

2.6.1) ~~Jaakobou (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has engaged in repeated and extensive edit-warring ([180]).~~

2.6.2) {placeholder}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed 2.6.1. Kirill ^[pf] 04:19, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Struck 2.6.1; doesn't seem to have really edit-warred in relation to this particular dispute. Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 03:20, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

I'd like to think that I've done a good job on cleaning up most of my past errors and that this block log is ancient history by this point in time. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 08:26, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
p.s. this is probably irrelevant but several of those old blocks were erroneous and rescinded within 3 hours of the making and the last one was actually not for edit-warring. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 03:08, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is true, and should be acknowledged. At the same time, Jaakobou still has not taken full cognizance of the idea one must edit for the goals of neutral encyclopedicity, not against or for one POV. He has shown a stronger ideological position than others on his side, but has certainly striven to improve collegiality, unlike many. I say this, despite the recent and serious lapse in his ubsubstantiated accusations of bigotry indexed elsewhere here.Nishidani (talk) 10:57, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your acknowledgments Nishidani, but whole-heartedly disagree with the suggestion that I'm not striving for neutral encyclopedicity. For example, a small collection of me reverting edits that are non-neutral can be found under the "keeping it neutral" section on my talk page.
Warm regards, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 03:04, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
p.s. I also invite you to review the images I've had the privilege of adding to the encyclopedia section above it. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 03:15, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Nishidani. Unlike many other editors on Jaakobou's side, he generally backs off when the evidence is against him, and he doesn't use the revert button mechanically. He sometimes blanket reverts [181] and uses inflammatory edit summaries [182], but I still must oppose 2.6.1. His false accusations [183][184] against other editors is another story though. MeteorMaker (talk) 13:37, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Seems like Jaakabou has not been particularly involved in any recent edit-warring in relation to the case at hand. I saw discussions on talk pages but little or no edit-warring in relation to this issue. Tundrabuggy (talk) 07:03, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose—Jaakobou has come a long way from being an edit warrior and non-contributor back in the day, to a highly productive editor strongly sticking to policy today. Diffs from months to years ago, which have nothing to do with the Judea and Samaria case anyway, should not be used against him today. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 14:30, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jayjg[edit]

2.7.1) There is evidence ([185], [186]) that Jayjg (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was involved in a conspiracy to affect Wikipedia content in violation of several policies (including, but not limited to, WP:CANVASS, WP:MEAT, and WP:EW).

2.7.1.1) ~~Jayjg (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was involved in an incident ([187], [188]) which caused an appearance of impropriety.~~

2.7.2) ~~Jayjg's actions regarding the matter addressed in 2.7.1 brought (or could reasonably have brought) Wikipedia into disrepute.~~

2.7.3) ~~Jayjg (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has engaged in edit-warring ([189], [190], [191], [192], [193], [194]).~~

2.7.3.1) Jayjg (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has engaged in repeated and extensive edit-warring ([195], [196], [197], [198], [199], [200], [201], [202], [203], [204], [205], [206], [207], [208]).

2.7.4) Jayjg (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is presently a Wikipedia functionary, being a former member of the Committee and a current holder of CheckUser and Oversight privileges.

2.7.5) Jayjg (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been a party to a number of arbitration cases. Findings regarding his conduct were made in CharlotteWebb, where he was "reminded to avoid generating drama by making public proclamations of misbehavior before attempting private discussion and resolution of the issue"; Israeli apartheid, where he was "admonished not use [his] administrative tools without prior discussion and consensus, and to avoid using them so as to continue an editing dispute" and "reminded to use mediation and other dispute resolution procedures sooner when conflicts occur"; Yuber, where he was "reminded that edit-warring is harmful to Wikipedia's mission" and "advised to use Wikipedia's dispute resolution procedure in preference to attempting to control content through the use of reverts"; and HistoryBuffEr and Jayjg , where he was placed under an editing restriction.

2.7.6) During discussions with other editors, Jayjg (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has conducted himself in a manner unbecoming a functionary ([209], [210], [211], [212]).

2.7.7) Jayjg has disgraced his position, and thereby brought the project into disrepute, by his conduct in this matter.

2.7.8) {placeholder}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed 2.7.1 and 2.7.2. Kirill ^[pf] 04:51, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed 2.7.3 and 2.7.4. Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 02:58, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed 2.7.1.1, struck 2.7.2 for the time being. Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 04:34, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed 2.7.5, background. Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 04:45, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed 2.7.6. Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 02:01, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Struck 2.7.3, proposed 2.7.3.1. Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 03:25, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed 2.7.7 as a summary. Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 02:33, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Struck 2.7.1 and 2.7.1.1; not really relevant to the other points. Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 05:50, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Support. ~~A minor note: the edit warring charge applies to Jayjg equally well as to any other editor, so I think it should be added.~~ Addressed with 2.7.3. More evidence here. MeteorMaker (talk) 06:58, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I don't think the conspiracy language is appropriate, and that should be possibly refactored, otherwise my following words should be cancelled, and my support withdrawn. He's highly talented, and highly dedicated, indisputably. But in the I/P area his judgement is all too evidently skewed by an overpersonal attachment to one POV that makes him lose sight of the fundamental aim of the encyclopedia, to the point that wikilawyering loses its value as a guarantee of precision, and tends to become a stonewalling defence of one national interest. I am personally not for vindictive measures. I think however, given that early admission underlines a problem not resolved by apology, that some measure of suspension to make him reflect on certain excesses would be salutary, not only for himself but for all prospective administrators working in difficult areas.Nishidani (talk) 10:08, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I should say though that welcome as it is to have the issue of off-wiki coordination broached, I think the more central matter in this case is on-wiki behavior, in particular Jay's deliberate and strategic misrepresentation and subversion of Wikipedia's core content policies, coupled with systematic dishonesty in talk-page discussions. (I don't see any problem with the language of this proposal; "conspiracy" may have nefarious connotations because of the scare phrase "conspiracy theory," but connotations aside the word does have a precise meaning, and it's used precisely here by Kirill.)--G-Dett (talk) 12:26, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

This could use some specificity. Is this finding to be limited to the area of dispute, or is it intended to be more general? "Involved in a conspiracy" sounds a bit... nefarious, and is also vague, begging the question who else was involved in the conspiracy. This is probably one of the more weighty FoFs thus far, and should err on being diff heavy.--Tznkai (talk) 10:13, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is there an alternative wording that would better fit here? As far as I know, we've never had a real answer as to who was the original intended recipient of those messages, so we can't really speculate on who the other people involved were or their overall purpose might have been. Kirill ^[pf] 12:35, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

'was involved in a conspiracy' = 'sought to coordinate off-line . .in such a way as to ensure his own edits were supported by others, in a way that might bring discredit' etc?Nishidani (talk) 13:18, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at this again, there are two ways to read it. 1. Jayjg has conducted himself in inappropriate behavior (a general statement implying fairly large scale and persistence ) or 2. Jayjg conducted himself inappropriately in the linked incidents. My first read through I saw the first, now I see the second. If the second more limited finding was intended, a more specific FoF such as "on Dec 2007 evidence emerged that Jayjg....." If something more general, more diffs are needed.--Tznkai (talk) 02:46, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why would more diffs be needed if the intent is more general? The diff provided is almost a freakish revelation: Jay thought he was emailing a select list but was in fact emailing the whole WikiEN list. The chances of him repeating such an extraordinary blunder are almost nil. But the casual, laconic, business-as-usual tone of Jay's request in the diff ("I'm planning to go in tonight...Will you be able to watch my back?") strongly suggests this sort of coordinated POV-pushing to be par for the course in his editing.--G-Dett (talk) 03:59, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Compressed statements are richer in meaning than we think. One can unpack this in many ways, as much for what it refrains from saying, as what it says. The message assumes on the part of its intended recipient(s?) that requests of this kind are normal practice. For it hasn't the preliminaries of a one-off request for assistance. Secondly, there is no apology, despite appearances. Told it was 'highly inappropriate', and asked if this was mistakenly send, he replied

'Sorry, yes, sent in error.'

'yes' means 'yes, it was mistakenly sent'. He uses the same words as his interlocutor, and 'mistakenly' means contextually, 'sent by mistake (to this list, WikiEN)'. In short, it was the 'sending' that was a 'mistake', not the intent behind it, or the practice it reveals. In that impersonal telegraphese, not a twitch of apology, no admission of improper conduct, no undertaking never to do this again. The 'sorry' is chagrin for a mistaken address. The laconic, yet ambiguous cast of these words is brilliant, and it succeeded. No follow-up. No review, no sanction, I gather? Though, checking, it appears that Internet pages reviewing Wiki do cite it to cast a shadow on the encyclopedia. Mere peons of page-drafting get suspended summarily for far, far less, i.e., for being unable to control themselves under stress, as this editor does, marvellously.Nishidani (talk) 20:13, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please keep in mind, incidentally, that I've only begun working on the findings; I fully expect more items to be added in the near future. Kirill ^[pf] 04:04, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I hope the 'evidence' against Jayjg will be impeccable; unlike some of Nishidani's evidence against him! [213] It does begin to appear that this hue and cry about Judea and Samaria was not really about Judea and Samaria, but rather against one editor. The case is poorly named. This is why a "scope of the case" needs to be defined before evidence is taken and certainly! prior to judgment. Tundrabuggy (talk) 05:13, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose—even if we really stretch the scope of this case, I can't see how it can be relevant to actions taken in December 2007. Moreover, these actions do not seem to be related to the dispute at hand. The actions may not have been appropriate, but I have not seen evidence of any similar actions recently. --Ynhockey ^(Talk) 13:52, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose -- as per Ynhockey. This seems a stretch and was not the substance of the dispute brought to this committee. Tundrabuggy (talk) 05:44, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It strikes me that this charge:

Was well over a year ago.
unrelated to this case
Has nothing to do with the I-P conflict.
Is not an example of WP:CANVASS
Certainly not a "conspiracy."

The committee should stay with the case as it accepted it; not develop new charges. It is inappropriate to append these unrelated charges to this case. The term "conspiracy" is a major stretch. Tundrabuggy (talk) 16:45, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Oppose~~ (2.7.1 & 2.7.2) I normally do not stick my head into the woodchipper known as RfAr, but I feel the need to oppose here. This e-mail, while something I would not do (and I pretty much rebuked Jayjg about it soon thereafter) is operatively no different than posting to a wikiproject talk page. The article in question, Messianic Judaism, was the subject of much NPOV, 3RR, COI, and OR attacks at the time, and there were a group of interested parties trying to keep the article compliant with wikipedia policies and guidelines. This type of co-ordination should be done on-wiki, via talk pages, or better yet, wikiproject talk pages, but, in my opinion, it was nothing like the co-ordinated conspiracies practiced by others (on both sides of the fence, Zeq and his group, and the Palestinian Yahoo group that somehow disappeared). Should things like this be done on wiki? Of course. Do they indicate membership in a cabal intent on bringing down the wikipedia process? No. The NPOV-ness of editors involved in this particular RfAr notwithstanding, the aforementioned e-mails are irrelevant, in my opinion. -- Avi (talk) 18:34, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, Avi. But one should also consider that several of us in the I/P area have declined to enable our emailing facilities precisely to avoid even the minimal odour of suspicion that anything like happens. The nature of administrative functions does indeed oblige those elected to this onerous function to facilitate private exchanges. Precisely for that reason, standards expected of them must be far higher.Nishidani (talk) 20:23, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some of Avi's points are well-taken: the offending edit cited by Jayjg in the email was clearly inappropriate, and the restoration he proposed was reasonable from a content standpoint. But I stopped short at the assertion that this was "operatively no different than posting to a wikiproject talk page." I don't see how you can be serious about that. WikiProject talk pages are a) transparent, and b) watched by people with a wide range of underlying viewpoints. I can guarantee you that no one in their right minds goes to a WikiProject talk page and asks people to "watch his back" while he makes disputed edits. Email is a) non-transparent (barring a freak address-book mishap), and b) targeted to a select audience which, we can safely assume, is like-minded on the issue at hand. These are among the key and basic distinctions in WP:CANVASS. I'm really left scratching my head at the assertion that these two means of soliciting outside input are operatively equivalent. MastCell ^Talk 18:01, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

MastCell, when I said "operatively equivalent", I meant that no more nefarious or conspiratorial agenda could be ascribed to that particular e-mail being that it was an e-mail as opposed to a wikiproject notice. I fully agree that these notices should be made on-wiki to allow for greater transparency, and I told Jay that straight out. And while in an e-mail one can let one's hair down a bit (e.g. "watch my back"), the e-mail could have been completely replicated by an on-wiki post saying "Messianic Judaism has been improprly edited again, I [Jay] am going to fix it. Can you please watchlist it to make sure that the NPOV/OR edits don't return?". This is as opposed to groups of editors collaborating outside of wikipedia to force a particular POV or improper edit, ala the Zeq and Palestinian Yahoo! group. THEIR efforts could not have been duplicated on-wiki, since they were working COUNTER to wiki's principles, as opposed to Jay. Again, there is no disinfectant like sunlight, so unless we are dealing with private information (OS and CU data, Cross-wiki vandalism, ArbCom support, etc.), positive collaboration should be done ON-WIKI, but I remain believing that those e-mail's do NOT indicate a "conspiracy to affect wiki in violation of its principles", but an effort to uphold wiki principles, but in a manner that is better served through talkpage notices. Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 03:36, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well put, Avraham. Seconded. Tundrabuggy (talk) 03:54, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not convinced of this point. It's possible, certainly, that no nefarious agenda was intended; but, at the same time, I think it would be reasonable for an outside observer to ascribe a nefarious purpose to an email that (a) was meant for distribution to some unknown party or parties and (b) asked those parties to "watch [Jayjg's] back" as he set out to revert someone's edits. I am more concerned about the appearance of impropriety here (and the various negative effects such appearances have on the project as a whole, the functionaries, and the other editors involved in the area) than I am about the practical impact of the request itself. Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 04:01, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the response Kirill. If I may counter, 2.7.1 claims that there is "evidence of a conspiracy", not "remote appearance of impropriety". I do not think that the e-mails brought indicate anything more than poor judgement handling this off-wiki when it could be just as easily and equivalently handled on-wiki. The "watch my back" phrase, in my opinion, should be understood as a colloquialism for "keep an eye on the article" which is asked-for on-wiki all the time in the guise of "please watchlist the article". In my opinion, and that is all it is, one editor's opinion, a reasonable person who knows the context of the situation would not believe that anything was brought into disrepute. Au contraire, this e-mail is an example of someone trying to defend wiki policies and guidelines. Only if the context is either deliberately ignored or removed, and the e-mail improperly placed into the same category as the true conspiracies we have uncovered, can point 2.7.1 or 2.7.2 be made. The "appearance of impropriety" cannot be completely divorced from the context, otherwise, for example, every rangeblock I have ever made is improper. It is the context of knowing that I am blocking recidivist sockpuppeteers that makes my actions be those of a wiki defender as opposed to a rampant admin-compromised account vandal. Similarly here. I maintain it takes a deliberate disregard for the context and an improper comparison to other true vandals to make 2.7.1 and 2.7.2 stick, which is why I felt compelled to respond specifically to these two points. Thank you for bringing up the concerns, Kirill, and in general, thank you for the overwhelming job of trying to craft a comprehensive ArbCom response. It is a tough, and usually thankless job. Also, I hope you realize that I am not attacking you or your opinions; rather, I am trying to correct what I see is a misrepresentation of the e-mail. Thanks again. -- Avi (talk) 04:15, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough; I've added an alternative finding (2.7.1.1), although I'm not yet certain which variant I prefer. Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 04:34, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would make two points in response, Avi. First, being candid in private is fine, but it almost seems you suggest that because others try to do this type of thing under a "guise," Wikipedia can't take any position on the matter. I don't believe that follows. The reason editors would rely on a guise to canvas-in-effect is, as MastCell suggests, that everybody knows it isn't above board. But even where this is done, basic formalities play an important role. A culture where people say, "Check out this article and let us know what you think" is going to be very different from one where people say, "Hey, come give me a hand against these guys." That's true regardless of what the requester would like, when you consider how different the effect is on a recipient of such a request.

The second point regards your suggesting that Jayjg was only "trying to defend wiki policies and guidelines." The problem is that Jayjg quite often edit wars with other editors without openly working toward policy-based consensus. I posted one fairly recent example in evidence from Anti-Zionism, where Jayjg reverted three times each, twice in one week (seen here and here). Both of these involved highly problematic material that was not kept, and no serious attempt to engage discussion. This was blatant revert warring, but as can be seen Jayjg's reverts were also followed in the first example by another revert from NoCal100, in what is still his only edit in either the page or talk page history.[214] In the second example, Jayjg returned (without any interceding discussion) to revert three more times just after Malcolm Schosha took the first initiative several days later. As I note in evidence it was when I pointed this out in purely neutral terms that Jayjg instructed me not to comment on editor conduct.[215] As far as conspiracies, I would avoid characterizations under the principle of parsimony, but I think based on these points that Jayjg's email is significant in the series of events Kirill lays out. Mackan79 (talk) 11:15, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Mackan. If I may respond to your to points. Regarding your first point, your statement saying that I suggesting that "because others try to do this type of thing under a "guise," Wikipedia can't take any position on the matter" indicates that I must have been woefully unclear. I suggest, or meant to suggest, nothing of the sort. Wikipedia can take any position it wants to. My point was that it is unquestionably not evidence of involvement "in a conspiracy to affect Wikipedia content in violation of several policies." It was at most, poor judgment as to how to handle the protection of a difficult article. People's conversational patterns in private may be different than in public, even if they intend the exact same results. Regarding this specific e-mail, improper intimation of conspiratorial intentions where none exist seems to be more witchhunt-like than anything else.

Regarding your second point, I thought I was crystally clear that I was referring specifically and only to the e-mail. I am not referring to Jay's, or anyone else's for that matter, edits on any other articles. Jay may have edit-warred elsewhere. Many other people may have edit warred elsewhere. That is statement 2.7.3–2.7.5, NOT 2.7.1 and 2.7.2. An accusation of ex-wiki conspiracy is MUCH more serious than one of edit warring. The former usually, and should, result in a long-term block if not outright ban, and a requirement to petition to ArbCom for reinstatement. The latter happens regularly, and at most requires a short term block and perhaps a temporary topic ban. I am trying to stay out of this RfAr, but I could not be silent when the highly provocative, sensationalistic, and in my opinion, completely incorrect accusation was leveled at Jay. As for the other proposals in this section, I think the evidence can stand on its own; but for the first two, the context and explanation given was so skewed and incorrect, in my opinion, that I had to speak up. I hope that helps clarify what I meant, and if you still disagree, I would be happy to continue the discussion. Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 15:50, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Mackan's statement here. Avi, I'm going to contest several of your key points here, but I should say at the outset that based on your contributions elsewhere, I deeply respect your input as an editor.

You write that The "watch my back" phrase, in my opinion, should be understood as a colloquialism for "keep an eye on the article" which is asked-for on-wiki all the time in the guise of "please watchlist the article". I think this is wrong. The phrase "watch my back" is a colloquialism drawn from fist-fights and barroom brawls. The context here is an edit-war, and the phrase in question means "back up my reverts," fairly unambiguously. Nota bene: The OED added "to watch a person's back" in 2007, and defined it as follows:
Colloq (orig. U.S.). To protect or guard a person against potential attack (sometimes literally from behind); (also) to support or assist a person.
You write that this e-mail is an example of someone trying to defend wiki policies and guidelines, and that the article in question, Messianic Judaism, was the subject of much NPOV, 3RR, COI, and OR attacks at the time, and there were [sic] a group of interested parties trying to keep the article compliant with wikipedia policies and guidelines. I see two serious problems with this reasoning. (1) Assuming good faith, virtually all content disputes involve both sides "trying to defend wiki policies and guidelines" as they understand them. Either it is appropriate to coordinate reverts with sympathetic editors off-wiki or it isn't. I know nothing about Messianic Judaism (other than that Jayjg and the state of Israel don't like it), and I certainly don't know what should or shouldn't go in the lead of that article, but this was clearly a content dispute, in the context of which I see nothing that would affect the appropriateness of off-wiki revert coordination. (2) Jayjg has an established pattern of simply equating his positions with policy (which is different from basing one's positions on policy). That is to say, his pattern is to present as self-evident his content arguments (in many cases denying that he is even arguing anything), while (a) dismissing out of hand as "original research" any differing interpretation of source material, and (b) dismissing (without elaboration) as a "strawman" any contestation of his own position. If Jay is backing up this tight-lipped strategy with off-wiki revert coordination, that's a serious problem.

In short, it makes no sense to suggest to editors that coordinating reverts off-wiki is not-ideal-but-no-big-deal as long as they're "trying to defend wiki policies and guidelines." And it makes even less sense in the case of Jayjg, who treats as self-evident the absolute congruence of Wikipedia policy and his own content positions.

Finally, I'll say that your description of articles "subject of much NPOV, 3RR, COI, and OR attacks at the time," defended by "a group of interested parties trying to keep the article[s] compliant with wikipedia policies and guidelines" describes with remarkable precision the Judea/Samaria situation that led to this Arbcom case. (Minus the 3RR; I don't know that I've seen that). And yet I'd hope and imagine that a hypothetical email from MeteorMaker intended for Nickhh, Nishidani, Pedrito, and me, but accidentally sent out to WikiEN, saying Someone has conveniently inserted non-standard nationalist terminology in violation of WP:NPOV and WP:NCGN. I'm planning to go in tonight and restore mainstream consensus terminology. Will you be able to watch my back? would be treated as a disreputable attempt at coordinated edit-warring, one that couldn't be explained away by the rightness of our content arguments. --G-Dett (talk) 14:38, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, G-Dett. Firstly, thank you for your kind words. I appreciate them, and the feeling is mutual. If I may continue the discussion with regards to your points. Let me preface that I wrote this prior to your most recent edits. I will now look at them. Thanks!

Your observation about the historical derivation of the phrase is likely true. I maintain that it is irrelevant, as the phrase needs to be understood in the context in which it was made. I do not disagree that the e-mail can be made to look like a horrific conspiracy; my point is that that would be an unfair and improper misrepresentation of the e-mails. As I said above to Mackan, I am specifically not discussing accusations of edit warring on other articles; the reader can decide, based on the evidence, who edit warred with whom and when. I am solely discussing the e-mail in question, and maintain that it is not evidence of anything other than someone frustrated with improper edits and trying to maintain an article in accordance with wiki standards. The fact that the editor in question may have edit warred elsewhere is moot to the e-mail (but not to the RfAr, obviously). Also, please see my response to Mackan as to the difference in severity between the levels of the accusations of conspiracy vs. edit warring.
My personal opinion is that off-wiki co-ordination, even if the intentions are good, is inappropriate. However, my opinion is also that the level of the "error" in using an e-mail as opposed to an on-wiki notice also has to do with WHAT the intent was, and that this particlualr e-mail cannot be used as "evidence of an off-wiki conspiracy to undermine core wikipedia principles".

