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

Statements from uninvolved editors at case opening

Statement by User:Ynhockey

I have curiously been following the disputes on this topic pretty much since they re-started recently. I decided not to involve myself with it and this is probably why I wasn't listed in the 'involved parties', but this issue is close to me so I felt the need to comment.

Basically, the reasons I did not get involved in the matter in any way was because there was never a serious attempt to discuss the matter. There was no dispute resolution, no request for comment, request for mediation, or anything of the sourt. Not even a note was left at WT:ISRAEL or WT:IPCOLL as a courtesy to the editors who may wish to comment but don't watch articles on small Israeli villages. Basically it seemed like a nationalistically-motivated (and not content-based) squabble that wasn't worthy of any attention at all. One editor did leave the same comment on various talk pages for minor articles, and I think a couple of them generated limited discussions, but there was no attempt of any kind to create a centralized discussion.

Today I discovered this case pending ArbCom approval and it just baffles me why ArbCom should be bothered by such a minor incident. Let's have a centralized discussion first at IPCOLL or something. If ArbCom takes on this case, it will give legitimacy to open ArbCom cases for all sorts of ridiculously minor incidents involving more than 2-3 editors. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 16:22, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Durova

As I noted to the Committee earlier this month in a different context, the real world situation has put additional pressure on this site's Israeli-Palestinian disputes. That makes another arbitration more likely, yet it comes as a surprise to see this particular request. Has there been edit warring, incivility, misuse of sources, or some other actionable conduct issue? I'm not necessarily for or against this proposed case so much as confused by what it is intended to accomplish. Durova^Charge! 18:38, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

To Cool Hand Luke: As noted above, I'm not really for or against this RFAR. It does come as a surprise, though. After posting earlier I learned that it's been many months since Jaakobou was active at the articles under dispute here. So the recent flareup hadn't come up in our mentoring conversations until RFAR was actually filed. Durova^Charge! 19:12, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg

Although I am not mentioned as an involved party I consider myself at least obliquely involved. I have to say that it is quite a stretch to suggest that this is anything other than a content dispute and thus not really appropriate for this forum. Also I have to say that Nishidani comment that the conflict is entirely the fault of "Israeli and Jewish editors" is incredibly inappropriate.

Nishidani, this user's comment happens to be right, in my opinion. I would urge ALL editors here, on BOTH sides, to use more neutral phrasing by referring to other editors perhaps as "Israel-aligned" editors, or Israel-side editors, etc.

Editors in this topical area know that there is no reason to pretend everyone here is NPOV. People here do have various cultural affiliations. so we can refer openly to those affiliations, but still find less loaded and/or more senstive ways to do so. thanks very much. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 17:33, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Statement by tkalisky

Hello. I have a feeling the dispute here is really not in place since both terms are widely used geographically to describe the area. A quick google-scholar or google-book search finds many internationally published academic Geography articles using both "west bank" and "Judea and Samaria". For example, some maps designate the whole area as "west bank" and partition it into "Judea" (the southern part) and "Samaria" (its northern part). I think both terms can be used interchangeably and I really cannot understand the insistence of some editors for removing all mention of the Hebrew/biblical terms. In my opinion the dispute here is a repercussion of the real world political conflict and really not an encyclopedic/academic one.

I also agree with user:Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg that the term "Israeli and Jewish editors" used above is inappropriate and I would ask all editors participating in this discussion to keep it cool. Please remember that we are all working together to write and encyclopedia. Best. Tkalisky (talk) 20:41, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Avruch

Just reading over the argument on some of the talk pages and in my view there is a clear conduct issue here. It may be time to reinforce to the editors involved in this area that the entire category of subjects is under sanction, that Wikipedia is not to be used as a cultural battleground or an extension of geopolitical conflict and that reasonable arguments must be made to back up desired changes.

I think Jewish and Israeli editors (I'm the former but not the latter) sometimes build up a siege mentality that causes us to overreach in combating what can be seen as biased coverage. I can understand that sentiment from both sides of this conflict, but it's no excuse for the utter lack of collegial discussion and reasonable argumentation shown on some of the pages noted above by editors who are ostensibly pro-Israel. I've encountered the same style of participation recently at Talk:Israel Shahak and Talk:2008–2009_Israel–Gaza_conflict. By and large the editors at war with each other appear to feel they can violate the terms of the ARBPIA sanctions with impunity.