As I said, there is plenty of evidence on all sides here to indicate that edit-warring was taking place, by numerous people, as often happens in politically-charged situations, and we need to find a way to minimize that, from all sides. However, to single out this e-mail to imply that Jay was engaged in a Zeq/PalestinianYahoo! group kind of conspiracy is, in my opinion, either a gross misrepresentation of context or deliberate attempt to discredit Jay. People edit-warring on an article is an example of frustration resulting in a loss of self-control. Accusations that people deliberately conspire to circumvent wikipedia policy are accusations as to their inherent integrity, which is why I felt duty-bound to point out the difference. Thank you, G-Dett, for your questions, and I hope that I have clarified what is just my personal opinion about this specific issue. -- Avi (talk) 16:31, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One gets the impression that the problem as seen is that of imposing sanctions, Avi. I think we all recognize that these articles lend themselves to edit-warring because they are overpoliticized. Wouldn't it be sensible, in view of your suggestion that 'we need to find a way to minimize this' to set up a workpage for the I/P area to develop specific rules to make them more efficient. I've suggested a few: sourcing requirements should be much higher, academic works privileged, and where a stasis and edit-warring occurs, impose on all parties an immediate obligation to bring that page up to at least GA standards, collaboratively, within a month or so, on pain of collective sanctions. The latter may sound weird, but I'd far prefer less etiquette, if one came to an article knowing that failure to push it collegially to GA standards would mean an automatic suspension. Not quite to the point of this section, I know. But I really don't like all this talk of personal sanctions: I believe that the problem is not personal, but in the mechanisms. No one on either side should be expected to spend months if not years fiddling with a finger-in-the-dyke approach to composition when anyone of these articles, under constraint, could be written to policy by any college graduate within a week. RegardsNishidani (talk) 21:29, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that having a specific set of standards here, or in any highly-charged set of articles would be helpful, but this is not the place to work them out. Things like stricter source standards are good, but when it comes to priviliging academic works, we may run into certain issues. For an example from my specific background, the Talmud has had more written about it and on it than most any other written work in Western Civilization, due its age and its status as the bedrock of the Jewish legal code. Would that be considered privileged, or are we talking solely eighteenth century and later? What about Rishonim and Acharonim. Does the fact that they were luminaries in Talmudic institutions make them any less reliable than professors in a secular university, when the volume of glosses and responsa that have been written and published is enormous? While I agree wholeheartedly that we should demand higher standards in politically charged articles, we need to be careful HOW we go about doing so, and prevent any systematic bias. This should be a prime goal of WP:IPCOLL, perhaps with guidance from ArbCom. Good idea, Nishidani! -- Avi (talk) 22:22, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Replied here to avoid cluttering the page with off-topic matters.Nishidani (talk) 13:18, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the response Avi. I think you miss the connection between these points, though, relating first to Jayjg's request that other editors "watch his back," and second that Jayjg is indeed often found reverting in conjunction with others who, like him, revert first and (if you're lucky) ask questions later. The example from Anti-Zionism is classic, where after Jayjg reverted three times, NoCal100 reverted a fourth time without addressing the talk page in any way, and never having previously edited the page. My point is that, whether one likes it or not, Jayjg often edits like someone looking for just enough reverts. Until you see the private requests it is just appearances, but once you do then the problem is harder to ignore. Of course the real issue remains the on-Wiki editing. Mackan79 (talk) 09:06, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You appear to be accusing Jayjg (and possibly other editors, such as NoCal100) of meatpuppetry. It's a fairly serious accusation, and I hope that you have evidence to back it up. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 15:05, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

G-Dett says Jay "treats as self-evident the absolute congruence of Wikipedia policy and his own content positions." Really? And what about you? You don't do that? A bunch of other anti-Israel admins and editors don't do that? How laughable. How utterly ridiculous. You must think the ArbCom are a bunch of idiots. 6SJ7 (talk) 23:01, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I think they're really smart, so gosh-dang smart in fact that I think they'll immediately understand the distinction between treating as self-evident the absolute congruence of Wikipedia policy and one's own content positions, on the one hand, and thinking you're always right on the other. For you, though, I'll explain. Whereas most editors who think they're right will say, "Look, what you're proposing amounts to original research for reasons X, Y, and Z," Jay is more apt to say something like "Your theories are interesting, but they don't change the fact that Wikipedia forbids original research." This fallacy – wherein the very thing that needs to be demonstrated (in this example, that such-and-such content constitutes original research) is simply assumed to be true – is known as begging the question. Most of Jay's talk-page interactions consist of variations on it. Question-begging is often accompanied by over-confidence, but they're not synonymous.--G-Dett (talk) 23:18, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

With the removal of 2.7.1 and 2.7.2 from this finding, my oppose is no longer relevant and I have struck it. Sadly, with regards to edit warring, there is no less evidence here than elsewhere, it appears :{ -- Avi (talk) 14:40, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Obvious Support - Jayjg slipped by making his private marching orders to several collaborators public. It is a clear indication of how he and his friends treated this whole thing as the proverbial battleground. Unacceptable behavior overall, doubly so for an admin. Tarc (talk) 23:00, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose -- Absolutely ridiculous and unfair. It has nothing to do with this case. Is this case also going to involve every instance in which ChrisO has abused his administrative powers? Is it going to include every instance in which G-Dett has violated the rules against incivility? If so, the case will never end. And besides, in that particular instance Jay was trying to get assistance in preventing yet another article from being turned into garbage, like so many articles on Wikipedia have been. Perhaps he went about it the wrong way, but I don't even know about that. I have seen a number of administrators get away with far worse. 6SJ7 (talk) 23:33, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - 2.7.1 and 2.7.2 are very odd FoFs to insert into this case. As others have pointed out, it's from a year and a half ago, and doesn't relate to Judea, Samaria, or the West Bank, even remotely. The incident has also been blown wildly out of proportion; Jayjg referenced this group of edits, which included unambiguous violations of WP:LEAD. I myself have edited articles where one or two editors consistently attempted to remove information against consensus, and I have asked other editors I trust on their talk pages to keep an eye on the situation. That appears to be what happened in this case; it just happened through e-mail. Calling it a conspiracy or meat-puppetry is just silly, and sanctioning a user a year and a half later gives the impression that you're trying to pin anything you can on the guy. (I don't think Jayjg is blameless here, but come on. He's been subject to enough witch-hunts. This arbcom case doesn't need to become another one.) – Quadell ^(talk) 19:19, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: 2.7.3 and 2.7.4 are true, though. – Quadell ^(talk) 20:15, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: I am glad to see 2.7.1 and 2.7.2 struck. – Quadell ^(talk) 14:36, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding 2.7.3.1, Support. – Quadell ^(talk) 14:36, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding 2.7.4, it's obviously true, though I'm not sure it's relevant. Certainly we can all agree that no checkuser or oversight abilities were used or even referred to in this situation. Jayjg is also a former arbitor, but this fact seems irrelevant, so it isn't mentioned. Not sure why his checkuser or oversight abilities are worth mentioning here. – Quadell ^(talk) 14:36, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding 2.7.5, Support. – Quadell ^(talk) 14:36, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding 2.7.6, Oppose. That's a strong condemnation, and the only evidence presented are his "beer" comments. Those were silly and unhelpful, but unbecoming of a functionary? They weren't incivil, but merely sarcastic, and I think we can all agree that the statements were provoked. When hounded and presented with repetitive and irrelevant personal attacks, some editors get incivil; Jayjg responded with inappropriate levity, which, while not ideal, is preferable. There is no guideline or policy saying functionaries should refrain from sarcasm, nor do I consider it "common sense" to think that to think that an editor should expect for his oversight and checkuser privileges to be revoked if he is sarcastic (but not incivil) to another editor in areas wholly unrelated to those abilities -- especially when wikistalked and provoked for months. – Quadell ^(talk) 14:36, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding 2.7.7, Oppose, an unwarranted attack wholly unsupported by the evidence. – Quadell ^(talk) 14:36, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per Tundrabuggy. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 01:59, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per Tundrabuggy.—Sandahl (talk) 19:43, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support 2.7.3.1 - 2.7.6 Neutral on the older item. Would tend to oppose, due to age, but as there was no correction, and the editor continues to treat I/P as a battleground, the slip may remain relevant. Jayjg, admin, checkuser, edit-eraser, former Arb, should be held to a higher standard of conduct. And he does not meet that standard. Jd2718 (talk) 14:52, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It's becoming clear that bringing in a 1.5 year old issue that is wholly unrelated to the case at hand was a mistake. This can cause this whole case to spin out of control. As Canadian Monkey pointed out above in ChrisO's section, it comes across as blatantly discriminatory when one one user has to face FOF's unrelated to the case while unrelated FOF's concerning other users are omitted. I would urge refactoring from this matter. In addition, using old "evidence" that has zero connection to this ARBCOM case may also give the impression that there's a pre-ordained decision that just needs some "evidence" to back it up. Going down this road puts ARBCOM at risk of losing it's reputation of even-handedness and neutrality. With respect, --brew crewer (yada, yada) 04:33, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding of ArbCom tradition is that it will look at current problems in light of past problems, but that otherwise past problems wouldn't be in the scope of the case. Incidentally: Kirill asked what other language would be appropriate. I would suggest "...that Jayjg has emailed other editors in violation of...." Boring is better. Mackan79 (talk) 09:27, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion closed (off topic)

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

From Lar, an empowered functionary who has been protected by the committee:

From: Larry Pieniazek <redacted>

Date: Wed, Nov 7, 2007 at 7:01 AM

Subject: Calling in a favour

To: Larry Pieniazek <redacted>

Hi there!

To a BCC list as I'[m not sure you all know each other's email... Or maybe it's because this is an odd request, normally I don't canvass quite this blatantly and I don't want you to know how many people I mailed :) :)

Please watchlist

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Herbythyme

and consider supporting it if you agree he's be a good candidate, as soon as it's practical after acceptance, it would be much appreciated. Herby might get some opposes from those who are rigid about RfA qualifications, but he's a CU on 3 other wikis and desperately wants to help maintain the thankless en:wp spam blacklist which is horrificially backlogged. I trust him implicitly, need I say more?

PS no comment on whether I might do this again for my steward candidacy :)

Larry Pieniazek

Hobby mail: Lar at Miltontrainworks dot com

Watch my back! 98.203.142.239 (talk) 15:31, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You need to move this to the "evidence" section, I think (although I am not a party to the case).... I must say, though, I find it interesting, dear anon, that you choose to raise this here and now. But just so there's no mistake, I sent that email, and I stand behind it, every word. Herby has been a huge asset to the projects, a hard working, fair and impartial functionary wherever he chooses to help, including here. I've never regretted supporting him. Too bad I can't say the same for some of the folk named in this case. Nice try, dear anon, at wellpoisoning. What dirt were you going to try tossing next? ++Lar: t/c 15:41, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can't say I see this as "dirt tossing," but it does speak to the question of whether you should possibly recuse yourself from this decision. It is clear that old emails is way over the scope of this case, although the scope was never defined and thus no one knew what would be acceptable evidence in the case, nor has had a serious opportunity to defend him or herself against old charges that may have had a specific context that is not discussed here. It would appear the committee is throwing a huge net, and hoping to "catch" a couple of big fish. Tundrabuggy (talk) 15:57, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'll recuse myself from the decision, I promise not to vote on any of the proposed motions. :) ++Lar: t/c 16:11, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Background: One common defense offered for bad behavior at ArbCom takes the form: "Someone else did something worse! Look over there!" This tactic persists despite its universal lack of effectiveness. We hypothesized that in this particular case, such defenses constituted an unusually high proportion of all case-related verbiage.

Methods: Case pages were analyzed by a highly sophisticated software algorithm; public source-code interfaces are available at HeStartedIt.h, HeHitMeFirst.h, and YesButDidYouSeeWhatHEDid.h. Implementation is proprietary. Results were compared to historical data from other ArbCom cases using a Student t distribution; all p values are two-sided.

Results: Of the defenses offered for disruptive behavior in this ArbCom case, 96.2% took the form of attempting to shift blame to the alleged misdeeds of another party (95% CI, 89.2-100%). This frequency significantly exceeds the historical rate of such arguments in ArbCom cases (75.2%, HR=1.65, p=0.003). However, when compared to the rate of such arguments in prior Israeli-Palestinian ArbCom cases, no statistically significant difference was observed (95.3% vs. 96.2%, HR=1.01, p=0.62).

Conclusion: A significant majority of the verbiage in this case has relied on calling attention to the alleged misdeeds of others in order to excuse or distract attention from bad behavior. Further study is needed in order to clarify the basis for the persistence of such arguments in the face of their obvious ineffectiveness.

Presented at the 8th annual meeting of the Society for Study of Ineffective Wikilawyering; manuscript submitted to the Journal of Scientific Exploration and Medical Hypotheses.) MastCell ^Talk 16:45, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Disgraced? Brought disrepute upon the community? Gross exaggeration. If anything, he's protected the community and carefully avoided misusing either his position or his tools. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 19:33, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment re 2.7.6 whereby it was said "During discussions with other editors, Jayjg (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has conducted himself in a manner unbecoming a functionary," and the illustrative links. While arguably not Jayjg's finest moment, he actually was responding to a string of "strawman" arguments and personal attacks. When other editors asked for clarification without resorting to personal attacks or mischaracterising his argument, he responded civilly, in a straight-forward manner and without ambiguity. I urge readers to check the diffs in context. This is much ado about nothing. Calling this "conduct unbecoming a functionary" and using it as justification to remove his privileges, is equivalent to giving the death-penalty for jay-walking. A definite not. Tundrabuggy (talk) 23:46, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. After all the striking, it seems like three accusations remain: the edit warring, violation of previous arbitration cases, and incivility:

It's possible that Jayjg reverted a few times more than he should have. However, it does not look like he violated WP:3RR. Furthermore, this was a multilateral edit war, involving several parties, and there was no concensus. So I don't think it's fair to portray Jayjg as a disruptive edit warrior.

The previous cases are very old (one from January 2005) and are unrelated. I don't think they are admissible as evidence here.

I agree that Jayjg's "beer contest" was incivil and uncalled for. Still, this is a relatively minor WikiQuette issue that does not warrant the proposed sanctions for "disgracing" the project. -- Nudve (talk) 05:55, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose all but 2.7.3.1 in the modified form that Jayjg has been involved in edit wars. It takes two to edit war. This is an issue of nomenclature, and this doesn't touch on Jayjg's other roles, which he has kept separate throughout this conflict. JFW | T@lk 22:17, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The only remaining FoF to support this proposal is sub-blockable edit warring. It is worth noting that a former arbitrator actually was blocked for actual violation of 3RR while serving on the Committee while nobody seriously considered any action beyond that block, and that the arbitrator who authored this proposal did serve on the Committee when that occurred. Additionally the individual who implemented that block of April 14, 2007 has since been elected to ArbCom and is currently serving on the Committee, so at least two members of the Committee can be expected to be aware of the striking difference in treatment. This raises a curiosity: have standards of conduct for functionaries changed in two years or do arbitrators exempt fellow arbitrators from the standards they demand of others? Durova^Charge! 22:59, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per JFW with regards to 2.7.3.1. Proposal 2.7.6 gives the appearance that Jayjg has a pattern of conducting "himself in a manner unbecoming a functionary" during discussions with other editors (i.e. this is something that is a recurring issue with numerous users). All the diffs provided are to a single incident, and while I agree with others that his response was uncalled for, it is not sufficient enough to support the allegation in its current wording. If I recall correctly, a very well-known CheckUser, Oversighter and Adminin who I highly respect, once got into an incident in which he ended up saying "Fuck You" to the other user. Both of these were rather isolated incidents with regards to civility, and I don't think the proposal is at all strong enough. Khoi khoi 21:42, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

MeteorMaker[edit]

2.8.1) MeteorMaker (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has engaged in repeated and extensive edit-warring ([216], [217]).

2.8.2) MeteorMaker (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has attempted to use Wikipedia as a battleground along national, ethnic, or ideological lines ("Abraham D. Sofaer was a member of a Zionist org in his youth.... Yes, you are allowed one faux pas in your life...").

2.8.3) {placeholder}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed 2.8.1. Kirill ^[pf] 04:10, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed 2.8.2. Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 03:18, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Opposed. His 'record of indictment' deals with one particular issue, where he has demonstrated a commitment to a basic principle, coherence of terminology over related pages, justification of edits by extensive work on secondary sources, and has always been amenable to precise and logical dialogue. I/P articles are worked out page by page, with no regard for general principles, and his endeavour to establish a cogent principle over a field is refreshing. This judgement is partial and subjective, and reflects basically on my limited knowledge of his work. But I have seen few editors as dedicated to principles, and less heated when under stress by conflict, than he seems to be. Others take this to be an unhealthy 'fixation' on a limited terrain. I think that is a misprision for his insistence of cogency and coherence.Nishidani (talk) 10:17, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's neither here nor there, though. Regardless of his motivations—and it's certainly possible he acted in good faith—it's clear that he has edit-warred. Kirill ^[pf] 12:39, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I don't know the rulebook, as I frequently admit, and I'll strike my remarks out if inappropriate. I judge by memory of context. Two or three sanctions I got were immediately reversed as administrative errors. One other, for 'edit-warring', occurred because I was naive enough to think that defending 3 scholarly sources of impeccable quality against two known tagteamers was appropriate. Apparently, the tagteamers (Zeq and Ammon) did nothing wrong in erasing Walter Laqueur, Benny Morris and Lenni Brenner. A lot of this goes on, i.e. teaming up to suppress good sources, and make life difficult for a scrupulous editor. Administrators glance at the record, understandably, since they cannot be held to omniscience, and count up, and see something many might challenge as due to the vagaries of mechanical sanctions (and we have to accept that, of course). That's how I read MM's situation. I apologize if this is irrelevant, and you're welcome to elide it. Regards Nishidani (talk) 13:03, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to 2.8.2: I'm surprised to see a tongue-in-cheek remark on Abraham D. Sofaer's brief and callow affiliation with organizations he apparently shunned for the rest of his life, something he might very well himself consider a faux pas, brought up as evidence that I have "attempted to use Wikipedia as a battleground along national, ethnic, or ideological lines". WP:BATTLE is about holding grudges, importing personal conflicts, or nurturing hatred or fear, which the evidence clearly doesn't show. MeteorMaker (talk) 09:24, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So, his 'brief and callow affiliation with organizations he apparently shunned for the rest of his life' is enough for you to use that affiliation as an excuse to disqualify his use of "Samaria", but not good enough to call you on using Wikipedia as a battleground along national, ethnic, or ideological lines. Your double standards never cease to amaze. NoCal100 (talk) 14:11, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Read the diff more carefully, Nocal. MM is being wry and even self-deprecating when he points out Sofaer's brief affiliation with a Zionist organization as a youth. The "one faux pas" in MM's joke – "you are allowed one faux pas in your life" – is a play on brief-membership-in-Zionist-youth-organization / single-isolated-use-of-controversial-term. It helps to have a sense of humor, but MM's actual rationale for "disqualifying his use of 'Samaria'" (translated into normal language: questioning the significance of one primary-source use of a controversial term in establishing NPOV terminology) is that Sofaer seems only to have used the term once in his published writings; elsewhere he relies on standard, non-controversial terminology, just like the overwhelming majority of reliable sources.--G-Dett (talk) 14:30, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've read the diff carefully. The first line of it is "Abraham D. Sofaer was a member of a Zionist org in his youth". You are free to invent exculpating interpretations, but the words speak for themselves. Not only did he disqualify a source primarily because the author was "a member of a Zionist org in his youth", he now finds it possible to both take offense at this being called out and accuse those doing it of being bigots, as well as to claim that such affiliation, while good enough for source disqualification along national, ethnic, or ideological lines is not good enough to accuse of him of doing just that, because of the duration of that association. It is ridiculous, as is your defense of it. NoCal100 (talk) 14:42, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NoCal, you seem to have misunderstood this accusation point — it's not that I used Sofaer's brief membership in a Zionist org to disqualify his use of "Samaria", it's that I facetiously (but, as it turned out four months later, unwisely) referred to it as a "faux pas". G-Dett has given you an answer already and I assure you it's not an "invented exculpating interpretation", that was exactly how I reasoned — though in retrospect I realize I should not have underestimated other editors' ability to read sinister intent into everything (yes, I'm still a learner). To give you my personal answer to your question: Yes, that brief affiliation held enough disqualifing power to annihilate exactly one use of the term "Samaria", leaving behind a minuscule vacuum and a faint smell of brimstone. Fortunately, what we had was exactly one instance of him using the term. MeteorMaker (talk) 15:29, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, I did not misunderstand this accusation point, which does not depend on the last part of your quote. That part may have indeed been a poor-taste attempt at humor, but that is a side issue. It is uncontested, even by you, that you disqualified Sofaer because he had a "brief affiliation" with a Zionist organization. You concede this right above this current post. This has now been called out as a finding of fact, and all of a sudden that "brief affiliation" is brief enough for you to oppose this FoF that you disqualified sources along national, ethnic, or ideological lines, due to its brevity. This is an amazing double standard. NoCal100 (talk) 02:50, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you did misunderstand it, since you apparently believe this FoF is about me "disqualifying sources along national, ethnic, or ideological lines". There is also strong evidence that you have not understood neither my reply to you nor the original comment about the Sofaer example (which is more about the fact that there is only one recorded instance of him using the term, in quite an ambiguous way I might add, and that his standard terminology seems to be Palestine/West Bank.) Also, in case you missed it the last 100 times it was pointed out, no sources have been rejected on account of being of Israeli origin, only examples of usage, for the simple reason that Israeli examples make poor evidence of outside-Israel use of the terms J&S. All Israeli examples have however been fully acknowledged as what they are — examples of Israeli use of the terms. MeteorMaker (talk) 04:55, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sofaer is not an Israeli, and you acknowledge above that you disqualified him as evidence of usage outside Israel because he had a "brief affiliation" with a Zionist organization. This has now been called out as a finding of fact, and all of a sudden that "brief affiliation" is brief enough for you to oppose this FoF that you disqualified sources along national, ethnic, or ideological lines, due to its brevity. This is an amazing double standard. NoCal100 (talk) 14:16, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You keep repeating a falsehood despite numerous clarifications and invitations to check the actual source, which is somewhat characteristic of this dispute. One last attempt: The FoF is not that I have disqualified any evidence, it's that I've used a word that (despite my intention) could be understood as pejorative of Zionism. As about Sofaer, he has apparently not used the term "Samaria" more than once (very ambiguously at that) and consistently uses the more neutral terms "West Bank" and "Palestine". His connection with Zionism is exceptionally weak, but so is the attempt to use him as evidence that the term is used outside Israel/Zionist circles. I suggested they cancel, which seems fair. Not that it would have mattered much if there are six or seven counts of bona fide outside-Israel examples on Jayjg's anecdotal evidence list, since there's a sizable amount of reliable sources that explicitly state that the terms are Israel/Zionist-specific and renders his attempt to synthesize evidence moot, something both he and you have yet to acknowledge. MeteorMaker (talk) 14:57, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No. This finding of fact is that you "attempted to use Wikipedia as a battleground along national, ethnic, or ideological lines" - which is based on, among other things, your self-acknowledged dismissal of a source because he had a "brief affiliation" with a Zionist organization. NoCal100 (talk) 15:08, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strange, when I read the FoF, there's exactly one thing it's based on, and that is this quote: "Abraham D. Sofaer was a member of a Zionist org in his youth.... Yes, you are allowed one faux pas in your life...". Where exactly are the "other things" you say you see in the FoF, including "dismissal of a source because [Sofaer] had a "brief affiliation" with a Zionist organization"? MeteorMaker (talk) 15:26, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That would be the first part of the quote, where it says "attempted to use Wikipedia as a battleground along national, ethnic, or ideological lines (Abraham D. Sofaer was a member of a Zionist org in his youth..."

You're reading far too much into this. Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 03:14, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I am, but then it is obvious that you need to clarify what your FoF is, and what it is based on, as it is clearly a matter of differing interpretations. NoCal100 (talk) 03:50, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support - per Ynhockey , a lot of recent evidence of edit-warring, pushing the limit of 3RR. See today's example, 3 reverts in less than 2 hours: [218], [219], [220]. Canadian Monkey (talk) 00:09, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're not afraid to draw attention to the fact that you yourself managed three reverts in 20 minutes only last week. Unlike mine, they were reverts of exactly the same line, and not acknowledged as correct by the reverted party, in addition to being part of a larger edit war involving a tag team and about a dozen reverts by yourself. MeteorMaker (talk) 00:37, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Support—a lot of recent evidence of edit-warring, and a lot of other policy violations not listed here. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 20:55, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Out of curiosity, what policy violations are you referring to? I've already admitted I'm quite guilty of edit warring in my first 3 months of active editing, though I had no idea it was that objectionable at the time, merely emulating the behavior of other editors, notably one much-respected admin. MeteorMaker (talk) 21:10, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The most obvious and recent ones are WP:NPOV (esp. WP:UNDUE) and all that relates to WP:RS/WP:V (esp. WP:REDFLAG), for instance in the Jerusalem LRT article. The most important thing though isn't the policy violations per se (we all make mistakes, and you edit fairly little and might not know how Wikipedia works), but the fact that you refuse to listen to editors who have been around much longer than you, some of whom are administrators, and repeat the actions. Less recent violations (but still relevant to this case, and almost-unique to you, as we both know that many editors violated WP:NPOV) include tendentious editing (regarding the J&S case, dozens of diffs posted by Jayjg), and using clearly misleading edit summaries (again mostly J&S-related, but not limited to that, as presented by Jayjg and JoshuaZ). In addition, your tendency to come to articles just to make a controversial edit is very problematic, IMO, as I have pointed out to you in the Jerusalem LRT article (of course, all J&S diffs posted by Jayjg fall into this category). I hope you take this as constructive criticism and not as an insult. --Ynhockey ^(Talk) 22:17, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ynhockey, we disagree about what's neutral and controversial, which is only natural. That's not evidence of NPOV violations on my part any more than on yours. I think you will have a hard time finding anything objective to back up that allegation with, and the same goes for your claims that I have violated WP:UNDUE (diffs would be welcome). I'm also very curious what edit in the Jerusalem Light Rail (or anywhere else) you think has violated WP:RS/WP:V (esp. WP:REDFLAG). "Misleading edit summaries"? You're probably thinking of "Terminology modernized". As I said in the Discussion of evidence provided by Jayjg section: That you disagree with me about the modernity of the terms, as well as with several other editors, and with all the sources that say anything at all about the subject [221], is hardly evidence of disruptive behavior on my part. Finally, your argument from authority (which is a logical fallacy btw) is extraordinarily unconvincing without evidence that I've actually been factually wrong (as opposed to in disagreement) in a dispute with an admin at least once. AFAIK, there is no policy that requires us to surrender unconditionally to admins either, so I don't understand why you use that as an example of my alleged policy violations. MeteorMaker (talk) 22:55, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ynhockey, your post above is glib, condescending, and careless with the facts. For starters, absolutely zero evidence has been adduced by good-faith editors to the effect that MM has used "misleading edit summaries"; if you're going to make that sort of charge, back it up. Secondly, it is absolutely untrue that MM has "refused to listen" to Jayjg; MM has been a paragon of patience in his dealings with someone widely regarded as a disruptive editor and rogue admin. It is in fact Jayjg who has flatly refused to engage in any serious way with an editor from whom he has everything to learn – and to whom he has nothing to teach – about core Wikipedia policies and principles. Regarding these policies and principles, they are not rocket science: they can be learned comprehensively in a matter of weeks, as MeteorMaker did; or systematically abused over the course of a half-decade, as Jay has done.--G-Dett (talk) 04:17, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No evidence? Are you serious? Perhaps you have not reviewed this. I have; every single diff, in fact, and don't need to write it here again. --Ynhockey ^(Talk) 21:16, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Of course I'm serious. The diff you're pretending I haven't "reviewed" is not evidence of MeteorMaker using "misleading edit summaries"; it's evidence of Jayjg posting deliberately misleading nonsense to an Arbcom evidence page – a much more serious thing. Jay's reference to "Meteormaker's and G-Dett's definition of Samaria as a 'Biblical name'/'Biblical term'/'Biblical' or 'ancient region'" is just out-and-out garbage. As Jay knows very well, "ancient region" isn't our definition but rather the definition of mainstream encyclopedias like Britannica, Encarta, Columbia, etc.; and everyone from USA Today to the New York Times to Haaretz says Samaria is a "biblical name." The reason Jay posted that is to try to trick Arbcom members and editors in general, and in your case it worked. When he goes on to say Samaria is a biblical name just like Lebanon and Bethlehem are biblical names, or that "the British Mandate was neither 'biblical' nor 'ancient',"he's again trying to trick you. His rhetorical game here is known as suggestio falsi (Fowler defines it as a "the making of a statement from which, though it is not actually false, the natural and intended inference is a false one"). The dozens of prominent mainstream sources saying Samaria "is a biblical name for the northern West Bank" are saying this precisely in the context of its contemporary use; they're saying, in other words, that people using the term today are using a biblical name. Mainstream sources don't use the name in their neutral voice, and they qualify it ("deprecate" it, in Jay's spun vocabulary) as a "biblical name" when they quote others using it. They don't do this when someone says "Lebanon" or "Bethlehem," because these are the standard accepted terms today, unlike "Judea" and "Samaria." You need to get a grip on the basic dispute here, Ynhockey. When you repeat a bogus charge like this about MeteorMaker "using clearly misleading edit summaries," or point editors to fraudulent evidence posted in support of it, then you too become responsible for the fraud.--G-Dett (talk) 22:13, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is a list of MM's edits. It is not evidence for anything other than the fact that, just as Jayjg and others before MM, consistently entered highly partisan POV language 'Judea and Samaria' all over I/P articles, so MM when he came to the I/P area, proceeded to replace those terms with the proper West Bank term (the source proofs adducing this as more neutral are massive). The problem with that serried necklace of diffs in Jayjg's evidence is that it can be read against Jayjg as much as against MM or Pedrito. It assumes that the text he, Jayjg, supported in all those articles was acceptable and NPOV. It has been demonstrated not to be, and thus the evidence against MM and Pedrito, based on this assumption of the 'normalcy' of the status ante quo engineered by Jayjg, is not 'evidence' of malefaction. To the contrary, MM's work on this is as consistent as Jayjg's earlier work. Therefore the problem posed by Jayjg's evidence is one of 'who was correct' in terms of policy, Jayjg who's edited those articles since 2005, and has only fringe sources to justify his POV or MM who came much later, and massed a huge array of meta-analysis from secondary sources showing the usage was partisan and inappropriate to wiki's neutral voice?Nishidani (talk) 21:46, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Ynhockey re NPOV: usually whether something violates NPOV or not is a matter of opinion. The Arbitration committee normally doesn't decide on such content disputes. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 02:07, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- I usually don't like to support negative findings, but I have to support this one. Tundrabuggy (talk) 06:55, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support 2.8.1 and 2.8.2. Pretty unambiguous. – Quadell ^(talk) 20:14, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment re 2.8.1. I looked over some of MeteorMaker's contribs and while I saw some reverts, (but a certain amount of reverting is part of normal wiki-editing), I also saw a high proportion of article talk page edits (far more numerous than article edits), and edit summaries encouraging talk page discussion, such as [222] [223] On the evidence page I don't see clear examples of alleged editwarring by MeteorMaker (maybe I missed it). ☺Coppertwig (talk) 15:13, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nickhh[edit]

2.9.1) Nickhh (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has engaged in repeated and extensive edit-warring ([224], [225]).

2.9.2) {placeholder}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed 2.9.1. Kirill ^[pf] 04:21, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment: Fair cop for edit warring (it's been a problem all round, whatever the rights and wrongs of the underlying issues), but "repeated and extensive" seems a bit much. Especially if the block log is being used as evidence - only one such block, out of two in all in two years, relates to this specific topic area. I could single out other editors here who have engaged in just as much repeated and extensive edit-warring, but who don't seem to have been tagged in the same way. I believe MM's table here gives more detailed stats on one of the main articles here. --Nickhh (talk) 15:57, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In the light of the fact that this seems to have now been carried across into the proposed decision page (I foolishly thought this and other findings/proposals were posted as extreme measures, to test the water) I've belatedly gone back into the history of this in more detail. Apologies again for only looking out for myself, but it's easier to make sense of one's own editing history; and anything I say can be taken as more broadly applying to several others here. Anyway, what do we have?

On Israeli Settlement a total of four edits, between 17th November and 3rd December, which were direct reverts as part of a slow-ish edit war that started long before I arrived. Then on 4th December an attempted compromise edit, which actually added the controversial "Samaria" terminology, but simply moved it out of the lead and qualified its use. All the time I was extensively engaged on talk pages - far more than I was in "edit warring". When that was reverted, I changed it back once more. Then, er, that's it. Nothing more. So - six edits in a two week period, six months ago now
On three different pages about individual settlements on the 17th February (Mevo Dotan, Barkan and Ma'ale Shomron, a one hour window when I made a couple of reverts on each. Eventually blocked for that admitted mini-spree, three months ago now. Since then, zero Judea/Samaria-related mainspace edits. In fact I've consciously avoided it other than a couple of talk page engagements looking for compromise, eg here, and am unlikely to return given the farcical nature of the whole thing.
Overall during this period I guess about 10-20% of my mainspace edits were in I-P articles.

And this leads to an indefinite topic ban, three to six months later? Is this serious? --Nickhh (talk) 14:28, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Nishidani[edit]

2.10.1) Nishidani (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has engaged in repeated and extensive edit-warring ([226], [227]).

2.10.2) Nishidani (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has engaged in incivility, personal attacks, and assumptions of bad faith ([228], [229], [230]).

2.10.3) {placeholder}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed 2.10.1. Kirill ^[pf] 05:15, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed 2.10.2. Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 05:10, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Strongly oppose 2.10.1. The evidence shows no recorded edit warring since 2007. MeteorMaker (talk) 07:14, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weakly support, but I would support a sanction, in the interests of balance, if this comprehensive review concluded that an across-the-board series of punitive measures for past behaviour was in the best interests of I/P articles. I am frustrated by the difficulties in article building here, and my language does at times reflect, in its personal remonstrativeness, a violation of one core principle, even if it is usually aimed at begging for respect for academic sources otherwise held to ransom by my interlocutors. I admit the level of my frustration means that to function in here I cannot easily disarm myself of a pedantic tone others find annoying. Nishidani (talk) 10:23, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just checked diff (200). This should have been posted on Ashley Kennedy's page, and not the AN/I page, and was, as subsequent arbitration review allowed, misread in its intent, which Ashley understood but, understandable, Jehochman didn't. I think any independent reviewer familiar with my interactions with AK will recognize this can't be taken as uncivil, or as an attack. It is wholly in keeping with our relationship which is that of esteem and friendly regard. If the Susya remarks are unfair, I have no objection to them being used against me. I do believe that there 3-4 people tagteamed or colluded to elide, or justify the elision, in the most provocative manner, of a WP:RS impeccable source, in order to retain the version in a source that is nothing more than a settlers' blog. They violated WP:RS, and they are all members of one POV group, and I told them as much. If this is wrong, well, I'll take the rap.Nishidani (talk) 16:57, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Oppose. Nishidani is guilty, at most, of tenacity and verbosity. He rarely reverts, which makes him a fairly unlikely candidate for edit-warring. pedrito - talk - 23.04.2009 07:21

Strong Support. The editors making the false comments that "He rarely reverts" or "no recorded edit warring since 2007" are obviously unaware of very recent edit warring on articles such as Susya - 3 reverts in 20 minutes on April 20. NoCal100 (talk) 14:19, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I welcome administrators to check this indeed. I spent several hours writing the whole section on the synagogue, and my monitors just wikified. As soon as I began to touch the Palestinian side of things, and defend a reliable source, three of four editors, mostly present here, jumped in and denied the reliable source, while defending a settler website that I tolerated, but which is not in conformity with RS. I regard that incident as a good example of the problem. Help if one contributes to the Israeli perspective: lockstep tag-teaming unanmity (only Ynhockey examined evidence, and found something new) by the many of same people on virtually everything one might edit in regarding the Palestinian perspective.Nishidani (talk) 18:28, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose 2.10.2. Nishidani was initially blocked for that first comment but the block was lifted [231] when it became clear to the blocking admin that the comment was merely intended as collegial (if drastic) advice to an editor who had just made some "suicidal" edits, and who did not take offence. The other two exhibits ("no intelligent editing can be done on a page with NoCal100 there", "If you examine Canadian Monkey's monkeying with this") should also fail the basic offence test, being pretty good-humored for personal attacks and obviously focusing on edits, not editors. MeteorMaker (talk) 06:16, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense. You're in no position to tell me, the victim of these egregious and repeated personal attacks that they are "good-humored", and they obviously focus on me as an editor. The two examples called out by Kirril are but a drop in the bucket, there are many, many more. All you have to do is look at his contributions to this very page, where he repeatedly attacks me as a "classical wikistalker", baselessly accuses me of having "destroyed systematically" another editor, or of being a "scalp hunter". All in good humor all, I guess. NoCal100 (talk) 14:44, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not good humoured in fact. I confirm that I believe what I said most strongly. You are one of the most systematically destructive editors I have met in wikipedia, a very astute system-gamer: you do stalk, you do go after people to push them over the limit, dropping in out of the blue to add that sudden extra vote in a tense editing environment to tease one of the parties into some outburst or violation of 3RR, and you have done this with great consistency. You're lucky that I am both incompetent in hunting up diffs, and incurious about making cases against others. I was raised on Henry James, not on reading actuarial charts (though I admire those who can read them), and like G-Dett, of similar background, this is a distinct disadvantage in working in this young medium. I stand aghast to see that reading diffs run up by you after a masterly piece of subtle warfare with the bullheaded but very good content-editor Ashley Kennedy3, administrators, familiar only with the justice of wiki-specific guidelines and not each editor's history, showed absolutely no knowledge of the drift of interactions, of the systematic strategy you adopted of chasing him off the project. All that was noted was the diffs you produced, all testifying to his incapacity to put up with your provocations. I've never taken people to arbitration, despite frequent opportunities to do so (others avail themselves of this with a professional facility I deplore). Don't worry. Since, other than the generic evidence I supplied with a diff,. to my page etc., I can't even be bothered to do the only kind of homework arbitrators will examine, and thus my judgement, which is honest, will be held against me as a subjective opinion breeching WP:AGF when I think you are in complete bad faith most of the time. I have no grievance against that probable negative judgement against me. I'm too old to adapt to the velocities of diff reading, and the tribal rules, that govern wiki arbitration. It's the culture of this place, perhaps indispensable for its working, since 1600 arbitrators can't be expected to follow editors over 2.7 million articles, and read beyond a few token diffs to understand militant strategies by those editors who stick to the rules, while subverting the intent of the encyclopedia with their tactical warring. Nishidani (talk) 16:42, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I rest my case. MeteorMaker, perhaps you'll show your integrity by striking out your "good humored" comment, now that it has been explicitly denied by Nishidani himself. NoCal100 (talk) 16:48, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

MM is not required to strike out a generous sentiment that coloured his judgement to prove his integrity, which is evinced by his behaviour throughout. On a small point, your triumph contains a slight misuse of language. You don't rest your case. I wrested it from you, and in putting an equivocation to rest, clarified before arbitrators what I believe to to be the truth of your editing in this area. They are not called to judge my beliefs, however, but the evidence, which I have not adduced sufficiently perhaps to justify my beliefs as reasonable, informed, and based on long observation. But in telling against me, it will only corroborate a formal infraction. In any case, things like this are what accounted for my own withdrawal from the project in November last year, other than a desultory attendance on small matters, and a sanction my way will make no difference to the encyclopedia. The substance of my charges will be there, however, for future occasions, if you persist in your strategies. Nishidani (talk) 19:05, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually MM is right, and I should have checked: 'good-humoured' refers to playing with Canadian Monkey's name. I though this limp pun fair game. I was deadly serious in the quite distinct remark I made about your own editing.Nishidani (talk) 19:14, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Comment—edit warring is the least of the problems with Nishidani. There is recent evidence of personal attacks against CM and NoCal100, as well as the evidence I have presented. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 10:30, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see nothing but remarkable restraint there from one editor who has every reason to feel frustration. MeteorMaker (talk) 14:48, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak oppose. I don't see "repeated and extensive edit-warring" recently or in ways related to this RfAr. – Quadell ^(talk) 20:03, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose and comment - Nishidani has some lapses in the civility department as well as a penchant for excessive wordiness but he is not an edit warrior. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 03:43, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support and comment I had initially planned to be silent on this one, though leaning to support on the WP:ASG charge; however.....Last night I was reading/rereading the evidence talk page for this case. I came upon this diff in which Nishidani makes a number of serious allegations against User:Jayjg. Reading on, I saw it was damning evidence, and not at all what I have come to expect from Jayjg, who has always struck me as a careful and honest editor. The diff given provided a starting point, but no further diffs were given, as Nishidani excoriated Jayjg, accusing him three times (in substance) of planting false information in regard to the Mitchell Report's findings. A careful reading will show that it was not Jayjg who put the offending material into the article, but another editor. This statement: "For removing false information planted by Jayjg, and wrongly asserted by him to be grounded in a Reliable Source which said the exact opposite of what he maintained was written..." is pure fiction. Jayjg's reference to the Mitchell Report was absolutely accurate in relation to what he was referring. Nishidani is quick to accuse others of poor reading and hasty judgments. In fact in this very same diff he accuses User:Sandahl of "the usual hasty preference for formal judgements on decontextualised and isolated 'incriminating' evidence that dispense with close attention to the actual flow of edits and interactions between parties." I urge Nishidani next time he makes accusations against other editors, to put up diffs for verification, to be "less hasty" in making formal judgments, to read more carefully and to "pay close attention to the actual flow of edits and interactions between parties." Nishidani has, in fact, with this false accusation against Jayjg, "planted false information" in the middle of an ArbCom case. I see this as an egregious personal attack at best ; and in light of this, have to give strong support to Article 2.10.2. Tundrabuggy (talk) 04:56, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I just noticed this. You have a point. From memory, I must have been misled by User:Sandahl's evidence. She, unbelievably, arraigned G-Dett in the dock on the charge, I presume invented for the occasion, that to oppose Jayjg's edits is tantamount to infringing wiki policy. Startled by the fact that an administrator could think Jayjg and wiki policy were interchangeable, from memory, I began checking the diffs. No.43, shows G-Dett deleting false information, and the previous editor was Jayjg, so since Sandahl introduced that diff as evidence G-Dett was opposed to Jayjg, I presumed )she an administrator after all) that G-Dett's perfectly correct edit corrected Jayjg's. I've looked back at this. The edit G-Dett made was to remove false information introduced successively by User:IronDuke. Jayjg went in to accurify in the meantime, and dealt with the same section. I should have checked. There you go, never trust an admin because he or she is an admin. Sandahl's evidence here, as elsewhere, was deplorably framed to make G-Dett look as if she were contesting Jayjg. I have no excuses, and apologize for this specific misprision. But Sandahl should apologize for her misleading words.

At a glance, however, there is a complication. Everybody editing that page knows about the Mitchell Report, and must be presumed to have read it. I think the information that it exculpated the PNA was put in a week earlier. On the page as Jayjg edited it, that fact is clearly in the main body of the text. I.e., while IronDuke systematically introduced the palpably false information, without a summary justification, into the lead, Jayjg just stood by, did nothing but edit on his own peeve, which was to dissociate Ariel Sharon's walk from the beginning of the Intifada. So, had they read the page, both IronDuke and Jayjg must have known that while the body of the text said the very opposite, the lead as edited by IronDuke, gave a false interpretation of the Mitchell report. I.e., Jayjg did nothing to remove IronDuke's insertion of false information. G-Dett did so, and for this Sandahl accused her of editing against Jayjg. I'll do the diffs tonight, for the record, to show exactly what went on. I don't retract one bit my words about Sandahl. I retract my words about Jayjg on that edit, since being misled by an administrator is no excuse for getting details wrong. It's his extremely flexible manipulation of the rulebook that disturbs me, not this. Nishidani (talk) 15:53, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've always said I don't belief evidence based on diff readings, unless one reads forwards and backwards twenty edits each way everytime at least to understand context. What happened here illustrates my point. It might be said that much of the 'evidence' throughout the evidence page, in so far as it is just a string of diffs, is no such thing, if you read each diff in the way I do below, concentrating on just one at a time.

User:Sandahl with her arraignment of G-Dett for the obscene crime of opposing Jayjg, here, presented, as part of her first piece of evidence this diff It is introduced as evidence for the most curious charge that merely to challenge Jayjg’s text is to engage in an infraction of the wiki rules. I read the diff, and saw G-Dett removing blatantly false information. On the left side, Jayjg’s signature marked that he had edited just before her. Sandahl’s summation gave me, would give any reviewing administrator, the impression that G-Dett was ‘’opposing’’ Jayjg. Indeed that is what the diff is classified as. I was misled.

G-Dett’s edit summary reads

rv false claim re Mitchell report added to lead for 2nd time. MR actually says: "neither were we provided with persuasive evidence that the PA planned the uprising...")

Anyone who, like G-Dett or myself, who has gone to the trouble to read all the basic documents used on pages like this, knows that the Mitchell Report exculpated the PNA of prior intent to instigate the uprising. Anyone in the I/P area who has done his basic homework knows this, as they know the world is round.

Checking back now I see User:IronDuke was immediately responsible for editing in this false information, on the 30th Oct, with the false edit summary 'in line with sources' when the page itself says the opposite, having a section on the Mitchell Report which clearly denies this. He did this when a mere five days earlier User: Steve3742 had explicitly quoted the Mitchell report to the effect that the PNA had not planned the intifada before Sharon’s visit, contrary to official Israeli government sources at the time.