It may be that a thread on WP:AE could accomplish this reinforcement, but the threads about ARBPIA sanctions have lately seen minimal administrator participation and outcomes that do not lead to sustained improvement. I think there are two or three editors who could stand for a long-term ban from I/P conflict articles (and from editing in such a way as to further engage in the conflict, even if it isn't on explicitly related articles), and I would endorse any process which is likely to lead to this outcome. Avruch ^T 20:52, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved Deacon of Pndapetzim

I really don't think this is a fight between one set of nationalists and another. Most educated people, even in the largely pro-Israel USA, would regard the term "Judea and Samaria" as non-neutral. The Arbs would do well to send some emails to a good cross-section of international journalists asking them why they don't use the term in preference to West Bank; the answer they should expect is something like "mildly creepy Orwellian obfuscation". I looked over these disputes somewhat last week. In some of the discussions there is skewing of WP:RS and WP:CONSENSUS used to undermine Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Undue_weight, causing some frustration. Can I remind ArbCom that WP:UNDUE is policy, just like WP:3RR and WP:NPA. We should be careful to remember too that the side that makes the most WP:3RR violations and WP:INCIVILITY violations is not necessarily always wrong. I don't know if it's as common as is being made out, but if users are going around inserting "Judea and Samaria" in preference to West Bank in open context they would clearly be violating wikipedia policy. I have no opinion on whether or not they should, but I recommend that if ArbCom were to accept this case they look for any pattern where editors act consistently in concert to insert such terms into the encyclopedia (addressing concerns raised above), and that if they find such patterns they act to stop it. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 20:56, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Statement by mostly uninvolved Olve Utne

It is quite transparent that this is a content dispute, and in my opinion, taking the conflict directly to arbitration is missing that important point. I recommend that the parties in question take a deep breath, put aside all prejudice/prejudgement/fear and find good ways to include all the relevant terminology. The first step is to try to articulate your points without describing your colleagues (on either side) with words like Orwellian, nationalist or more specific religious/ethnic stereotypes. Stating whether (an) editor/s is/are, e.g., Muslim, Jewish, Christian or Jain is not going to bring a solution any closer. Wikipedia is not a war, it is an encyclopaedia. All relevant and significant, terminology in practical use in English by any academically, politically or otherwise involved party — whether you personally agree with those who use it or not — should be reflected. But once again, this is all about contents.... -- Olve Utne (talk) 22:06, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

The first step is to try to articulate your points without describing your colleagues (on either side) with words like Orwellian, nationalist or more specific religious/ethnic stereotypes. Stating whether (an) editor/s is/are, e.g., Muslim, Jewish, Christian or Jain is not going to bring a solution any closer. Wikipedia is not a war, it is an encyclopaedia. All relevant and significant, terminology in practical use in English by any academically, politically or otherwise involved party — whether you personally agree with those who use it or not — should be reflected.

Agree completely. that's probaly why they should hear this.

But once again, this is all about contents....

maybe, but the examples you cited are about conduct. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 14:20, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Tundrabuggy

Although I am not mentioned as an involved party I consider myself involved since I did edit this subject. I too see this as a content dispute. There are many many such disputes within the area, because as Orwell so rightly understood, "He who controls the language, controls the argument." If you give in to the inclination to arbitrate these words, you will have to arbitrate many. This is the epitome of the slippery slope. You will have to arbitrate between "wall" and "fence" - between "war" and "conflict" or "massacre" and "genocide" - between "terrorist" and "freedom fighter" and "militant." In short, unless you want to start arbitrating language in this conflict area, this needs to be worked out within the wider Wikipedia community.

Regarding the basic issue brought up here of Judea and Samaria. It seems to me that there are two principals involved in the I/P conflict, the I and the P. One half of this conflict refers to it in a particular way. By not allowing them to use their particular way you are disenfranchising that (half's) point of view. My understanding is that when Judea and/or Samaria was used, it was always referenced to a RS that used it in that way, and that those editors arguing for its inclusion were not trying to censor the use of "West Bank" but rather to use both terms as appropriate.

I can only think that it has to be "battled" out (using the expression as an analogy not in terms of WP:Battle) among the participants, with outside participation, and working this out might indeed be a good exercise for the IP Collab group. We understand that there will never be a 100% consensus on any of this, but eventually compromises and understandings can be reached. It is way too premature to be looking to impose a solution, if ever. As for the archives, 2008-2009 Israel-Gaza conflict is already at 37 in only 2 months. Still, an article is being written, however bad and however slowly. Tundrabuggy (talk) 05:56, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved Sm8900

I used to edit this topic area a lot more in the past than I have recently, and still do periodically. I am familiar with a number of the editors above. With that said, I'd like to urge the Arbitrators to accept this case. it appears that most editors involved in this have made good-faith statements requesting some neutral third-party intervention. i think that this is precisely what dispute resolution is for. I wasn't going to comment until I looked further down at the arbitrators' staements and realized that there is still some debate as to whether the case will be taken. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 12:36, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Comment by uninvolved FT2

While the naming of pages and terms used is a content issue, I would agree that (to the extent there is disruptive editorship rather than collegial attempts to seek "what is the best term to use in a given context") this is also going to turn out to be a conduct issue. Specifically, stonewalling and gross failure to work collaboratively are problems. At the end of the day the aim of all editors is to actually resolve editorial issues, not just agree they exist.