We have no basis on which to conclude that there was a deliberate plan by the PA to initiate a campaign of violence at the first opportunity; or to conclude that there was a deliberate plan by the [Government of Israel] to respond with lethal force.

So as of the 25th of October 2008, the main text got the Mitchell exculpation of the PNA for planning the uprising right. All regular editors, or serious editors, must have known this. Steve's edit into the main body of the text' was never challenged, by IronDuke or Jayjg, who otherwise monitored the page. When IronDuke made his first attempt to insert that false information into the lead, User:Timeshifter, knowing IronDuke's edit was false, made a compromise edit without fuss, eliding this palpably false information, by adding information from a different RS saying some Palestinian leaders may have preplanned the Intifada. Unfazed, IronDuke then proceeded, on Nov.2, to reedit in the false information. Note IronDuke, in his second reintroduction of this false information, provided no edit summary.

A mere 9 minutes after IronDuke did this in the lead, against the main text, and Timeshifter's quiet correction of his error, Jayjg entered and did not challenge that edit by IronDuke while editing the same section, i.e., the lead, a few words above IronDuke's patently erroneous reinsertion. Of course, one could say he was under no obligation to elide false information. He edited only too ‘accurify’, which operationally means leaving IronDuke’s disinformation in, while removing the idea, historically well sourced, that the intifada began on the same day as Ariel Sharon’s visit. Here G-Dett stepped in, and corrected what IronDuke misrepresented, and what Jayjg tacitly accepted, and in her next edit, actually goes so far as to meet Jayjg on his ground on his view that the Intifada began the day after. And it stayed in notwithstanding Jayjg’s several intervening edits to the page. User:Michael Safyan then stepped in to reassert the innuendo, by gathering sources that replace the Mitchell Report’s official denial the intifada was planned, with Israeli opinions and beliefs which, notwithstanding that report, maintain the fiction. G-Dett had again to deal with this jerryrigging of an untenable POV.

Did Jayjg know of the Mitchell report before this occurred? Yes. Some days before this, he did something very peculiar indeed, removing two sources even he could not challenge as dubious, or falling short of WP:RS namely an official document by the Knesset which read:

The Second Intifada, more violent than the previous one, was triggered by the visit of Ariel Sharon to Temple Mount on September 28th 2000.

and with it a source from the BBC. I.e. he removed WP:RS material with this edit summary, ‘remove POV that contradicts Mitchell report.’

In other words, he removed the Israeli government Knesset page account of events, in what seems to be a violation of an Arbcom ruling because he, like many others, insisted on clearing Ariel Sharon’s visit of any air that it precipitated the intifada, which for Jayjg began the next day. Yet the Knesset overview says it ‘triggered’ the Second Intifada. He was reverted, and editwarred to restore his own version, even if this meant he had to delete impeccable sourced information from the Israeli Knesset and the BBC.

Sandahl certainly misled me into making that statement. But it turns out that the statement when checked, still shows highly partisan editing, consisting in closing an eye to a palpable piece of disinformation introduced by someone on his side of the POV border, and removing WP:RS, even from the Knesset itself, just because he disliked the POV, which, irony of irony, happened to come from sources given by the parliament of Israel itself.

This ladies and gentleman is a miniscule cameo that showcases why editing the I/P area is so frustrating. None of these edits by IronDuke, nor Jayjg, were necessary, even from an Israeli official perspective. They were irrational, defied what the main text stated below, or removed sources of undisputable value, and to revert, or challenge such things, which go on every day in defiance of commonsense, accounts for why many of us here are 'up on charges' as edit-warriors or as editors who do not have the best interests of wikipedia in mind.

A large number of the diffs I've controlled end up looking distinctly different from what the person adducing them wants them to say. I slipped here, but simply because I trusted an admin's diff. End of story. And I don't think it will be understood. One can only judge the merits of these things if one knows the topic intimately, and arbitration functions without making content judgements, and, by an unfortunate necessity, without, as often as not, a knowledge of the subject. To expect arbitrators to grub up on the background and then judge the merits in such cases this would be to expect an inhuman omniscience from people already tasked by an enormous amount of onerous, unpaid and unlauded supervision. Thank you Nishidani (talk) 21:45, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kirill, including the edit to AN/I as an example of incivility perpetuates a misunderstanding that was cleared up at the time. If you refer to the block log, and to Nishidani and Jehochman's talkpage at the time, you will see that the context is important to that diff. Nathan^T ^{(formerly Avruch)} 16:04, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NoCal100[edit]

2.11.1) ~~NoCal100 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has engaged in edit-warring ([232]).~~

2.11.1.1) NoCal100 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has engaged in repeated and extensive edit-warring ([233], [234], [235]).

2.11.2) {placeholder}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed 2.11.1. Kirill ^[pf] 04:18, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Struck 2.11.1, proposed 2.11.1.1. Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 02:53, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Support but should be upgraded to Repeated and extensive EW. Some evidence is listed here.MeteorMaker (talk) 07:27, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly support. I see no encyclopedic interest, and some intensity of interest in entering difficult pages to support one side. His tone is conflictual. His record, however, does not reflect the damage he has done to WP:AGF. He is a classical wikistalker, ready to weigh in to push one editor to the limits of frustration, and then summarily denounce him for the induced violation before administration. He destroyed systematically Ashley kennedy3 that way, and now seems intent on joining a 2 to 1 cornering game at Susya. For his apparent response to reading this, I presume, was to show up at the Susya page, and by editing in support of both Canadian Monkey and Ynhockey, making it impossible for myself, and I built most of the page, to edit with three three POV monitors/supervisors there. Ynhockey, whom I respect, is not a problem. But both NoCal and Canadian Monkey are not interested in Susya, or the encyclopedia. If this specific matter is not understood, I'm afraid all of your rules on etiquette revision will prove futile. For the essential mess on I/P articles is this, provocative clan gaming of content. Sorry, but it's not worth the candle.Nishidani (talk) 10:31, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Sorry, but I have to respond to Nishidani's comment. To claim that someone is a wikistalker should not be thrown around lightly, and should be supported by multiple diffs. And to suggest that NoCal (or anyone else for that matter) is responsible for "systematically destroying" Ashley kennedy3 is, at the very least, just plain silly. Ashley's blocklog [236] demonstrates that he was quite capable of self-destruction that neccessitated no outside help of any sort. Tundrabuggy (talk) 06:39, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh come now. Just a snippet from my own experience. Apart from two nights ago when he turned up at a rare obscure page I have done the most work on (Susya) to tagteam revert, (just as he followed me to the equally obscure page on Nafez Assaily) see, for example,here and here. Look at his behaviour at Mohammad Amin al-Husayni. Two tagteamers or sockpuppets (subsequently exposed and banned, though the game was obvious to anyone from the outset), come into the page with an absurd edit, and sure enough he suddenly shows up to back them to the hilt. Look at his behaviour at Israel Shahak, a page which Jayjg dominates, but, irrespective of his role, recent attempts to improve it encounters tagteaming strike forces, among them NoCal, that make unbelievably bad rows of edits or reverts without even reading what they are handling, much to that page's detriment. Unfortunately, this is obvious only if you read large swathes of wikilawyering nonsense. One can hardly expect admins to trudge through these messes. He is a stalker, a scalp-hunter, and works to push people over the frustration line time and time again. Nishidani (talk) 09:27, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support, as per my own evidence supplied here. This editor is immune to discussion and compromise and has a nasty habit of following other editors around to pick fights (see here). pedrito - talk - 22.04.2009 11:03

Support: Per Pedrito. I find this user incredibly aggressive and prone to regular edit-warring to insert obviously incorrect or inappropriate content, eg here. They also have a habit of turning up on pages fairly swiftly after other editors they have previously had run-ins with, despite never having been on those pages before, seemingly simply to pick fights (yet oddly makes that same accusation against others). Apologies, no time for diffs, but it seems to be a common observation from other editors as well. Should be upgraded to "repeated and extensive". --Nickhh (talk) 16:06, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Support - This user edit wars continuously, then stalks those of opposing POVs into completely unrelated articles and edit wars there too. This behavior is the antithesis of how editors should conduct themselves.. Tarc (talk) 14:37, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I have worked with NoCal on a number of articles and he is a stickler for detail and accuracy. I have seldom if ever seen him be uncivil; and he uses the talk page to achieve consensus when editing. I don't find it the least remarkable that people who edit in the I-P area will find themselves editing at a lot of presumably obscure areas. The P's watch the I's and vice-versa to make sure each side minds its p's & q's. Sometimes in the tension between one can get an acceptably accurate article. It is amazing how editors here who themselves have a major history of editwarring are so quick to accuse others; and so clearly exuberant over the hope of damaging their fellows, they seem fairly salivating at the idea. Tundrabuggy (talk) 07:05, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some people may find your last remark uncivil so I suggest you strike it. MeteorMaker (talk) 15:04, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support 2.11.1 and weak support for 2.11.1.1. He repeatedly editwarred. Was it extensive? That's more debatable. – Quadell ^(talk) 20:24, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support I still do not have an opinion on the edit-warring findings as they apply to other editors, but NoCal100 continues to edit war without engagin in discussion on a regular basis and as such, I am forced to support this finding. (See Edit-warring at Ramot on his talk page for evidence of this from today and yesterday.) Please note further that he was already warned not to edit war by User:Elonka on his talk page who also notified him that he could be blocked or banned under the ARBPIA sanctions if he continued to do so in the future. Tiamut^talk 04:27, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pedrito[edit]

2.12.1) Pedrito (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has engaged in repeated and extensive edit-warring ([237], [238]).

2.12.2) {placeholder}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed 2.12.1. Kirill ^[pf] 04:15, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment/Question: Why do I get "repeated and extensive" when User:Canadian Monkey and User:NoCal100, for instance, do not? As for the block log, the first block was repealed and the second one expired in my absence and could not be contested (see here). And where's me edit-warring on West Bank vs. Judea and Samaria?

Comment: I think I should expand a bit on my last point. Jayjg (talk · contribs), on the evidence page, posted an impressive list of my edits on this topic, labelling them a "crusade" and accusing me of having "ignited/re-ignited edit wars". I invite any editor/admin to have a closer look at that list. I indeed went through all articles using Judea/Samaria as geographical identifiers and replaced the terms with northern/southern West Bank. Most of the diffs are single edits (e.g. not reverts) that went uncontested. This is not edit-warring. On some pages, these changes were reverted. Not wishing to start new edit-wars, I adhered to a self-imposed 1RR and backed-away from or sought compromises on pages where significant (i.e. more than one reverter) opposition resulted. This was done to avoid, not ignite/re-ignite edit wars. Since I wouldn't reasonably expect anyone to go through each and every one of the diffs presented by Jayjg (talk · contribs), here's a breakdown, sorted by type of edit and article:

Single edits: Kiryat Netafim, Alfei Menashe, Immanuel (town), Nofim, Einav, Hinanit, Peduel, Rechelim, Rimonim, Givat Harel, Pisgat Ya'acov, Migdalim, Etz Efraim, Allenby Bridge, District of Nablus, Sha'arei Tikva, Hermesh, Eli, Kokhav HaShahar, Elkanah, Ma'ale Mikhmas, 36th Division (IDF), Har Adar, Avnei Hefetz, Eliyahu Asheri, Oranit, Migron, Mateh Binyamin, Alei Zahav, Mitzpe Kramim, Ras Karkar, Highway 60 (Israel), Ma'ale Levona, Shaked, Karnei Shomron, Communal settlement (Israel)
Single reverts: Barkan,
Re-Reverts (and subsequent backing-away): Nofei Nehemia, Elkana, Ya'akov Katz (politician born 1951), Baraka, Efrat, Kiryat Arba, Alon Shvut, Beit Horon, Neve Daniel, Adora, Har Hebron, Ma'on, Gush Etzion, Nofei Nehemia, Telem, Har Hebron
Compromise edits: Arutz Sheva, Nadia Matar
Edit war: Aryeh Eldad

Jayjg (talk · contribs)'s accusations of edit-warring thus break down to 35 single edits (i.e. not reverts) that were never reverted, one article on which I made a single revert, 14 articles on which I re-reverted once or more and subsequently backed-off from (note that the majority of these involved Tkalisky (talk · contribs) who followed me around[239], reverting me) and two articles on which I proposed a compromise edit (which stuck). The only edits which could possibly be considered edit-warring are on Aryeh Eldad, where I reverted four times in six days. Far from a protocol of "repeated and extensive edit-warring", this is a log of me editing several articles and avoiding fights where possible.

Cheers, pedrito - talk - 24.04.2009 08:22

Oppose, for the same reason given for Meteormaker. The string of diffs show consistency of regard for WP:NPOV, just as the preexisting texts Pedrito changed show consistency of disregard for WP:NPOV. This, unfortunately from Arbcom, is perspectival, (something missed by arbitrators who came down against the innovators by assuming that the texts they were changing were 'stable', 'consensual' and not in themselves highly partisan) which means one must understand the content issue. The listed evidence, in terms of content review, is not sinister, but rather underlines a commitment to the goal of securing neutrality for the encyclopedia.Nishidani (talk) 09:17, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Support 2.12.1. Pretty clear, edit warring was recent and related to this case. – Quadell ^(talk) 20:20, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support Every partisan assumes his edits are the neutral ones, and the other guys' are the POV ones. If I recall the rules, this is not an excuse for edit-warring. Tundrabuggy (talk) 16:44, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Discretionary sanctions[edit]

3) All articles involved in this matter are subject to discretionary sanctions under the terms of the Palestine-Israel articles case.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Background. Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 05:39, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Would logically come before editor specific findings in the final write-up. GRBerry 14:22, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template[edit]

4) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed remedies[edit]

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Area of conflict[edit]

1) For the purposes of the editing restrictions below, the "area of conflict" in this case shall be defined as the entire set of Arab-Israeli conflict-related articles, broadly interpreted, identically to its definition in the Palestine-Israel articles case.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed; this is admittedly somewhat blunt, but I'm unwilling to have this case come back to us in six months with slightly different terms under dispute. Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 02:59, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Support. Very broad, but I think it's warranted in this case. – Quadell ^(talk) 14:38, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But I have a Question. This case involves edit-warring over a point of terminology in articles not directly related to the Arab-Israeli conflict. It is not obvious what articles are restricted. Does this cover only articles whose primary topic relates to the Arab-Israeli conflict, or to all articles that mention a word or phrase that is disputed in an I/P related conflict? Because the second set is much broader than the first. – Quadell ^(talk) 14:55, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Canadian Monkey restricted[edit]

2) Canadian Monkey (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is placed under an editing restriction indefinitely. He is prohibited from editing any article in the area of conflict, commenting on any talk page attached to such an article, or participating in any community discussion substantially concerned with such articles.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed. Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 02:59, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Oppose - unduly harsh sanction for edit warring.

Comment by others:

Oppose Punishment does not fit the "crime." IronDuke 19:01, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - excessive. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 19:37, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I oppose the prohibition on commenting on talkpages or participating in community discussion. – Quadell ^(talk) 14:41, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose as totally unwarranted. Tundrabuggy (talk) 16:03, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What??!! I'm not aware of this editor having done anything to warrant this.

General comments re topic bans: If editwarring is the problem, the very harshest remedy that would be needed would be 0RR for particular editors in the topic area. Further restricting editors from all edits to articles provides no additional benefits but considerable detriment to the project. Even further restricting editors from article talk page edits as well also provides no additional benefit but yet further detriment to the project.

These are the editors who write these articles. The ultimate purpose of Wikipedia is not prevention of editwarring, but production of an encyclopedia.

As far as I know, sanctions by the Arbitration Committee normally don't last longer than a year, with good reason: such sanctions may be harder to change than community sanctions, and are not subject to community consensus in the way that almost everything else on the project is. There is absolutely nothing in this case that makes it unusual in a way that would warrant such unusual sanctions. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 00:58, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

G-Dett restricted[edit]

3) G-Dett (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is placed under an editing restriction indefinitely. She is prohibited from editing any article in the area of conflict, commenting on any talk page attached to such an article, or participating in any community discussion substantially concerned with such articles.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed. Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 02:59, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm impressed with G-Dett's comment. Cool Hand Luke 13:54, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Support. Get us all out of there for G-d's sake. The only thing I don't like about this "draconian" approach is that it may be taken for a "pox on both houses" solution to a pitched battle between supposedly two groups of nationalist editors – and that ain't the case. No, the local content problem is nationalist terminology vs. standard mainstream terminology; and the general, behavioral, institutional-cultural problem is that of a lockstep group of prolific nationalist-COI editors pitted against a ragtag ill-mannered ad hoc part-time motley resistance. One side has a tightly structured playbook, the support of one or more influential admins, and outside backing from groups with considerable resources (CAMERA, Hasbara Fellowships, etc.). Meanwhile MeteorMaker's nipping at their heels with dogged single-mindedness, Nishidani's blinding them with exquisitely blown iridescent soap bubbles; and I'm throwing cream pies in their faces and banana peels in their path. But all of us are irritating as hell, both to Arbcom and (probably) to the community at large. Take our ball and tell us to go home; let new faces with different temperaments play on this corner. They'll probably improve things. They will certainly improve things if they use good sources, present relevant all points of view, call things by their normal names, and starve, shoot, or otherwise seriously mistreat hobby horses. If they have a crisis of "expertise," they can come to our topic-ban cells during visiting hours and we'll tell them, through bullet-proof plexiglass, that Jordan is over to the right of Israel or whatever else it is that's got them stumped. As a real-life political/humanitarian/ethical morass the I/P conflict is complicated; as a matter of encyclopedic knowledge it is not.--G-Dett (talk) 22:31, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Oppose This is way over the top. I often disagree with her, but the quality of her arguments and sourcing just makes my own editing better. IronDuke 19:04, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - excessive. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 19:35, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I oppose the prohibition on commenting on talkpages or participating in community discussion. – Quadell ^(talk) 14:41, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose the prohibition on commenting on talkpages or participating in community discussion . - Tundrabuggy (talk) 15:59, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak oppose. See my "general comments" in the section on Canadian Monkey above. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 00:58, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak oppose?! Ah come on Coppertwig. Nothing worth doing should be done weakly. Be strong. Wheel out that gigantic, bewildering Rube Goldberg exegetical machinery of yours and prove that I meant "giant egg" in a good way, etc.--G-Dett (talk) 04:01, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jayjg restricted[edit]

4) Jayjg (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is placed under an editing restriction indefinitely. He is prohibited from editing any article in the area of conflict, commenting on any talk page attached to such an article, or participating in any community discussion substantially concerned with such articles.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed. Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 02:59, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment: I'm not sure how helpful it is for involved parties to wade in and demand sanctions against others, so I'll remain quiet on that, however I do want to make a general point in response to Ynhockey's comment below. I'm sorry if Jay has found this whole process so traumatic that he's wandered off and left proxies to defend him, but everyone here is under scrutiny of course. In addition, the suggestion that (asserted) good work elsewhere gives any editor a permanent get-out-of-jail-free, or rather "out-of-court-free", card surely can't be accepted. And I'm sure it's not meant that way, but conveyed threats to walk away if they are not exempted from that scrutiny and possible sanction veer fairly close to blackmail, albeit blackmail of a rather ineffectual kind (as a Frenchman once said, "the graveyards are full of indispensable men"). And of course, that would be his choice, not anyone else's. Ultimately every action or pattern of actions has to be judged on its merits, and all editors - whether "not so serious" [meaning what exactly?] or not - need to be held to account where appropriate. The rules apply to us all. --Nickhh (talk) 16:06, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I take it I'm one of the 'proxies' whom he 'left to defend him'? You're taking this too far. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 14:20, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Oppose -- Absurdly unfair and unjustified by the evidence. 6SJ7 (talk) 04:38, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose—~~I'm not sure if anyone here has noticed, but Jayjg hasn't been editing much in the past couple weeks, because of this arbitration case.~~_{People were taking this the wrong way, so please ignore it for further comments.} If this proposed remedy passes (or indeed the one about the tools), it is likely that Jayjg will never edit again, or edit very little. Therefore, in effect, ArbCom would be driving away one of the best and most serious editors on all of Wikipedia, because he let a few not-so-serious editors who have made little to no worthwhile contributions to the project, get the best of him. These kinds of actions already drove away SlimVirgin, another excellent editor, and will probably drive away Jayjg. Who will replace these editors, may I ask? Who will write the featured content, make maintenance edits, and do administrative work? Also it's clear that most of the parties up for sanctioning have few significant contributions, and mostly just a long block log, and therefore could easily start over from a different IP range with a new username. This is much less practical for Jayjg, who has a solid reputation for writing good articles and making high-quality edits.

In addition, let's be serious for a second. An indefinite topic ban for what offense exactly? Being a 'party member' in a series of arbitration cases? The only actual evidence that was presented were a few edit-wars, where Jayjg did not even violate any policies per se. Maybe some of the actions were not appropriate, but actual restrictions seem to be completely unwarranted. ArbCom should issue a warning at the most, and leave it up to WP:AE if any clearly inappropriate behavior continues. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 10:24, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Who will replace these editors", you ask? Ones that will not edit war and call for backup to do so from afar, with any luck. This is atrocious behavior, and whatever good editing an editor may have done (in this case, even that's debatable) does not cover bad behavior in other areas. This is the kind of mindset that allowed ScienceApologist's rampant incivility to go on unchecked for years, Betacommand's indifference to users who questioned his bot tasks, and so on. Enough is is enough. Tarc (talk) 14:26, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jayjg has not abused his admin tools and has not violated policy in the way you describe. What you say is easy to say, but how many featured articles have you written? How many admin tasks have you done? I'm saying this from the point of view of both a content contributor and administrator—if Jayjg goes, it will be an enormous loss to the project. Alone he contributed about as much as a dozen average active editors, and this is not an understatement. No, serious contributors are not 'above the law', but compared to the relatively minor infractions made by Jayjg, any sanction would be counter-productive, and his contributions should definitely be taken into account. If he starts to seriously violate policy like either of the others you mentioned, maybe I'd sing a different song... but in this case, the proposal is completely unwarranted. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 20:25, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You missed the point completely, and it is of no relevance as to how many articles I have written, please keep the non sequitur arguments out of this. Whether or not it is an "enormous loss" is entirely your own opinion, but even if that point were conceded, that still does not override the simple fact that this user cannot apparently cannot conduct himself properly within the range of I-P articles. If past simple admonishments haven't worked, then you up the stakes. A topic ban seems like the next logical step. Tarc (talk) 15:42, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All that's been suggested is a topic-ban, Ynhockey. Jayjg hasn't written any FA articles related to the I/P conflict. In the half-decade of his heavy presence in that area, all he's managed to create and sustain is a culture of reflexive edit-warring and poker-faced wikilawyering.--G-Dett (talk) 22:57, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So says the edit-warrior and wikilawyer in chief. 6SJ7 (talk) 23:13, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"I'm not sure if anyone here has noticed, but Jayjg hasn't been editing much in the past couple weeks"... Can't speak for anyone else but I've certainly noticed how his defense has been left to others. Sometimes that's goodness... and sometimes it's not, because the best thing to do is to actually address the issues raised, rather than have a number of apparent proxies attack those raising the issues. "Jayjg [...] has a solid reputation for writing good articles and making high-quality edits."' ^{[citation needed]}. And even if it's true, we aren't giving out free passes, are we? ++Lar: t/c 15:16, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are you suggesting meatpupptry? If so, why don't you make the accusation explicit? – Quadell ^(talk) 14:43, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Jay is one of the most prolific and proficient editors in this area. Even assuming banning him is some sort of rough justice (which it very much wouldn't be), it's a net loss for WP, full stop. IronDuke 19:07, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - insanely excessive. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 19:37, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I oppose the prohibition on commenting on talkpages or participating in community discussion. – Quadell ^(talk) 14:43, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Jayjg in fact does have a solid reputation for writing good articles and making high-quality edits. (I am not embarrassed to speak for him, nor am I any sort of puppet.) He is knowledgeable in the area in which he writes, and a stickler for factual detail. This proposal is, to quote another editor, "insanely excessive," and I would add, after looking at the evidence, simply unwarranted. Tundrabuggy (talk) 15:57, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strongest possible oppose. This is a politically motivated witchhunt, and the proposed remedy are so far out of proportion as to be laughable. I have been very disenchanted with this project of late, but if this is the reward to excellent editors like Jayjg folks like me will have no further reason to stick around. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 17:36, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. See my "general comments" in the section on Canadian Monkey above. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 00:58, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

MeteorMaker restricted[edit]

5) MeteorMaker (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is placed under an editing restriction indefinitely. He is prohibited from editing any article in the area of conflict, commenting on any talk page attached to such an article, or participating in any community discussion substantially concerned with such articles.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed. Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 02:59, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Pedrito, Nickhh, Nishidani, G-Dett and I punished for defending policy? I hadn't expected a medal, but this is an unexpectedly unfair and draconian proposal. This has not been a dispute between two equally guilty POV-pushing parties, it's one group of editors who have stood up for neutrality, factual accuracy and consistency with all the sources versus another group that repeatedly tried to create ideologically motivated wikiality by distorting or ignoring WP policy. I understand approving this proposal would be an "easy way out" for the ArbCom, but the facts that have come to light in this case in no way supports the conclusion that both sides are equally guilty. MeteorMaker (talk) 06:51, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Oppose - excessive. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 19:40, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I oppose the prohibition on commenting on talkpages or participating in community discussion. – Quadell ^(talk) 14:43, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose the restriction on talkpages or participating in community discussion. -- Tundrabuggy (talk) 15:47, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong oppose. MeteorMaker appears to have good intentions and I haven't seen any evidence of MeteorMaker being anything except cooperative once community expectations have been made clear. See also my "general comments" in the section on Canadian Monkey above. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 00:58, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nickhh restricted[edit]

6) Nickhh (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is placed under an editing restriction indefinitely. He is prohibited from editing any article in the area of conflict, commenting on any talk page attached to such an article, or participating in any community discussion substantially concerned with such articles.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed. Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 02:59, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Oppose: To be honest I’m not sure I’ll shed that many tears if I’m no longer allowed into the madhouse that is IP pages here, but as MeteorMaker notes, it is a little dispiriting to see those of us, who as far as I know mostly have no axe to grind in the underlying conflict and who have genuinely approached this as an issue of upholding the accuracy and neutrality of WP content - backed up with exhaustive research and presentation of sources when the obvious was repeatedly denied - treated in the same fashion as those who have rather brazenly tried to shovel minority, nationalist terminology into multiple pages here. As I have noted elsewhere, the latter behavior would simply not be tolerated in any other topic area where there was this sort of real world dispute in respect of borders and/or placenames (see eg Republic of Macedonia/FYROM), and those trying to prevent it would be supported by WP structures. Here it seems to be interpreted as “it’s just a content dispute between two edit-warring POVs”, with a "pro-Palestinian" bloc slugging it out with a "pro-Israeli bloc". Nothing could be more wrong. --Nickhh (talk) 08:56, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ps: please take this piece of self-justification to also apply to around half the names listed here

Comment by others:

Oppose Just for edit-warring? Man, I've had some seriously unpleasant interactions with Nick, so I suppose this could be a prime opportunity to pour gasoline on the fire, but no: this punishment is way too severe. IronDuke 19:10, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - excessive. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 19:41, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I oppose the prohibition on commenting on talkpages or participating in community discussion. – Quadell ^(talk) 14:44, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose as excessive. Tundrabuggy (talk) 15:46, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. See my "general comments" in the section on Canadian Monkey above. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 00:58, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nishidani restricted[edit]

7) Nishidani (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is placed under an editing restriction indefinitely. He is prohibited from editing any article in the area of conflict, commenting on any talk page attached to such an article, or participating in any community discussion substantially concerned with such articles.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed. Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 02:59, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

I accept, (though do not think this reflects the facts), solely because the cookie crumbles with rough equilibrium. It means, in my case, a lifetime ban, since I decided a long time ago not to write in the several areas where I have academic competence or a publishing record, until the I/P area was normalized so that one could actually write to at least GA standard, as I think I showed was possible when left, after Zeq's ban, to rework the first half of Mohammad Amin al-Husayni without the threat of constant tendentious hustling at my back. It was at the time when I was invited in to work it by a pro-Israeli editor, User:Ceedjee driven out by extremists, one of the most badly written articles about the most controversial figure in Israeli-Palestinian relations, which I will now not be able to conclude. Academic sources only, no googling for POV trash. Well, to cite the title of Iris Murdoch novel, this is A Fairly Honourable Defeat, since I'm in good company. I think the indiscriminate nature of the decision throws the bathwater out with the babies, Meteormaker is a very fine editor, Nickhh's general tone has been gentlemanly, his edits reasonable and he's always shown a readiness to reason on sensible compromises, Pedrito too. G-Dett's only vice was to say the obvious in colourful language. I can think of no harm, and considerable improvement, done by them to I/P articles. They nowhere represent the poor quality of uninformed POV-inflected googled-at-request-editing by about a dozen editors who, not having been listed in the Arbcom dispute, will remain round to guarantee that this area never gets off base. But perhaps this draconian across-the-lines measure will serve as a precedent for them not to do as some others sanctioned here have repeatedly done, and that may help genuine, committed workers in the area, like Tiamut, Timeshifter, Suicup and others to discover a less irrational editing environment. Just for the record Ynhockey, as my page showed, I suspended myself from wiki in November, because it was impossible to edit without being dragged into huge squabbles, came back when the Gaza war broke out to ensure some balance there, and stayed on because this Arbcom dispute held an outside promise of some decision that might make the area efficiently editable. That is why the latter part of my profile shows a strong bias towards talk pages. Before that, I edited fairly consistently to pages, and worked significantly on many articles, until I realized it was pointless.Nishidani (talk) 13:14, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not excessive. It is meaningless, indeed offensive in its refusal to discriminate. From December 2007 to now, my log shows no evidence for misbehaviour. The three reverts at Susya, while these deliberations, were underway, I willingly undertook, when the gauntlet was throw mischievously my way by Canadian Monkey and NoCal100 (with some talk page assistance from IronDuke and Ynhockey), to draw attention to how teamtagging works against a single editor. I built the content of a poor page several other editors there in an ethnic block merely appear to monitor the political fallout in it for Israel's (read 'settlers')image, and nothing else. You all say we need proof of content building by editors to verify that they have the goals of this encyclopedia at heart. That page is a cameo of precisely this issue.

Jehochman's misjudgement, based on my posting a personal jocusely hyperbolic remonstration to a friend User:Ashley kennedy3 who shares my perspective and methods, on the AN/I thread instead of his talk page, was overturned immediately. In reply to Ynhockey's repeated insinuations about my lack of contributions to the encyclopedia (I apologize for any vanity that may emerge from self-defence), any examination of my editorial work shows that on numerous articles on Tibet, Japan, the I/P area, or Classical Greece (to cite just two: on Homer I did most of the conflicted and difficult etymology section, which is now stable: I deposited on the Jerusalem talk page, much conflicted, a detailed edit for the etymology. The ones, misleadingly prioritizing infra-Hebrew etymology, on the two relevant wiki pages here and here are disastrous, full of POV and errors. That minimal technical summary of modern scholarship lies there, on the talk page, in serene neglect, perhaps because it does not lend itself to the politics of the page), I have almost exclusively added academic sources of the highest quality where there were none, or poor sources existed.

My previous acceptance of a sanction was from fatigue and exasperation at the fact that it then appeared all must be sanctioned indiscriminately. Since then the thesis is strengthening that just one editor, an iconic figure, is being grievously and unfairly vilified by a unilateral campaign by a "Get Jayjg" party. One can only note, to his many friends and allies who hasten to challenge any charge laid against him, that wikipedia technically is not supposed to distinguish people with iconic status from anyone else, and that the 5 editors arraigned here essentially for what User:Sandahl weirdly called 'opposing Jayjg' (is that a wiki crime? explain please), are now being regarded as some hostile block, not frustrated by his endless wikilawyering and political editing on behalf of one national image, his constant bending of rule-interpretation to favour or elide sources he likes or dislikes, but simply out to get at him, for what reason remains wholly obscure. No one has answered my evidence on this aspect of his behaviour on the Israel Shahak, Israeli Settlements pages, where he visibly bends the rules to the convenience of his POV in otherwise identical situations.

In these huge threads, all clear purchase on the fundamental issue, that G-Dett, Meteormaker, myself, Nickhh and Pedrito edited on the based of overwhelming evidence based on 80 secondary sources of high value, (critical meta-analyses of the terminology itself) specifically marking 'Judea & Samaria' as nationalist-POV terms (i.e. secondary meta-sources that analyse precise the nature of the content dispute's contentions) has been lost from view. We edited towards WP:NPOV. To that evidence, there has been not even a cursory attempt at reply by Jayjg et al. Zilch. Nothing. All we got in reply was the 30 or 40 odd newspaper primary sources, books reflecting an ethno-national perspective, adduced by primarily Jayjg. In respect for dialogue, these sources were dutifully analysed and shown that they are simply primary sources illustrating an Israeli or Jewish usage overwhelmingly. In that sense, Jayjg's primary source evidence corroborated our conclusive secondary source evidence. We all showed that this counter-evidence was only proof of a minority national POV, and that not one secondary source could substantiate the assertion that 'Judea & Samaria' was a term widely used throughout the English speaking world. We are all experienced editors, and we expected that when WP:RS favours the authority of secondary over primary sources, when the secondary source proof is countered by no argument whatsoever, and when the primary sources only underline the ethnic POV inherent in a term, that any reasonable judgement would endorse our shared position, which is that wiki's neutral voice does not allow, except in exceptional contexts, 'Judea and Samaria' to be used in the way Jayjg, Ynhockey, and a dozen others wished it to be used.

So, at this late stage, I see this as a failure to address the problem. Instead, we have testimonials flowing in from friends attesting to the idea that this is much ado about nothing, a brief scrimmage, at most some minor lapse here or there, or a nasty plot, and those putatively engaged in it must be asked to prove their commitment to the goals encyclopedia, which should not be in doubt from an impartial review of the 'Judea & Samaria' thread alone, by the imposed onus of producing GA articles outside the I/P area. I am imputing no unconscionable behaviour in my remarks on the review process. To the contrary, I thank many brilliant functionaries for the intelligence and time they have apparently wasted on this. I am simply stating that it underlines a key failure of the process.

It is unaware of systemic bias, cannot apparently clarify simply points on WP:RS, whether secondary sources here are to prevail over primary sources or not. This is the very heart and gravamen of this whole arbitration. If Arbcom cannot elucidate how the cards fall in terms of WP:RS evidence, then of course all the diffs point, indifferently, to conflict. If we, the gang of five, were wrong in making an unequivocal policy deduction about WP:NPOV from our two months long, laborious compilation of secondary sources as we assumed was required by WP:RS, say so. If the others were wrong in insisting that their deductions from primary sources justify their insouciance in all their edits to the overwhelming consensus of secondary sources, say so.

In the confusion, apparently to avoid any air of partiality, proposals seem to swing from collective sanctions of some severity, to general dismissal of sanctions at all, mostly recently because so many people have soldieried on in here with testimonials in the cause of saving captain Jayjg. He's notMoriarty, but in the I/P area, as opposed to his work outside it on non-political aspects of Judaism, there's little evidence he has consistently worked in any other capacity than that of a guarantor of just one perspective among several in Israel's national interest, in a way often detrimental to the balanced representation of the other reality in this area, that of the Palestinians. It is wholly appropriate, ultranormal, that many dedicated editors come in to work to ensure these articles correctly represent Israel's realities, that are often ones they know at first hand. The systemic problem is that there are no Palestinians here, and that odd handful of volunteers who drift in to see that I/P articles are balanced so both pictures are equally present in conditions of NPOV are therefore particularly insistent that the policies which not only defend this necessity, but guarantee its impartial working, are applied without fear or favour, and be seen as obligatory for all editors. Nishidani (talk) 09:56, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is in the wrong area, so if someone could put it where it might be accepted, I'd be grateful. This is one solution, fair to both sides. It is based on the single consideration that the fundamental goal of the encyclopedia is to produce quality articles. Everything else, behaviour, tiffing over trivia, is subordinate to that goal.

(a)Forget sanctions, and note the I/P pages are of almost uniformly poor, sub GA quality, subject to edit-warring.

(b)Most edit-warring comes from disputes over the use of poor sources. Raise the barrier, and require that, where available (the volume of books is huge) articles must privilege quality research from academics and university presses. Poor sourcing from POV sites is the great plague of I/P articles, and their use impedes any attempt to raise these to GA level.

(c)Editors who show from page to page swings in their interpretation of policy, to elide or introduce material, are to be subject to review. Policy interpretation by individual editors must reflect, in each case, a consistent interpretation. One cannot, as Jayjg often does, allow or support bad sources in by flexible interpretation of WP:RS when they tell against a critic of Israel (Werner Cohn's smearing of Israel Shahak on the Israel Shahak page, justified because Cohn, though ignorant of the subject matter and the person, is an academic), and then turn round and dismiss the use of David Dean Shulman on the Israeli Settlements page by an extremely restrictive interpretation of WP:RS (not acceptable because, although one of Israel's best and brightest academics, he is not professionally, as opposed to practically (Arabic speaker, field activist working with Palestinians and settlers on the West Bank for several years) qualified in the field of settler psychology or settler behaviouralism).

(d)If a sanction is required, ask members of the two parties to produce, within a month, a difficult I/P article written to WP:NPOV and GA level standards, either together, or (preferably) each side on a different article. At the end of the month, get each party to review the other's article on the talk page, to point out failures to be comprehensive or NPOV. If they fail, ask them to do another, and another, until such a result is obtained. Any articles chosen for this can be also edited by established editors to assist them, but in either case the two groups should work independently. The beautry of this is that, whether GA is achieved or not in every instance, the poor articles worked on will inevitably be upgraded, and lifted out of their state of seesawing mediocrity. Nishidani (talk) 11:14, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Oppose - excessive. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 19:43, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I oppose the prohibition on commenting on talkpages or participating in community discussion. – Quadell ^(talk) 14:45, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose as excessive. Tundrabuggy (talk) 15:44, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely unnecessary and counterproductive. There are few editors on either "side" of this dispute who we can be sure at least attempt discussion and consensus building; few editors whose knowledge of the subject matter is broad and deep enough to converse fluently across the subject area; few editors who accept their mistakes and take their medicine with aplomb and apology. I make no comment about the others whose restriction is also proposed, but I feel compelled to tell you that of those few I describe above Nishidani is one.

I fully understand the compulsion to sweep clean the boards on this case and start over, I truly do. But this conflict isn't about Wikipedia, it doesn't come from Wikipedia, and it can't be fixed here. Ban everyone today, and by midsummer there will be a new arbitration case and a whole new cast of parties. Rather than ship everyone off, find a solution that allows us to retain those editors whose conduct and contributions are usually fine. You will never find a group of editors in this area who can, passionate as feelings are on both sides, edit for years at a time without error or unfortunate lapse. You can't ban away human nature, so find another way. Nathan^T ^{(formerly Avruch)} 16:18, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. See my "general comments" in the section on Canadian Monkey above. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 00:58, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. I suppose this is the sort of remedy that is being reached, yet I have to believe it can be applied in a more discriminating way. This user has contributed much, and has earned (at least partial) respect from the other side. As the tone of the discussions shifts to a positive one, I would expect this user to play a central productive role, based on the quality of his work to this point. Other remedies may be unfair (I am fairly convinced that some are) but this one stands out for being wrong. Jd2718 (talk) 16:42, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NoCal100 restricted[edit]

8) NoCal100 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is placed under an editing restriction indefinitely. He is prohibited from editing any article in the area of conflict, commenting on any talk page attached to such an article, or participating in any community discussion substantially concerned with such articles.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed. Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 02:59, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Oppose Again, this is way too harsh for edit-warring. IronDuke 19:16, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - excessive. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 19:45, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I oppose the prohibition on commenting on talkpages or participating in community discussion. – Quadell ^(talk) 14:46, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose as excessive. -- Tundrabuggy (talk) 15:42, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support Given that NoCal100 has continued to edit war without engaging in discussion as recently as today and yesterday, I am forced to support this finding. (See Edit-warring at Ramot on his talk page for evidence and the Israeli settlement section where Elonka notified him months ago that he could be blocked or banned under the ARBPIA sanctions if he continued the practice of edit-warring without discussion in the future.) Tiamut^talk 04:29, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. See my "general comments" in the section on Canadian Monkey above. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 00:58, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose – another attempt to ban a content contributor. NoCal100 has contribute a geography (non-political) GA (as someone interested in geography, this is especially interesting to me personally), and now that he is contributing to a Bounty Board article in a major way, I have no doubts that he has the best interests of Wikipedia in mind. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 09:41, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would also like to point out that NoCal100 (talk · contribs) hijacked a WP:DYK that he didn't like and sabotaged it to the extent of driving Tiamut (talk · contribs), an extremely talented and productive editor (>100 new articles, 8 good articles and 32 WP:DYKs), from the project (see here and here). Way to go. pedrito - talk - 06.05.2009 10:17

Pedrito restricted[edit]

9) Pedrito (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is placed under an editing restriction indefinitely. He is prohibited from editing any article in the area of conflict, commenting on any talk page attached to such an article, or participating in any community discussion substantially concerned with such articles.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed. Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 02:59, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Oppose - excessive. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 19:46, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I oppose the prohibition on commenting on talkpages or participating in community discussion. – Quadell ^(talk) 14:56, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose as excessive. Tundrabuggy (talk) 15:40, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. See my "general comments" in the section on Canadian Monkey above. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 00:58, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Offer to lift restrictions[edit]

10) Any editor subject to an editing restriction under the terms of this decision may have that restriction lifted after demonstrating their commitment to the goals of Wikipedia and their ability to work constructively with other editors by:

(a) Being substantially responsible for the promotion of 10 articles to featured article status; or

(b) Being substantially responsible for the promotion of 20 articles to good article status; or

(c) Being substantially responsible for the promotion of 1 featured topic comprising no less than 10 articles, or of 2 featured topics comprising no less than 5 articles each.

Any editor who meets these criteria should notify the Committee, which shall lift their restrictions after confirming that the criteria have been satisfied.

Comment by Arbitrators:

The bar may be set a bit high here, but the general idea is to provide everyone sanctioned here a clear path to getting the restrictions lifted, even if that path will require considerable dedication. Hopefully, anyone that goes through with this will have learned to make progress without edit-warring by the time that they're done. Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 02:59, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kirill, could you notify those who manage the featured content areas? Carcharoth (talk) 04:06, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, will do. Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 04:15, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Very high. And quite strange besides. Good neutral work in one area should not excuse POV pushing in another. Cool Hand Luke 03:44, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On a point of order, Featured Topics include Featured Lists, so the references to "articles" needs clarification. Kirill, are you excluding work done on featured lists? Carcharoth (talk) 04:10, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I was intending to exclude FLs (both because lists require significantly less work than articles, and because the FA/GA processes require a lot more interaction with other users, making them more useful for working out collaborative editing issues). Should this be specified explicitly? Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 04:15, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe. On a wider point, I think a different wording here might work better. One that loses the specific numbers, and asks the editors concerned to present ArbCom privately with a list of featured content work done following this case and a summary of the work they did on those articles. This removes the focus from attaining a target and focuses instead on the quality of the work done. It also removes commentary from those on either side of the debate who may focus on the targets rather than the quality of the work. In essence, put people on "community service", but leave the review until later. I also think that other types of "community service" remedies may work if carefully constructed (i.e. other behaviour can be "worked off" by actions in other areas - such as for desysopped admins). Carcharoth (talk) 04:27, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting idea, although I would be inclined to remove GA from the list as a GAN does not usually have very many eyes on it at all, and requires only one editor's approval. That is not meant to impugn the integrity of any of the fine editors who have volunteered their time there. I note that there have been previous concerns about the GA process having been hijacked for "award" processes. I would be interested in hearing the thoughts of the FA director and assistants on this.

In response to Rootology's and Cla68's commentary below about the amount of effort that goes into FAs, I'd suggest it is highly variable, depending on the subject matter, and whether it is a subject that is amenable to a formulaic approach. Risker (talk) 04:26, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While novel, and may have the effect of improving the conduct of the party, there are two aspects that concern me. Firstly, the gaming aspect does worry me, especially with the bar set so high that even a saint would start considering cheating. Secondly, this approach favours people with more time on their hands, and those with more of an inclination to work towards featured status. The featured status process may bring about the desired change to the contributors methods, however being able to write a FA about one topic does not give the slightest insight into a persons ability to work productively on another topic where they have previously had troubles. I suspect that merely requiring that an editor obtain 10,000 edits without a block would also bring about the desired change; as would saving 100 articles from deletion. Simply put, any difficult task will result in any sane person deciding to not end up in the same position again.

I do like the suggestion by Tznkai. My version of that would be to require that they work together on a single highly contentious article in this topical area, and restrict them from touching any other article in that topical area until such time as they have brought the article to featured article level - if we want to avoid afflicting the rest of the community with this messy business we could require they do it in project space, or the userspace of a moderator. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 06:22, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As one of the accused (frustrated) parties, I've been proposing precisely this measure for over a year now, though I'm no good at running diffs, if my word is doubted. My remedy, along with Ravpapa, was to force two sides to work up the same difficult article to GA level, with the two keeping their versions distinct. This would force editors in each group to argue with each other, in order to achieve WP:NPOV, i.e. rein in maverick editors on one's own side. Of course, the evidence of the other team's page, in progress, would enhance the competitive element. At the end of the period, one could get both to be reviewed, and ranked. Until they achieved GA and NPOV on such an article, they would be disqualified from editing other articles. Something creative, along these lines, is required for the I/P area. Most of its articles are pathetic, and admins should begin to ask why is it this particular area so consistently fails to perform, even rarely, to minimal standards for good articles. Actually, there are several fine editors who occasionally try to edit in the I/P area and then throw up their hands in despair, and leave. I'm sure they would join a side to assist in relatively fast drafting, if they were assured the page they worked on was governed by rational procedures and collegial atmosphere. I can think of a dozen on 'my side' of things, and I don't see why a restriction on some should exclude such editors, not particularly partisan, from joining in. Nishidani (talk) 14:39, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Speaking for myself, I'm not eligible for FAs, GAs and FTs as English is not my first language. My forte as an editor of en.wikipedia is humble fact checking and error correction. I don't think I've done an extremely bad job so far. MeteorMaker (talk) 07:01, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I know an Indian-born guy with 10+ FAs all of which were copyedited by others. I don't think getting someone else to copyedit made it not his article. YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 06:56, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Having excess time to work extensively on other articles should not give an editor an edge in disputes. In any case, the event of an edit-war, a "good" editor wouldn't need to act outside of WP:ARBPIA anyway. pedrito - talk - 27.04.2009 07:23

Oppose: This would simply mean that those barred editors who had an especially strong commitment to the subject matter, or, more problematically, to one “side” in the real-world dispute (and the time to indulge it) could eventually claw their way back in to I-P articles; those more disinterested and uninvolved editors whose pattern of editing involves instead looking in from time to time and correcting the odd error or piece of manifest bias would remain permanently barred. In my view I-P articles often need more of the latter and less of the former. --Nickhh (talk) 08:53, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Would this also prohibit us from working on the Draft guidelines for placename usage? We've been making good progress and we're close to presenting a finished draft. MeteorMaker (talk) 08:21, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

No opinion or involvement on anything here overall, but this is pretty much ingenious as a literal free pass out of editing restrictions. rootology (C)(T) 03:51, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Luke: Really? I think this should be the de facto "way out" on any RFAR lockdown on a topic like proposed here. Add in a caveat, that the committee can "reset" your progress with a simple motion if you cause more trouble on the way (or after you hit your Featured Content tally) and it's extra slick. Reasonably, it takes at least one month to get a lone FA between writing, review, FAC, etc., so that's at least a 10 month topic ban, give or take. Or longer, if you're slower. Even Cla probably couldn't do 10 in under 8 months, I'd bet. rootology (C)(T) 03:53, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I might be able to, but I would probably be divorced by the end of it. Cla68 (talk) 04:02, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All the principle writing on my one and my few pending ones I have on hold were about 7-8 weeks altogether for each article, doing about 400-500 article edits a month, but since I suck at copyediting I begged in help on that cleanup mainly. What do you figure--7 to 10 weeks per article, end to end in a reasonable case? For about 1 to 1.5 years for most people to hit a goal of 10 FAs? rootology (C)(T) 04:05, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article I'm primarily working on right now has so far taken between 30 to 40 hours of work to get to where it presently is. I think it will probably be another 10-20 hours before it may be considered FA-worthy. I think 50 hours for each FA is a reasonable standard, depending, of course, on the complexity of the subject. Cla68 (talk) 04:17, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They could all start writing some of the shorter type articles, like the road ones, some of which pass GA with two paras and look like a formulaic description of the road's geometry. Anyway if they go in-depth into a certain topic they can reuse bits of it over and over YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 06:56, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How is "substantially responsible" defined, and are existing FAs excluded in the count? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:23, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what the limit of "substantially responsible" would be; clearly, normal single-editor FA efforts would be covered, but I haven't really considered how little work someone might do and still be included. How is "significant contributor" status determined for the purposes of FAC nominations?

As far as existing FAs, they're not excluded specifically, but nobody being sanctioned here is really close to the benchmarks. I suppose we could exclude them to make things neater, though. Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 04:29, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jayjg has several FAs already. Re Risker and Carcharoth, Carcharoth's proposed loosening of the wording might allow for FAC or FAR reviews as well as some form of Community Service (we are really short on reviewers right now, at both FAC and FAR). This might also alleviate any concerns at FAC about this proposal, as FAC is so overburdened right now. When an article has a single or few editors, it's generally easier to tell who contributed substantially, but when there are many editors, and different editing styles, it's harder to define a significant contributor. Some of the editors credited at WP:WBFAN have done very little on articles, and some editors chunk up high edit counts while adding little (I'm a classic example because when I clean up an article at FAR, it takes a lot of edits, even though I may add nothing of substance). Since we don't have a really clear definition at FAC (it has to be looked at case by case), I think this would be hard to nail down. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:40, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: There are only 60 or so users on Wikipedia who have 10 or more FAs. (See WP:WBFAN for an estimate.) Awadewit (talk) 04:32, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well per durova's triple crown definition of "ading 10 inline cites", it is actually quite liberal as it only took me no more than 4 hours each on the some old FAs that needed a makeover; sydney Roosters only took 1.5 as far as the refs went. I don't think that one should count here, unless the intention is for people to spend about 30 hours sprinking a few cites here and there on some half-referenced FAs.... or even adding redundant ones... The reason I cite this is because Durova's criteria is actually used to implement a measurement system. some other guys make about 30 minutes of contribs and declare themselves to be non-trivial contributors on their userpages etc. YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 06:56, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have serious concerns about the potential for gaming by sanctioned parties, and even more serious concerns about gaming against those same parties. I appreciate the attempt at novel solutions, but this is quite frankly, asking for a lot of trouble. I strongly recommend against it, especially if there is not a known dedicated administrator corps with strong reputations and dedication to police gaming and counter gaming.--Tznkai (talk) 05:15, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How do you game the writing of a Featured Article, let alone ten? I'm trying to imagine how, and can't. rootology (C)(T) 06:07, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it would be difficult. When it appeared that a few participants from one wikiproject were trying to game the FA system (no pun intended) I remember seeing that it was quickly identified and dealt with on the FAC talk page. Cla68 (talk) 06:15, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you have a few mates you can get the FAC put away more quickly. Otherwise it can sit for 4 weeks and the usual regulars will review it, they are tougher than the reviews you get straight up. Still I'm pretty cynical and won't fall for it if some of these articles go to FAR. I know one FAR where 50% of the article had no sources, non 3rdr party sources, peacock words everywhere, but about 8 guys voted to keep, all from the ethnic/nationstate wikiproject of the article subject. Everyone else voted to delist. Of course in this case, the votes/advocates can be explicitly banned to stop them from pressuring the closers as to whether thei rpositions are legit/political YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 06:56, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I share Tznkai's concerns. Say that an editor who is known to ideologically oppose one of the sanctioned parties reviews an article and says that it doesn't meet several criteria. Might such a review be in bad faith? Might continual claims of bad faith be disruptive themselves? I'm worried that article review will be debased by turning it into parole. Cool Hand Luke 07:02, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are things to be said for this approach, but I see some other problems also. For one, there should definitely be a time limit regardless, unless it is thought that these editors are really due an indefinite ban from this topic area. I could maybe see shortening the time through specific types of service, but saying that someone will be banned unless they complete extensive work for the project -- work of one type that they may not be interested in or even suited for, despite other types of productivity -- may just take the encyclopedia-first perspective a bit far, into something almost coercive (this may indeed sound better to Wikipedians than to outsiders). If it were a year or 10 featured articles, whichever came first, then I would feel much better about it, although the message may still be a bit muddled. A second problem is how, or if, it could be ensured that editors didn't just leave these accounts and start over. I'm most familiar with a couple of editors who have been here for a long time, but some of the editors here could easily start over with no apparent loss. In that way the proposal would likely be unduly harsh as to long term editors who would not want to disappear and start over. Honestly my first thought was that the ban would be more specific to this topic; at first blush that would probably be more reasonable, while showing that ArbCom has become more serious about enforcing policy in this area. Mackan79 (talk) 08:35, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cool Hand Luke spelled out my many of my concerns. They are not necessarily insurmountable, but require dedicated administrators. This could extend the perpetual bad faith drama farm culture that is at AE over to FAC and FAR. How good of an idea does that sound? This looks like its creating a lot of work for the restricted parties, but its really creating even more work for everyone else, and creates a disturbing fusion of bureaucracies. Not to mention, one application of the law of unintended consequences later, people taking this as a reinforcement of the principle that you can do whatever you want in one area, as long as you're a great writer and have submitted yourself to a particular proccess. Maybe that is even true, but it isn't something that should be advertised.--Tznkai (talk) 15:09, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose—most of the parties in this dispute have been on Wikipedia for over two years, and none of them have written this many FAs or GAs as far as I can tell. The only party who has seriously written a number of FAs is Jayjg, who has been on Wikipedia for over 4 years. Given an editing pattern like his (which includes over 50,000 edits), this effectively translates into a 5 to 6-year ban. That's not really useful any way to look at it. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 10:14, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose (not a party). No blipping way. Speaking as a FA writer (six official stars after a year of hard work, very substantial contributions to two others) and as an admin, please do not use FAC as a prison farm. We have enough headaches there without worrying about strategic opposes to keep a topic ban going, and contentious discussions leading from that. We're not equipped to deal with that. Please do not spread your war into our relatively peaceful lands.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:01, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An initially interesting idea, but I'd have to oppose as well, on the "good neutral work in one area should not excuse POV pushing in another" rationale provided above by Luke. We're not the Betty Ford Clinic for habitual NPOV violators. Tarc (talk) 14:33, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're dating yourself, Tarc. The Betty Ford Clinic is so last year. Nowadays, you just go into rehab for whatever it is.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:40, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - Kirill writes "Hopefully, anyone that goes through with this will have learned to make progress without edit-warring by the time that they're done". I think he assumes that users who work on featured or good content have learned to "play well with others". I do not think that assumption holds. Most of the over 30 FAs and GAs I have written, I have written by myself. Although one would think that reviews bring interaction, this is not actually the case, particularly at GA (see this example for a case in point). The writing of FAs and GAs means only that an editor can write encyclopedic content (in fact, the better the article, the less interaction is required!). Thus, this remedy will, in my opinion, fail to achieve its desired outcome. Moreover, it discourages users from developing particular talents, such as map-making or audio editing skills - talents in short supply. In my opinion, the best test of someone's ability to "play well with others" is their ability to build consensus on controversial articles. Awadewit (talk) 18:52, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, obviously. Allow me to add to the chorus from the GA perspective. The purpose of GA is to improve the quality of encyclopedia, not to provide therapy for reforming errant Wikipedians. I'm surprised that this proposal wasn't dismissed as ridiculous instantly. Geometry guy 19:43, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is this meant to be therapeutic or just corvee labor for a conviction? In any case I doubt it will drain FAC/GAC resources because if the restricted person wants redemption they will likely work on something bland so that their opponents or sceptics are less likely to hobble them. YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 06:56, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pile on oppose. Sorry, this is a ridiculous idea. GAC/FAC are not Arbcom's private re-education through labor camp. – iride scent 20:00, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm neutral on this proposal. Bringing 10 articles to FA quality is a huge endeavor, which, for most people, will mean their sanctions never get lifted (for the rest, it may take years). I agree with Awadewit that most FAs are written individually, giving the writer little opportunity to test their consensus-building skills; however, the process of bringing the article to FA quality usually gives the article nominator a much greater familiarity with our most important content principles. In theory, the nominator learns how to properly implement WP:OR, WP:V/WP:RS, WP:UNDUE, etc. Those lessons may be invaluable to providing a different perspective in editing these more controversial areas. I don't want to see FAC become an extension of this battleground, however, nor do I wish to see the parties bringing an onslaught of poorly-prepared articles just so they can try to get their sanctions lifted. I would recommend that the parties be instructed to get an FAC-mentor (preferably someone with multiple FAs to their credit) who can provide at least minimal guidance in whether any articles are ready to even be presented to FAC. Furthermore, I would encourage that any deliberate disruption by other parties hoping to make the sanctions last longer should be able to be punished immediately. We're usually fairly lenient with reviewers at FAC, but if it is to be used as a kind of parole I'd like to have official sanctioning for giving short-term blocks for deliberate disruption in instances such as these. Karanacs (talk) 20:47, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think the people in question have a thorough knowledge of all the content policies. I haven't read the evidence but whichever if any of them are breaking policies, it would be by ignoring policies to plaster their favoured POV junk all over the place while disqualifying their opponents' edits with a careful and sometimes selective quoting of policy and moving the bar for their opponents. To be frank, even some people with FA credits who are not being investigate do this, although this is because all the people on the said topic are from the same ethnic group, so they all decide to ignore WP:WTA and cite WP:IAR to override NPOV if challenged.... YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 06:56, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I've started a discussion thread for this proposal on the talk page. Cla68 (talk) 23:34, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Another brilliant effort by ArbCom to shuffle its responsibilities onto the shoulders of other people.

Even with 257 featured credits I wouldn't qualify for Kirill's parole plan. Not sure whether to complain about text bias or to thank my lucky stars that ArbCom isn't setting out to ruin yet another realm where I try to do the project some good. Mentorship did not exist to relieve ArbCom of its elected responsibilities; neither do FAC and GAC. Tighten your belts, read the evidence, and decide on something. Stop trying to pass the buck. Durova^Charge! 23:44, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Durova, this is the workshop. Kirill proposed a creative trial balloon for discussion, so I think your sarcasm is counterproductive. Cool Hand Luke 14:39, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When floating trial balloons it is preferable to avoid launching them with lead weights that land on other people's feet. Both this proposal and the Fringe science mentorship proposal tread very close to the WP:CIVIL violation of "Attempts to publicly volunteer other people's time and effort for work they have not agreed to perform." Have a read through of Wikipedia:Keep it down to earth. Please seek the consent of volunteers you wish to enlist, and entertain the possibility that this feedback is perfectly serious. Or you may find yourselves with even fewer options as more volunteers depart. Durova^Charge! 23:22, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. I strongly oppose Kirill's proposal for several reasons. I agree with you, but your sarcasm remains unhelpful. Cool Hand Luke 05:19, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Editors should write FAs because they want to improve the encyclopedia, not to escape punishment. I echo Karanac's comments about poorly prepared articles being brought to FAC. Also, don't be unnecessarily hard on featured lists. Yes, they take less work, but just like articles, it varies. I say that the proposed featured topic offer be amended to allow for featured lists, but not have featured lists count toward their "parole credits". Dabomb87 (talk) 00:25, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An idea: I really, really can't believe I'm suggesting this out loud, but instead of having each individual editor striving (and gaming) their way out of their restrictions, why don't you instead tie them all together? Every editor so restricted must work together to bring an article to Featured status. Complete with solid images, writing, hell, a read out loud. They all succeed, or they all fail, together. Frankly, if you can succeed at this, then, and perhaps only then, do we know you've actually learned your lesson.--Tznkai (talk) 01:56, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I could go for that. NoCal100 (talk) 02:19, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The equivalent of making kids who don't get along bunk together until they do? Sorry, real world that doesn't work a lot of the time. Good luck. If ArbCom adopts any remedy along these line, there is going to be rage from the FAC community.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:58, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It depends on what your end goal is. In your example, its unacceptable if the kids don't learn to get along. In my solution, I am entirely resigned to the possibility that they may not. The basic advantage of my solution as opposed to Kirill's proposed up above is that mine serves as a better diagnostic.--Tznkai (talk) 15:31, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose; far too concerned by the wider implications of this, including in terms of motivations for producing this sort of work. I'm open to trying reasonable and new approaches, and obviously, some will argue that this qualifies - but I'll have to respectfully disagree. Our current system employs better ways of deciding whether restrictions of any kind should be lifted or not; well, in most cases. If we are to lift restrictions, then we should do them because they are no longer necessary - not because we forced them to produce more FA input. And if the restrictions weren't necessary in the first place, then no need to impose them. Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:29, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. In my experience, the ability to get an article featured is unrelated to the likelihood of refraining from edit-warring. Promoting an article to featured status is a wonderful thing, but it should not "buy" access to editing. I'm glad to see arbitors thinking outside the box, but I think this idea is outside the box for a good reason. – Quadell ^(talk) 14:59, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Some editors' lists of FAs are at least as long as their block logs. I won't mention names, but I have 3 prominent cases in mind. I know two of the three are quite capable of working with each other - if they disagree, they'll just curse each other for a day or so and then get back to work, they're not thin-skinned. There's no correlation at all between behaviour and editing skills. --Philcha (talk) 17:49, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. A featured article is arguably the best possible article on a particular subject. There is a tremendous amount of work that goes into writing a featured article, and there is only one acceptable motivation for doing all that work: for the pure sake of distributing free knowledge to any who want it. If there are any other substitute or compound motivations, such as the sole desire to earn the bronze star, the article and its author have failed, as these motivations can lead the author to represent the information dishonestly. This proposal takes that dishonesty a step further: not only does it reinforce the false notion that articles should be worked on purely for the sake of earning stars, it also creates a new scheme in which stars will be earned for some reason other than to recognize the best possible work.

This system would also create a massive flaw in the FAC process itself. If there is no motivation to feature an article other than to showcase the best possible work, the work done at the FAC will work exclusively towards the elusive goal of making the best possible article. If, however, some other motivation exists, the FAC offers editors the chance to realize their own motivations with respect to the author. If an author is attempting to earn the requisite star to earn back his or her right to have the sanctions lifted, editors who oppose that author can make a point of continuously opposing the FAC for no reason other than to reduce the chances of having those sanctions lifted. Where normally allowances would be made, insignificant issues ignored, and compromises reached, opposing editors would now have every reason to be stubborn and refuse to acknowledge what very well may be excellent content. Conversely, should a sanctioned editor have numerous allies, those allies would find it in their best interest to support the FAC and dissuade its opponents regardless of the potential flaws in the article. With these two effects in place, the FAC will lose its meaning altogether and become nothing more than a battleground. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 00:48, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose as too onerous but perhaps support Tznkai's idea. A topic ban of this nature sends an editor a message that their work is not appreciated. An organization that relies on volunteers can sometimes get away with being hard on its volunteers or placing them under unnecessary restrictions, but is not on firm ground in doing so. Let's not make the self-important assumptions that an editor's keenest desire is to edit in a particular topic area, or that if an editor retires from the project then the reason for retiring is to punish someone. In reality, most editors are busy people with conflicting demands on their time, who edit Wikipedia because they get satisfaction from a feeling of having contributed. Anything that reduces that satisfaction may tip the balance towards the person choosing to partake of some other activity instead, perhaps irretrievably.

If I were placed under such a requirement, it might make FA-building work feel like sawdust in my mouth instead of a fun challenge. Usually in wiki-editing we set restrictions but do not require volunteers to do work.

This requirement may seem impossible or actually be impossible for some editors. I have over 2 years and 14,000 edits, and zero FAs. I think I'm good at grammar, punctuation and fiddling with templates, but I worked hard on formatting at the Che Guevara article and it nevertheless lost its FA status, partly due to remaining formatting issues.

This may be backwards: the ones who are willing to put in a tremendous amount of work in order to gain the privilege of editing in a particular area may not be the ones we most want editing in that area. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 00:58, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jayjg stripped of status and privileges[edit]

11) Jayjg (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is stripped of his status and privileges as a Wikipedia functionary; namely:

(a) His access to the CheckUser tool and the checkuser-l mailing list;

(b) His access to the Oversight tool and the oversight-l mailing list; and

(c) His access to the functionaries-en mailing list.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Harsh, but we simply cannot have functionaries comporting themselves in this manner. Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 02:59, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is the theory that functionaries should be exemplars in the community—like admins, but held to a higher standard? Cool Hand Luke 03:49, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's it; this is more or less explicitly stated as #Functionaries above. Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 03:50, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To Cla68: that is my understanding of this. This is not desysopping, but removing the more "privileged" and "trusted" tools and access areas. Incidentally, access to some of these tools and mailing lists is much over-rated. But appearances are important. There is also a way back to these tools via ArbCom elections and CU/OS elections. Carcharoth (talk) 04:13, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Having reviewed the evidence of this and prior cases, I have seen a lot of evidence of edit-warring, stonewalling, biting newcomers, and poor communications when the editing gets tense. There have been numerous "Jayjg is reminded" remedies in prior cases; enough that more of the same is "conduct unbecoming" an administrator, let alone a "functionary" (for want of a better term). Whether it rises to the level of "bringing the project into disrepute" is questionable, as evidence about that hasnt been submitted, in part due to the limited scope of this case, and because it depends on outside opinions which may be questionable evidence anyway.
In regards to the tools and access, "Jayjg's question" is not the only instance of Jayjg questionable use of private information; it was also a concern in the Lar-SlimVirgin business ([240], raised here) And there has been concerns over use of Oversight in relation to SlimVirgin. The absence of evidence of abusing these advanced tools is neither surprising (there has been no audit, and the community doesnt have the ability to do this), nor is it strictly necessary. The tools may be in the wrong hands for other reasons. The information that flows across these channels enables a functionary to know much more than those around them, and brings with it an implied threat of being able to escalate an issue higher than those around them. i.e. this access is not without its benefits, which is why it is so important that functionaries try to be above reproach. With power and access come responsibility. My recommendation is that due to the level of concern raised here, this issue should be referred to the audit subcommittee, to report to the committee, who can then decide the right course of action which might be to strip Jayjg of access if there are obvious issues, or recommend a RFC/U or RFAR to look at the broader issues. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 16:17, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cryptic C62, your analogy fails at "You have two carpenters at your disposal." We do not. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 07:31, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Very well. You are a foreman. You have a large box full of screwdrivers. You have two very large boxes full of carpenters. One box, labeled A, is filled with pleasant carpenters who have just arrived from Screwdriver-Wife-Stabbing rehab. The other box, labeled B, is filled with douche bags. Into which box will you throw your box of screwdrivers? --Cryptic C62 · Talk 02:11, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Again, let me stress we do not need to make a choice between two people, nor is this a choice between the better of two evils. This community has many fine people who could become checkusers or oversighters if they wished, but most don't wish to for a variety of reasons. For example, in the recent Oversight and Checkuser election (stats), there were three Checkuser candidates who were approved by the community, and there were too many Oversight candidates who had an extremely high level of trust within the community. And that was our first attempt at finding and vetting suitable candidates, somewhat rushed because of the dire need to have more hands on deck to handle the increasing workload at that time. I am quietly confident that if we have another election, we will have found even better candidates, because the election process was a learning experience for the committee and the community, and it encouraged a diverse group of community members to come forward to be vetted for next time. There are a few candidates being vetted that many members of the committee have never encountered in our travels, and most of these people are just as suitable as the candidates that we see around the traps day in day out.
But that is not to say that we can recklessly replace old hands with new hands simply because they have a few battle scars; we need experienced people in these roles, but their experience should mean that they lead by example, and their involvement in disputes is seen by the wider community as a calming influence most of the time.
And this is not about beer. But using that as an example, the rather critical conduct problem is claiming that the focus of the article written by Reuven Pedatzur, and published by Haaretz was a "the conspiracy theory" and that it somehow violated WP:FRINGE [241], and then preferring to spend the better part of 24 hours stonewalling ("claiming beers") instead of doing anything valuable to resolve the problem.[242] OTOH user:Tiamut needed only 50 minutes, and three edits, to prove how silly that claim and ensuing discussion was.[243]

John Vandenberg ^(chat) 14:35, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Just a question, this proposed remedy does not remove all admin privileges? Cla68 (talk) 03:38, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Carcharoth. Just wondering, if a functionary has disgraced his position, wouldn't that also apply to basic admin privileges also? In that case, shouldn't the party in question be required to re-undergo an RfA to verify that the community trusts the person to have any admin privileges at all? Cla68 (talk) 23:18, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose -- Absolutely ridiculous. If this is a serious proposal, the proposer should recuse himself from the case. 6SJ7 (talk) 04:43, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If I may, could you provide an actual rationale? Tarc (talk) 14:43, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong oppose—This proposal goes against the very principle of granting and removing these tools. You can't remove someone's tools if the person hasn't abused said tools. It's as simple as that. Implementing this proposed remedy would be setting an extremely dangerous precent whereby any tools could be removed for whatever reason, ironically giving future rogue functionaries and/or ArbCom members much more power than they should have. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 10:07, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No such principle exists, or has ever existed; retaining these tools has always been contingent on maintaining a suitable standard of conduct. Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 12:38, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I read this page a very long time ago, and it seems that from its creation (Aug. 4 2006) until today (Apr. 27, 2009) a line has stayed clearly saying that there is such a principle (the very first sentence, in fact). Moreover, it does not appear that any of the 19 cases where ArbCom removed user rights were done because of anything other than abuse. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 20:14, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That refers to adminship, however, not to functionary status. To my knowledge, there's no real precedent in this area, since no functionary has ever misbehaved to the point of having arbitration proposals to remove their privileges (although several have come close). Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 01:36, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So you wish to set a precedent here, based on a handful of Talk page comments which might have been less than exemplary? Do take note of the very clear opposition to your proposal here. This is not the stuff that precedents are made of . NoCal100 (talk) 01:49, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

More to the point, the official policy here is here. Quoting, "Just as easily as the CheckUser permission can be approved, it can be revoked. If the Committee feels that an editor has abused CheckUser, such as by inappropriately performing checks or needlessly disclosing privacy related information from a CheckUser inquiry, they will immediately request a Steward to remove the permission from the editor." None of that has happened, nor been alleged to have happened; there's nothing to suggest that anything other than abuse of the specific tool is grounds for having it taken away, and even if there were, the paper-thin pretext here would fail to satisfy those grounds. IronDuke 20:34, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That page is not well maintained, so I am not surprised it is out of sync with reality. For example, JoshuaZ and SlimVirgin are not listed. The users in the section "Removed for lack of response to Arbitration case" were mostly desysoped for inaction, conduct issues or because explanations given to the committee were not believed. user:Rama's Arrow was desysoped for conduct issues. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 06:53, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support but prefer a full desysopping, if that becomes a proposal. Public trust is eroded when a person in position of authority abuses that position. By my count, Jayjg has already been sanctioned in several previous ArbCom cases, and it may just be time to realize that such measures have proven fruitless. There's no other avenue to turn down here. Tarc (talk) 14:43, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Complete nonsense. You are just trying to make it easier to push your POV on Wikipedia. 6SJ7 (talk) 22:35, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pot, meet kettle? I am trying to make it easier to edit in an environment free of administrators who abuse their authority, and editors who act in unison. Nothing more. Tarc (talk) 15:31, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Complete nonsense. It is not a coincidence that you and many of the other anti-Israel editors on Wikipedia have lined up to try to get ride of Jay. 6SJ7 (talk) 22:36, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My friend, I am not anti-anything, much less the state of Israel. That you continue to fall back on base accusations of bigotry and prejudice only diminishes your standing here. Tarc (talk) 05:34, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose This is well past draconian... it's just baffling. Poor idea on many, many levels. IronDuke 19:20, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Would make Draco blush. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 19:50, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Very poor idea.—Sandahl (talk) 20:12, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, and urge to think very carefully about motivation. Why do I get the sense that laws are invented, tweaked and/or interpreted in novel, ad hoc ways during the arbitration to “get” [sic] one person? There are many weak and highly questionable points “proven” throughout this page, and the conclusions drawn by certain involved people are at best utterly out of proportion, or even just utterly wrong. Please sit back, count to ten, and try to think things through again: Is this an arbitration about privilege and use of admin tools or about opinions and personal chemistry? Also, please bear in mind that the fact that the person in question here has been under attack several times on the English Wikipedia is NOT in itself proof of bad conduct from this person, but rather a reflection of this person editing articles where opinions are strong — whether then conduct be good or bad — or normal.... -- Olve Utne (talk) 22:03, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You get that sense because that is all this is about -- it's the "get Jay" campaign and if a few other editors get pushed to the side as well to make it seem "fair", that's the price to be paid, I guess. Hopefully the other arbitrators will put a stop to this nonsense, quickly. 6SJ7 (talk) 22:35, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think this misunderstands how ArbCom works. Yes, ArbCom includes principles that it considers relevant to problems raised in the case, and yes, by looking at the proposed principles you can often tell in what direction the findings are headed. Newyorkbrad is one Arbitrator who appears to avoid this; his principles seem to be aimed specifically not to give any idea of how he or the rest of the committee will apply them. I can see why that would be done, since it lets people think about what's good for the encyclopedia a little more separately from who they think is right or wrong, but in terms of the committee's decision making it wouldn't seem significant. The only other option I see is to formulate or copy and paste a principle for every allegation made in the case, which may not hurt. I imagine the end problem is the amount of time it would take, for them and for us. Even then the fact is that deciding what principles should hold is a major part of the decision. Mackan79 (talk) 07:08, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NYB is also writing like a lawyer or a judge. As far as I can tell he's trying to actually propose principles and general lines of reasoning that aren't just to get people. JoshuaZ (talk) 02:16, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

confused Is there any claim that Jayjg abused the CU tools or any of the associated functionary priveleges? If not, how can one plausibly justify taking away such tools. JoshuaZ (talk) 00:27, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, the theory is that he is not enough of a role model to hold a position of high trust. At minimum, I would want to make it clear that he's has not misused CU (contrary to some beliefs). Cool Hand Luke 14:35, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly that seems very close to a "ArbCom dosn't like you" decision. I'm not against the ArbCom removing checkuser rights more or less whenever they please but if we're going to be doing that let's be honest about it. JoshuaZ (talk) 02:16, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Luke, question: you specifically said "CU". For transparency, what about Oversight or other advanced tools Jay has? If things are either going this way or not, it would be for the best for everyone, for making informed opinions here. rootology (C)(T) 15:09, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing problematic in the last year, as far as I know. Some early oversights were controversial both within the committee and without, but those strike me as remote from this case. Cool Hand Luke 16:38, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support At a basic level, Jayjg has repeatedly indicated that he prioritizes his obligations as a functionary behind partisan gaming and promoting his views on Wikipedia. This is shown in the proposed findings along with elsewhere, and includes issues that implicate his rights as a functionary. CharlotteWebb was one example where he was reminded not to generate drama in a case involving his disclosure of checkuser information. In the lead up to a more recent case, Jayjg appeared to disclose information from a private list considered damaging to another checkuser,[244] even despite knowing that the issue could not be explained publicly. Nothing public happened of this, but it seemed to me a remarkable action, regardless of what information may also have been suggested to him privately. Other warnings regarding editing conduct included the second Israeli Apartheid case, where several arbitrators voted to find that Jayjg and other editors had violated WP:Point. Considered together, I think it should be self-evident why an editor who treats Wikipedia as a battleground, contrary to various Wikipedia policies, should not retain extensive access to confidential information about other editors, or to channels not available to other editors. Sanctioning a functionary such as is proposed here appears to be unprecedented, so a precedent of some sort is inevitable; I hope it is one that places a high priority on its own integrity and the wide-spread trust of the community in privileges that it cannot oversee. Mackan79 (talk) 07:18, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Totally unwarranted. I think there are partisans who feel that if they can come out of this with Jayjg's scalp, the rest of the remedies don't matter.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:00, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose as unwarranted, excessively punitive, and (unless there is evidence that the tools were actually abused) a net harm to the project. Jakew (talk) 13:37, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Jayjg has not misused these tools, and I don't believe the unrelated behavior concerns (edit-warring and saying "Beer!") merit this sanction. – Quadell ^(talk) 15:02, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Totally agree with Wehwalt that "there are partisans who feel that if they can come out of this with Jayjg's scalp, the rest of the remedies don't matter." This case has gone far afield, and the penalties proposed excessive. Tundrabuggy (talk) 15:37, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose If he didn’t abuse these tools, I don’t understand why these privileges should be taken from him, especially that we have no precedent for this. I find it excessive which would only satisfy those who have wanted him gone for a long time.

I happened to chance on this page, as I haven’t edited WP in a very long time and have stopped editing extensively exactly because of the games played here. It has become almost impossible to do honest editing of these pages without resorting to tactics. IMO it is the system which forces editors to resort to tactics to counter the tactics employed by disingenuous editors. Wikipedia needs to think how to present a fairer editing platform. Itzse (talk) 21:13, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I have no idea what this case is about, but consider the following analogy of a very simple tool: You are a foreman with one screwdriver and one task that requires the use of the screwdriver. You have two carpenters at your disposal. The first, Carpenter A, is an extremely pleasant individual, and a very talented carpenter. He did, however, stab his wife to death with a screwdriver. Twice. The second, Carpenter B, although an equally competent carpenter, is a total douche bag. He has never stabbed any of his wives to death with a screwdriver. To whom would you give the screwdriver? --Cryptic C62 · Talk 03:34, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion. Perhaps Jayjg should consider this plan of action if participating in Wikipedia as a functionary and in the PI articles is important to him: (1) Acknowledge that his behavior has been unbecoming, (2) apologize to the community and those that he has offended, and judging by people's comments in the several ArbCom cases he has been involved with, those who he has offended are considerable in number, and (3) promise not to repeat the behavior in the future. In other words, engage in some self-reflection and self-correction. Cla68 (talk) 04:23, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Total garbage. Jay is just trying to help prevent Wikipedia from becoming an anti-Israel cesspool. Actually, it already is that, he is trying to help keep it from becoming more of one. It is something I have no time or patience for anymore, so it is good that there are still those such as Jay who are willing to keep working on this systemic anti-Israel bias problem. That's why you don't like him, Cla68. That's why you want to get rid of him. 6SJ7 (talk) 23:44, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If that is your general motivation, then it is misplaced. Proper application of method, close fidelity to WP:RS, is what prevents garbage, not paladins tilting at windmills under some misbegotten belief that Israel's existence is at stake in every sentence. I'd like to see some documentation on the idea that any one of the gang of five has ever posted 'garbage' relating to Israel. As I understand it, we have edited to ensure that the unrepresented reality here, the Palestinian people, are given the same due recognition of the facts of their history, culture and social life they are entitled to according to WP:NPOV. All one asks is that the best historiography on the Palestinian experience, most of it Israeli, be employed in preference to POV partisan sites or government blamesheets, and not subject to endless wikilawyering by one-eyed nationalists, in order to achieve the balance these articles lack. Jayjg, but he is only a pointman in a concerted and misguided effort that politicizes everything, has never been helpful in this.Nishidani (talk) 08:53, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It probably goes without saying that I disagree completely with your perception of the situation, including who is doing the "wikilawyering" and which editors are motivated by "nationalism", but I don't see the point of debating it further here. And maybe I am not following closely enough, but I don't know who the "gang of five" are, nor do I need to know. 6SJ7 (talk) 19:03, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You think MeteorMaker, Nishidani, Nickhh, Pedrito and I are Palestinian nationalists?--G-Dett (talk) 00:57, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I wondered about that too. Very odd statement. If it helps in terms of clarifying matters at all, I am a white English/British atheist who lives in London, about midway between Finsbury Park and Stamford Hill. --Nickhh (talk) 01:18, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I have seen no evidence that Jayjg has abused any oversight or checkuser tools. Frankly, I think Kirill should be reprimanded for suggesting that functionaries form some kind of leadership at Wikipedia commanding special respect. Wikipedia is and should remain an open community in which anyone can edit; everything else is ancillary. Jayjg has been involved in content disputes. We have no good mechanism for arbitrating conflict disputes, and in the past when the idea for one was floated, it was always shot down. We do have an NPOV policy. Does the existence of this policy mean that Wikipedia should seek onlyu editors who have a neutral POV? Or should we marginalize editors who have strong POVs? To do so would be to perpetrate an assault on our NPOV policy, which is premised on the idea that editors will passionately hold divergent or conflicting views and that our open community ought to embrace editors with strongly divergent or conflicting views; NPOV is not a prohibition against having a point of view, it is meant to be a framework enabling people with divergent views to work together. We do expect people to work together in a civil manner, and ArbCom can arbitrate personal behavior disputes. That is its brief, and that is what it should do here. Nothing more. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:27, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"reprimanded for suggesting" is an odd phrase. Why would anyone ever be reprimanded for a good-faith suggestion? Perhaps you should strike that sentence, mate. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 20:34, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think Slrubenstein should be reprimanded for suggesting that Kirill be reprimanded for suggesting something (I forget what). I think you, Cryptic, should be reprimanded for reprimanding Slrubinstein, and I think I should be reprimanded for piling on. Finally, per Slrubinstein's cogent post here, I think all this reprimanding should be carried out by a rank newb, preferably one who doesn't understand what we're talking about and doesn't care.--G-Dett (talk) 21:52, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think the next time I read the word "reprimanded" I'm going to have the offender forced to translate G-Dett's statement above in perfect grammar in every language we have a Wikipedia of.--Tznkai (talk) 22:03, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ha ha, much needed levity to be sure. But if a bit more reprimanding had been done in the past and a bit less blind-eye-turning, perhaps we'd not be here. Cla68's suggestion seems spot on. Because if anyone thinks there's nothing in need of reprimanding, either they've not been paying attention, or they are deliberately not seeing it. ++Lar: t/c 22:25, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

...in which case they ought, without further ado, to be reprimanded.

Far as levity goes nothing for me can match Cryptic's edit summary here. I love it. If y'all ban me and someone starts popping off under the username "Anal goy," I suggest you do a checkuser.--G-Dett (talk) 22:48, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So, is Lar no under the penalty suggested by Tznkai? More to the point, since Lar, a functionary, is publicly on record as unapologetically admitting to off-wiki canvassing, will he be subject to Cla68's "spot on" suggestion, or will the double standards continue to be tolerated? Canadian Monkey (talk) 22:52, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One would have to say "Amen" to that. Sounds like another Orwellian moment! "All animals are created equal, but some animals are more equal than others" What genius that man had. A perfect understanding of politics. Tundrabuggy (talk) 03:41, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't that RfA close at 89-0 support? Anyway, if you want to complain about someone else, bring it up in a separate thread. This is about Jayjg. Jayjg asked in that email for surreptitious help in pushing a particular viewpoint in an article. If all he loses for doing that, along with everything else that he has done, is the functionary privileges, and not overall access to the English Wikipedia itself, I think he should feel fortunate, especially since he apparently refuses to acknowledge that he has done anything wrong. Cla68 (talk) 05:27, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note to TB & CM. Look, Lar is not part of this Arb case and was not involved in the dispute that led to it. Same as ChrisO, who you and others have also been trying to have dragged into it. Whether Jay - who is undoubtedly a party - should have earlier behaviours looked at in the light of his involvement here, is a point for genuine debate and something that needs to be discussed on its own merits. Stop trying to cloud that issue by for example claiming that it is an example of "double standards" or even "Orwellian" to look at Jay but not Lar and Chris under the banner of this ArbCom case. --Nickhh (talk) 11:05, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's not the concern here. The problem is that if we're treating behavior for one checkuser as much more severe than a checkuser who engaged in almost identical or more extreme behavior we've got a problem. JoshuaZ (talk) 17:12, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, the immediate concern here is inappropriate forum. People can take alleged problems with Lar (and ChrisO) to another one, or to a separate ArbCom case, and cite precedent or alternatively alleged hypocrisy etc there if relevant, rather than trying to have either of them censured here (which is what has been happening, in case you haven't read all the threads). Neither of them are parties to this particular ArbCom case. This is quite a simple point, surely .... --Nickhh (talk) 23:54, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ChrisO is a party to this arbcom case.--brew crewer (yada, yada) 23:58, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, he's formally been listed, yes. Perhaps you, Canadian Monkey, Tundrabuggy, 6SJ7, Ynhockey (and others? I lose count) could provide diffs as to where he actually engaged in the original dispute, or to where he actually even commented in this case itself beyond a brief statement at the outset saying he didn't think it was an ArbCom issue while also offering to help the parties in dispute agree some form of compromise? This whole issue is convoluted enough without people bringing in every passing complaint they happen to have in on top of it. Cheers --Nickhh (talk) 00:17, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Funny. ChrisO's relatively contemporary edit-warring transgressions within the I-P conflict should not be brought in because "this issue is convoluted enough" but Jayjg's 1.5 old transgression that did not involved edit-warring, let alone the I-P conflict, doesn't convolute the issues.--brew crewer (yada, yada) 00:42, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You may have missed the fact that ChrisO is only listed as a party to this case through clerical error. He has in fact not posted even one comment in the original dispute (unlike for instance Tundrabuggy, Nudve and Ynhockey, three editors that came off scot-free). MeteorMaker (talk) 00:57, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You may have missed the fact that it was you added the relevant links section in middle of the arbcom case, which you are now apparently using as the correct and accepted standard for editor inclusion into this arbcom case. But I would agree that there are a number of editors that inexplicably avoided this arbcom case. You coincidentally provided editors that probably did not agree with you. But there are other editors as well. For example, User:Ashley kennedy3 [245], User:PalestineRemembered [246], and User:Factsontheground [247] were prime candidates for this arbcom case. However, now is not the time to discuss who should have been included by User:Pedrito (_{who I assume you are referring to when you say "clerical error"})and who should not have been included. We have to deal with what we got. So the question remains why are the Fof's ignoring ChrisO's history of involvement in I-P related arbitration cases and the admonishments ChrisO has received for abusing his admin powers, while at the same time trying to remove Jayjg's Functionary status based on transgressions which did not involved the abuse of Functionary powers and were unrelated to the I-P conflict.--brew crewer (yada, yada) 02:58, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've collected the links to the relevant pages for everybody's convenience, and since ChrisO has not made even one comment there, I fail to see why he should be a party to this case in the first place. The three editors on your side of the dispute were only mentioned as examples of more involved editors, not as a request to include them in the case. MeteorMaker (talk) 07:16, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nickhh, you and certain other editors don't seem to understand what this is all about. We're ("Canadian Monkey, Tundrabuggy, 6SJ7, (myself) (and others?)") aren't trying to get ChrisO (or Lar) sanctioned because we're angry that Jayjg is up for sanction. Rather, we're pointing out that there is no reason to sanction Jayjg based on the fact that these two editors have made similar (minor) transgressions, but have not been sanctioned and aren't likely to be sanctioned, so it would be hypocritical to sanction Jayjg. We aren't talking about the recent evidence at all, but about the supposed evidence brought against Jayjg which has zero to do with the case, and is usually also very old. This constitutes the crux of the evidence against Jayjg, and should all be removed/struck, because no such evidence was used against ChrisO. In other words, I don't think that you'd find it appropriate if I were to post something that ChrisO has done, in 2007 (or 2008) in a completely unrelated area, as evidence. Therefore, I don't find it appropriate to bring it as evidence against Jayjg. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 07:02, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, JoshuaZ, I don't POV-push. I don't pile up revert after revert skirting the edges of the rules. I don't throw the rulebook at my political opponents, or edit policy pages to win arguments. I don't get gangs of editors to come in and win close run contentious battles (whether it be revert wars, consensus discussions, AfD noms, RfAs, you name it) for me. I don't use CU as a political tool. This case is exposing clearly what some of the partisan lines are here, and who some of the soldiers who hew close to their marching orders are. With Jaygj defrocked, there will be less reason to counter their canvassing with a bit of my own. I look forward to that. And my canvass, which I already fully took responsibility for (has Jayjg ever admitted to anything?), was for someone who won 89-0. Fault me for canvassing needlessly, if you like. But when you say "more extreme behavior" if you are referring to me, you've got things completely the wrong way around and show you've little grasp of what's really going on. Are you sure you are on the right side? ++Lar: t/c 19:45, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lar, I'm not on any "side" here and your persistence on using such languages isn't productive. Frankly, I think that both you and Jayjg do very good jobs as checkusers (I've seen no evidence that anyone has used checkuser for political gains and it seems pretty clear the Arbs don't think so either). You both also do things I'd rather you not do. Blatant and repeated canvassing is one of them. In my ideal world we won't be removing any rights from either of you. I'd be about as annoyed annoyed if you were defrocked and Jayjg wasn't, in so far as both of your behavior seems pretty similar. I do think however that you do need to seriously reread WP:BATTLE. There aren't opposing sides of "soldiers" with "marching orders." We're trying to write an encyclopedia here, not see how much drama we can generated. Livejournal is thataway. JoshuaZ (talk) 00:36, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

the most revealing quote form the above is "With Jaygj defrocked, there will be less reason to counter their canvassing with a bit of my own" - Lar- your personal motivation is clear, and your acknowledged off-wiki canvassing is every bit as shameful as Jayjg's. You would be wise to step away from this discussion while you still have all your "functionary" rights, because for the life of me, I can't see how it would be possible to strip Jayjg's of his privileges and leave yours intact, when you have engaged in identical behavior. Canadian Monkey (talk) 22:38, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm perfectly happy to stand on my record. On the other hand, if you had any common sense, you would not be happy to stand on your record. And, oddly, you're not. Rather than trying to refute the serious issues that have been raised about your behavior as one of the soldiers, you're all happily attacking all and sundry, more or less in lock step. The percentage of people that buy your tactic is steadily decreasing. ++Lar: t/c 23:13, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am as happy to stand by my record. I have not conducted the disgraceful off-wiki canvassing you seem to actually be proud of. My edit warring, to which I admit and for which I have been sanctioned, pales in comparison to the behavior of a foundation functionary who unabashedly acknowledges engaging in off-wiki canvassing, and who openly declares a personal motivation in wanting an opposing functionary stripped of their privileges so that he may have an easier time conducting his battles on the project. Canadian Monkey (talk) 23:24, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@Lar. From what I see, there's an increasing percentage of editors and admins pointing out the seemingly discriminatory nature of these findings. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 23:32, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(←) I find Lar's post shocking frankly. It makes a whole lot of accusations for an arbitrator who claims he is recusing. He is parsing the definition of "recusal" by participating in the discussion and by doing so is imposing his prejudice and poisoning the well. What Lar doesn't seem to appreciate is that this "friends" business always goes on on both sides of the Israel-Palestinian conflict, and that there are always the same names on the other side of the issue as well. These people follow each other to "revert wars, consensus discussions, AfD noms, RfAs, you name it." It is really insulting to claim that simply because one group of people think along the same lines that they are following any one's "marching orders"! It is clear that Lar does not understand this conflict and its manifestations at all, if this is what he thinks. And finally, the fact that someone's RfA passed 89-0 may simply be a reflection that a lot of the favors "called in," did in fact, call in. Tundrabuggy (talk) 04:42, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[ec]:I would ask Lar also what exactly is the difference between "calling in favors" and "marching orders" ? Tundrabuggy (talk) 05:05, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Without commenting on Lar's posts, I will point out that he is not a member of the Arbitration Committee. Risker (talk) 04:51, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that clarification, Risker. Not sure where I got the impression that he was, but I do appreciate being set straight. Tundrabuggy (talk) 05:05, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I find Lar's post frank, which is shocking. :-)
Rest assured that if Lar wound up in a massive nationalistic battle like this, or some other similar mess, his functionary status would be under scrutiny as well. The proposed Functionaries principle being introduced into this case would require it. Anyone who considers Lar's canvassing to be worth defrocking should head up to #Functionaries and voice their approval for the principle. If you dont, and you call for Lar's head later, that is a lack of integrity. My view is that everyone in this section who has suggested that Lar should have similar treatment is implicitly approving the "Functionaries" principle above. But this case isnt about Lar; if anyone wants to see Lar defrocked sooner rather than later, please do some analysis of it and initiate an RFC/U or RFAR. Otherwise, his canvassing is a historical matter that Lar has not shied away from, and will not doubt be considered at the appropriate times. But, here is not the time and place for that; please stop derailing this to make it about Lar. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 07:46, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that's the argument that is going on here. At least in my case I'd rather not have either of them defrocked. Doing so given the evidence at hand would be at best unjustified. The point being made in the comparison is more or less that nearly identical actions have been taken by other checkusers. That we don't find them problematic in one case would tentatively suggest that they shouldn't be problematic in the other case. The comparison is useful; it isn't an argument that Lar should be defrocked if we defrock Jayjg. And if this proposal is approved I'm unlikely to be pushing for Lar's defrocking since the principal is still a bad one. JoshuaZ (talk) 14:39, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One rather large difference, however, being that Lar is not an involved party in the present dispute. (Nor is ChrisO for that matter.)--G-Dett (talk) 15:27, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A point which seems superficially relevant but really isn't. The use of the Lar example as an analogous case still goes through just as well. If he were a party to this case we wouldn't be defrocking him. The point still stands. ~~

Joshua, where can I read about the Lar example? I know nothing about it. Are all the other pieces of the analogy in place – tag-team ideological edit-warring, talk-page stonewalling, refusing to apologize or address the problem, etc.?--G-Dett (talk) 15:48, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Joshua, as I understand it, the Lar case consists of an e-mail he sent to an off-wiki list canvassing support for a candidate at RfA. The only comparable incident in this case is the e-mail Jay intended to send to unknown recipient(s) requesting that his back be watched tonight because he was going in. That e-mail supplies disquieting background but it is by no means central to the case, and indeed Kirill struck a finding related to it at 2.7.1. above.

If you feel that this case or this proposed remedy stand or fall by Jay's e-mail, then I couldn't disagree with you more strongly. If there is more to it than that, and there are other similarities between the cases, I apologise.--MoreThings (talk) 14:27, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Lar's comment above makes it quite clear that he has engaged in canvassing on multiple occasions. At this point, the only substantial complaint about Jayjg justifying this is vague claims of POV pushing. They might have some accuracy but that's not a reason to remove the tools. Indeed, as Durova so nicely pointed out, we've had situations before where sitting arbs have engaged in blockable offenses and we haven't batted an eye. JoshuaZ (talk) 18:20, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really think this remedy turns on that one specific email. Rather it turns on (as G-Dett said) "tag-team ideological edit-warring, talk-page stonewalling, refusing to apologize or address the problem, etc.". There is a persistent, long term pattern of problematic behaviour that goes far beyond emails. The multiple times Jayjg has been directly admonished about these matters by various ArbComs suggests that another admonishment isn't what's needed here. ++Lar: t/c 19:47, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Claims of which have only been very loosely supported (note how much of the finding of fact has been simply struck out). Moreover, even if one thinks that there's a problem here there's no good reason to think that removing his checkuser will somehow change things. All this does is reduces our checkuser count by 1. JoshuaZ (talk) 20:40, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One proposal was struck to make it stronger, while the others were struck according to a couple of arbitrators as too far removed, or not to give rise to false impressions about the real problems. One of the points struck was the topic of this thread. I think there are strong reasons to think, however, that functionaries (a good enough term for me) should police their own, and maintain real standards of conduct for these positions. There have been issues with misuse of access (comments to the contrary notwithstanding), but to say that a functionary should not persistently depress the editing environment in a controversial topic area in order to promote their personal views is not in my view such a high standard. Mackan79 (talk) 22:50, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support. In his opening statement, User:Pedrito asserted that this case "is not a content dispute, but rather a somewhat extreme case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, edit-warring over several articles, WP:POV-pushing and Wiki-Lawyering against consensus, sources and Wikipedia policies." I feel that he and other editors provided ample evidence to support that assertion. I don't feel it appropriate that an editor who has engaged in such activities be entrusted with the checkuser and oversight tools.

If the case were a simple content dispute, then I feel that an outcome along the lines of a plague o' both your houses would be just fine. But for me, what the evidence actually revealed was something much more pernicious than a content dispute. It showed one group of editors adducing overwhelming evidence in support of their case: that the neutral term is "West Bank"; and it showed another group of editors simply refusing to accept that mountain of evidence; wilfully ignoring it.

As Slrubenstein outlines above, it's okay for editors to have a POV. It's inevitable. But it doesn't follow from that that the editing process should be a struggle in which each party does everything in its power to insert its own POV into the article. The idea is that you do your level best to put your own POV aside, that you collaborate in a search for the NPOV. If editors are not open to persuasion, if there are absolutely no circumstances under which they will accept that their POV is not the NPOV, then the whole process grinds to a halt, tempers fray, and the encyclopedia is damaged. --MoreThings (talk) 13:59, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Yours has to the most clear and honest post I've yet to read on this Arbcomm case. Perhaps you're the "newb" G-Dett has been waiting for. In any case, the results of the discussion on the WP:IPCOLL seem to indicate that what you have said is true. Indeed, after a through review of the secondary sources editors like MeteroMaker, Pedrito, G-Dett, Nishidani, Nickhh and others have been trying to get the others using primary sources to acknowledge, the draft is looking like it will severely restrict the usage of Judea and Samaria (in accordance with the dominant terminological and political realities of the day as established by reliable sources.) It only took oh, say about a year, and five hundred intermediaries and chaperones to get to that point, a few blocks, bans, insults, hair-pulling, etc., etc. platitudes about the need to assign equal blame ro everyone for bad behaviour etc., etc. Thank goodness someone can see through all the crap and say it plainly. I support MoreThings for adminship: we need more people like you. Tiamut^talk 14:17, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I agree with Ynhockey, Slrubenstein and Wehwalt. It seems like Jayjg is currently a victim of a head hunting campaign by some of his long time enemies, who keep piling up unrelated incidents that are long past prescription. -- Nudve (talk) 15:23, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't understand why some of those defending Jayjg think its okay to make bad-faith assumptions about the people who are critiquing Jayjg's behaviour. The posting made directly above Nudve's comment by Morethings, for example, deals primarily with problematic behaviour in the current dispute, for which ample evidence has been presented. And yet Nudve's response is to construct a strawman argument, referring to "unrelated incidents that are long past prescription" and to make a thinly veiled personal attack against everyone who has to something to say about how Jayjg's editing has been problematic to them. Does WP:AGF simply not apply to you? (Sorry to single you out Nudve, and you're certainly not the only one, but coming directly on the heels of a very fair posting by Morethings that points to what I believe is the heart of the matter, I find your comments deeply unfortunate.) Tiamut^talk 15:27, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is a difference between critiquing someone and trying to throw everything but the kitchen sink at them in order to get them blocked indefinitely. When one is charged with a crime he did not commit (or at least, so he believes) and is facing life imprisonment, then one should not be expected to assume good faith on behalf of the prosecution and its witnesses. I am assuming good faith, and would like it if you assumed good faith on Jayjg's part, despite everything. No one is perfect, certainly not in the IP field, but this great purge that's going on here is inappropriate. Morethings's arguments are relevant, even if somewhat misrepresenting the dispute. Still, this is a content issue, and I believe it does not warrant the sanctions proposed. The "unrelated incidents" I was referring to are the old ones, some from a few years ago. -- Nudve (talk) 04:29, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Let's face it, Tiamut, we're generally, (MM is the exception) not good at comprehensive diffs, which are what make the difference. Nudve thinks this is all a rehashing of trivia from prescripted peccadillos. We know from years of practical work how often Jayjg does weird things in violation of the rules with olympian serenity, like wiping out reliable sources in what is a clear violation of of an Arbcom ruling. So much of this kind of thing happens, his example and success are so widely imitated, that one just fought it, edit by edit, without making a masterfiles of repeated infractions. That in turn just supplied Jayjg with hundreds of diffs to rig the impression that we were edit-warring, which, in practice in here, means what User:Sandahl calls, on the evidence page, opposing Jayjg. As G-Dett's funny acceptance of being thrown into an isolation ward or quarantine area suggested, there are two cultures in here: one that reads books, edits from them, and engages naively in threads of inhumane length to reason with objections, and the other that seems mainly to thumb the wikirule book from A-Z with a lynx-eye to political tactics to get one POV consistently to the fore. It's that old substance versus formalist tension in the structure of the encyclopedia grinding its tectonic plates. We are a ragtag band of individuals who are more interested in the subject matter of texts than in the pettifogging rule-waterboarding and diff-necklacing of one's editorial opponents that formalism privileges as decisive evidence for what is going on, and our respective failures to wikify our procedures, by endless rule-mastery, gives Arbcom relatively little of what it seeks, rows and rows of infraction proofs. It's in the various controversial pages, of course, but reading them implies a knowledge of the subject as much as an acute understanding of rule applicability. I'm starting to regret this remark, it sounds so condescending and self-complacent, when I intended it as an apology to Arbcom for an inability to document what I, for one, know from hundreds of edits. I've no excuse. Perhaps as G-Dett says, the infamous five should be chucked off pages, and restricted to answering content queries on their own pages for newbies rash or heroic enough to wish to venture into the madness of I/P articles. Nishidani (talk) 17:01, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're right. Diffs cannot fully portrary what is going on. Those of us who live, eat, and breathe this shit, know it intimately but conveying it others required that they patiently thumb through incessantly long and seemingly circular discussions, like the one taking place at Talk:Ramot right now (and its parent page on the centralized discussion for what to call Israeli localities in Jerusalem built beyond the green line after 1967). Talk:Lydda Death March is another good example of the some of the problems (at least I) have been facing today. Lots of WP:IDONTLIKEIT with little in the way of an acknowledgement of what the scholarly sources actually say, and practically nothing in the way of content edits that might improve the articles in question. It's tiresome, repetitive, and I only keep going because once and while (particularly for me usually during DYK noms) I enjoy a little peace and build some good articles (like Qedarites which escaped unscathed due to its obvious obscurity. I'm going to apologize to Arbcomm and anyone else I've offended in my last few posts. I'm tired haven't slept in almost two days trying to defend my latest DYK nom from being defaced by a POV tag) and I'm really tired of dealing with editors who don't actually point me to any sources I can use to address their concerns but rather waste hours of my time writing in response to their unsourced opinions of what is wrong with my editing today. Blech. Got that vomited out. If anyone wants me to refactor I will. Please forgive. Tiamut^talk 17:24, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - first of all, such a measure would (and should) have consequences that would make it impossible for admins, functionaries, or whatever, to be editors, as they would have reason to look over their shoulders at all times. Second, the evidence against Jayjg points to a clear and simple content dispute, one in many tiresome ones related to the Arab-Israeli conflict. I would advise Kirill to carefully consider the implications of proposals such as this. --Leifern (talk) 18:43, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. You have got to be kidding me. This is entirely inappropriate, as there is no evidence of misuse of tools. If anyone is abusing their position, it is Kirill. If Jayjg is stripped of his tools and status, then Wikipedia has turned into a circus. I'll have nothing further to do with it, and I suspect I'm not the only one. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 19:26, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Until I read this proposal I very much respected Kirill. As fellow member of the military history wikiproject I had had only positive interactions with him. Now I am sad to say that all of that respect has evaporated. This suggestion is inappropriate to the point of being offensive.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 03:46, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I regard it as a good argumentum ex silentio (see Abductive reasoning also), that more or less the gang of five's case has, with one or two exceptions, been argued by themselves, individually, and those wikipedians outside the I/P area who have at times expressed appreciation for their various work in the encyclopedia have had the good sense to stand aside, not indulge in hero-worship, or rally the ranks in their defence. We don't need StandWithUs tactics.Nishidani (talk) 10:16, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support-If those who are incensed at Kirill's proposal would have expressed their outrage to Jay when he was acting with such impugnity, perhaps we would not be here. As it is, he won't even participate in these discussions or try to explain himself, except through private emails with another editor. To me, that shows disregard for the processes and opinions of the community (and arbcom). All editors should be able to look to arbitrators and checkusers (and admins too) as examples of exemplary conduct, and even the most forgiving view of his behavior is tendentious, at best. Having a strong POV is not the issue, forcing it into the encyclopedia is. I also disagree with those who say evidence of abuse/misuse of the tools is required to take them away. It is not necessary to misuse the tools to lose them, just as you don't have to abuse your authority as a police officer to be fired; breaking other laws or policies is reason enough. Punishment for your crimes is in addition to 'turning in your badge'. untwirl(talk) 19:55, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If I were advising Jayjg, which I am not, I would tell him to keep off of this page. It is more appropriate, pefectly respectful, and you avoid becoming a target. I speak from sad RL experience.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:46, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. For what? For saying "Beer!"? No misuse of tools has been alleged. No egregious violation of editing behaviour has been alleged. Tools are usually only removed in case of abuse. There is nothing at all unusual about this case that would warrant making such an exception. Also, the wording "stripped of" is an unnecessarily harsh way of referring to the process. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 01:46, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Over at wikipediareview.com, where half the regulars are people crying in their beer that the "zionists" on Wikipedia are not allowing them to post conspiracy crap about the USS Liberty and innumerable other favorite topics of ~~Indy~~Nazimedia, they are jacking off in tandem to the soundtrack of this arbitration. jayjg has been their bete noire, the biggest roadblock in their way. Until this case they had given up hope of making any progress.
Ripping off jayjg's epaulets and breaking his saber in two in the middle of the parade ground at high noon is an excellent idea that could only have come from the brilliant minds at ArbCom.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 19:17, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This comment is remarkably unhelpful. Cool Hand Luke 02:27, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sure is Godwin's law lol --ScWizard (talk) 19:12, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are quite mistaken. This thread – this discussion – is about the cashiering of jayjg proposed by Lokshin. My reference to Indymedia as "Nazimedia" was merely a curlicue, not once but twice removed from Wikipedia and the topic at hand. I neither ascribed nor imputed any Nazi, or Nazi-like, motivation to Lokshin or any of the participants in this thread.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 18:53, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Godwin's-Law-violating references aside, the remainder of the description of the reaction to this arbitration (particularly this proposed remedy) on WR is probably pretty accurate -- if only, let us hope, in a metaphorical sense. This is based on past observations; for the past year or so there have somehow always been enough things higher on my priority list than actually going there. 6SJ7 (talk) 19:18, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support if the resolution to topic ban Jayjg is passed. Otherwise oppose. I don't get the oppose argument here. Are they saying that if for instance an admin is blocked for vandalism, edit waring and incivility, that that admin should not be desysoped because they haven't misused their admin tools? That seems like a very strange argument to me. I thought the prerequisite for gaining and retaining access to privileged tools was:

1. Having the trust of the community

2. Being an editor in good standing

3. The capacity to help the community resolve disputes

Jayjg at this point has none of these. It's my impression he doesn't have the trust of the community (I may be wrong), if he's getting topic banned then he's not an editor in good standing, and if he is found to have engaged in partisan edit warring, then he doesn't have the capacity to help solve disputes in a fair manner. So why should Jayjg have have such powers? This especially applies to the third one. Admins aren't just users with special tools, I was under the impression that they were supposed to act as community leaders, especially in tough situations like this one. Being a privileged user, and at the same time being under sanctions, seems like a complete contradiction to me frankly. If I'm wrong and Jayjg has the trust of the community and such, then he can regain his adminship at least through a request to the community and work his way up from there. --ScWizard (talk) 13:56, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is an amusing bit of circular reasoning. There's a proposal to topic-ban jayjg (which does not seem to enjoying much support), and this proposal is used as evidence that he is not in good standing, because he would not be in good standing if it were adopted. I've seen much convoluted logic in this case, but this one really takes the cake. NoCal100 (talk) 18:27, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're right. That was faulty reasoning, so let me correct myself. As long as Jayjg is not topic banned, I oppose this measure. --ScWizard (talk) 18:59, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. It is well outside both policy and precedent to remove the tools of a functionary for entirely unrelated actions. Per Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines#Sources of Wikipedia policy, policy change comes from three sources: Documenting actual good practices and seeking consensus that the documentation truly reflects them, proposing a change in practice and seeking consensus for implementation of that change, declarations from Jimbo, the Board of Trustees, or the Developers, and that's it. The Arbitration Committee should follow the policy that has been created by the Wikipedia community. It should not be creating policies of their own. The notion that a functionary can have his/her tools stripped due to a completely a separate content dispute is flawed. These are two different things; it is inappropriate to "punish" someone by removing their tools as it does not address the issue at hand. Topic bans/edit warring restrictions are appropriate, but since CheckUser and Oversight have not come up in this case, there is no reason to bring them up now. Khoi khoi 03:39, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, that's interesting, but I don't see where in policy it says that arbitrators must make decisions that are within policy. The closest is WP:AP#Rules item #1. But the lede for that section says "The Committee will decide cases according to the following guidelines" so it's kind of ambiguous. What you certainly are right about though, is that the arbitration committee isn't the highest authority of wikipedia and the decider of policy, the wikipedia community is. This is the principle I'm going to use to draft an alternative in a bit. --ScWizard (talk) 23:02, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal by scwizard[edit]

10.2) Due to behavior inconsistent with holding a position of high trust, Jayjg (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) status as a functionary will be brought to the community for review. If the community consensus is that he should no longer hold his current position, Jayig will be stripped of his status as a functionary and any and all associated privileged access; namely:

(a) His access to the CheckUser tool and the checkuser-l mailing list;

(b) His access to the Oversight tool and the oversight-l mailing list; and

(c) His access to the functionaries-en mailing list.

Jayjg is thanked for his years of service.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

I'm offering this as an alternative, because I think it's in wikipedia's best interests for the arbitration committee to consult with the community before making unprecedented rulings that are against established practices. --ScWizard (talk) 23:13, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose As this is worded it appears to amount to forcing admin recall which is not a function of arbcom. No where in this workshop has anyone explained where there has been any misuse of said tools. It is a content dispute and arbcom does not settle content disputes.—Sandahl (talk) 01:02, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The arbitration committee doesn't settle content disputes (in terms of selecting the preferred content), but they are given the power to sanction those who are deemed to have acted in appropriately in the context of a content dispute, and nowhere does it say that those sanctions are limited to topic bans.

The precedent that seems to be getting set here, is that functionaries are held to an exceptionally high standard, and if a functionary is deemed to have acted sufficiently inappropriately in a content dispute to be topic banned, then they are no longer fit to hold such a position.

Now of course, setting this precedent would be a change in policy, so what I'm trying to do here is convince the arbitration committee to approve this change in policy with the community before they go ahead and begin such a precedent. Now it is my opinion that a policy stating that "indefinitely topic banned users are not fit to be functionaries" would find widespread community support. --ScWizard (talk) 09:04, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've created WP:Functionary to bring the precedent this case is setting into the realm of proposed policy, so that the community can discuss it and edit it as they will. --ScWizard (talk) 09:36, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Come on. Even if this was a good idea, which it isn't for the same reasons I stated in that morass above, there would never be consensus on an I-P involved editor. It would be a fun week for those who enjoy that kind of thing though.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:46, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal by yournamehere[edit]

Proposed remedies[edit]

Template[edit]

11) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed enforcement[edit]

Template[edit]

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template[edit]

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Analysis of evidence[edit]

Place here items of evidence (with diffs) and detailed analysis

Template[edit]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template[edit]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template[edit]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template[edit]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template[edit]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template[edit]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template[edit]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

General discussion[edit]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Motions and requests by the parties[edit]

Template[edit]

Template[edit]

Template[edit]

Proposed temporary injunctions[edit]

Malcolm Schosha restricted[edit]

Template[edit]

Template[edit]

Template[edit]

Questions to the parties[edit]

Request from Roger Davies for specific evidence[edit]

Another request from Roger Davies[edit]

A way forward[edit]

Better ways forward[edit]

Current status[edit]

Proposed final decision[edit]

Proposals by User:Nickhh[edit]

Proposed principles[edit]

Wikipedia should follow standard English language terminology[edit]

Alternative terminologies should be given due weight[edit]

Selective cherry picking of sources is harmful to Wikipedia content[edit]

Repeatedly pushing minority content into articles is disruptive to the encyclopedia[edit]

”Compromises” cannot override core policy[edit]

Proposed findings of fact[edit]

West Bank or Judea and/or Samaria[edit]

WP:NPOV and disruptive editing[edit]

Proposed remedies[edit]

Amending content in all relevant articles[edit]

Article stability[edit]

Related issues and a permanent solution[edit]

Proposals by User:Ynhockey[edit]

Proposed principles[edit]

Separation of politics and geography[edit]

Centralized but separate discussion[edit]

Proposed findings of fact[edit]

NPOV, not sources[edit]

Correct sources for correct fields[edit]

Proposed remedies[edit]

Removal of terminology (ban)[edit]

Dismissal of sources (warning)[edit]

Proposed enforcement[edit]

Publication[edit]

Proposals by Cla68[edit]

Proposed principles[edit]

Neutral editing (NPOV)[edit]

No personal attacks (NPA)[edit]

Administrator conduct[edit]

Proposed findings of fact[edit]

Jayjg[edit]

Canadian Monkey[edit]

Amoruso[edit]

NoCal100[edit]

Proposals by User:Mackan79[edit]

Proposed principles[edit]

Conduct only[edit]

Follow the policies[edit]

Compliance with content policies[edit]

Hounding[edit]

Consolidate disputes[edit]

Tone during disputes[edit]

Proposed findings of fact[edit]

Locus of dispute[edit]

Issues of user conduct[edit]

Revert warring[edit]

Hounding[edit]

Consensus[edit]

Good faith collaboration[edit]

Proposals by User:OrangeDog[edit]

Proposed remedies[edit]

Centralised, neutral and fresh community discussion[edit]

Proposals by User:Rocksanddirt[edit]

Proposed principles[edit]

The 5 Pillars[edit]

Proposed findings of fact[edit]

Locus of Dispute[edit]

A Battle Ground[edit]

Proposed remedies[edit]

Template[edit]

Template[edit]

Proposed enforcement[edit]