Standard advice on issues like this from the past, for all parties and users:- Expect that any Arbitration decision will probably include measures to inhibit or act on conduct problems. But also expect that you (and not Arbitrators) ultimately have to find an answer to the naming issue. Other major naming questions of the past include State Roads, and Gdansk. These both came to Arbcom, and ultimately a formal, heavy duty, step by step, consensus exercise was needed to resolve them. There are no shortcuts as the naming issue is a real and significant question.

While waiting to find if the conduct issue is accepted, it would be a good use of time for users on both sides of the dispute to review other such exercises and start considering how such a consensus seeking exercise might be fairly set up for this naming issue, because almost inevitably in a while, that'll be part of the resolution. If you need help, ask. If you want to start sooner, while Arbitration is being considered, that's probably sensible too.

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 18:28, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Comment by User:Arthur Rubin

A minor point, but it may lead to further disputes if ArbCom doesn't deal with it—"West Bank", although the most common term used, is not exactly neutral. It was created by the Palestinians in order to imply it should be joined to the East Bank. Still, repeatedly replacing it with Judea and Samaria is not acceptable conduct. If ArbCom could suggest a better term, it might improve future disputes. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:53, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Comment by User:DuncanHill

West Bank is the normal English-language usage. Judea and Samaria conjures for most people vague memories of Bible-stories in primary School - indeed, I seriously doubt whether most English-speaking people would be able to point to "Judea and Samaria" on a map of the areas in question, while many would be able to indicate the West Bank. Bloody ridiculous. DuncanHill (talk) 15:58, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

• @Jaakobou - "Israelis after 2000 years..."? Israel came into existence in 1948 so comments about "official usage" changing after 2000 years are a bit odd. DuncanHill (talk) 20:09, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Comment by User:Coppertwig

I urge the Committee to avoid taking sides or seeming to take sides in the content dispute, and to restrict the scope of any case to encouraging the community to develop processes for resolving the dispute (e.g. per ChrisO) and to examining user behaviour. It might be better to simply decline the case at this time. Rules governing the use of the terms might require exceptions and nuances, which can be covered better by community handling of the situation than by arbitration decisions. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 01:44, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Statements by parties moved by clerk

Comment regarding 'Israelis used West Bank when under Jordanian Occupation' statement

originally in Jaakobou's section.--Tznkai (talk) 17:24, 1 March 2009 (UTC) The claim that the Jewish residents of the newly found Israeli state supposedly stopped, after 2000 years, calling their historical homeland Judea and Samaria (and Palestina/Eretz Yisrael) and used 'West Bank' as their so-called accepted official name instead seems quite extra-ordinary (read: mind blowing) and needs exceptional sources. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 19:20, 27 February 2009 (UTC) correction per 'DuncanHill' misunderstanding. 20:26, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

See Tom Segev, 1967: Israel, the War, and the Year that Transformed the Middle East, Macmillan, 2007 passim. Numerous quotes of Israeli politicians pre-1967 using that term. Of course, we should await admin decisions before going over all of this again, and on the appropriate page.Nishidani (talk) 21:04, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

A few singular quotes of people using the Jordanian terminology hardly makes a case to an extra-ordinary claim as to how the Israelis described their historical homeland. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 21:16, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually hundreds. It was the way Israeli diplomats spoke to the outside world about that area in that period. I'll supply as many quotes as requested. E.g.'Jordan's rapid exist from the campaign had two important effects. The immediate one was military . .The second was political -the Palestinians on the West Bank had not taken part in the war'. Moshe Dayan, Story of My Life Warner Books, New York 1976 p.446. In Dayan's terms, as an Israeli, it is Judea/Samaria, but speaking to foreigners he, like most politicians and leaders, used the term West Bank. But, as I say, this has been dealt with exhaustively in several threads, and we do best to wait for administrative guidance. Nishidani (talk) 21:52, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

So basically, per "In Dayan's terms, as an Israeli, it is Judea/Samaria", the origianl claim of "This determination was accepted by Israelis themselves" is a clear misrepresentation. Would have been much simpler to just change the initial errorneous statement than to insist the miraculous had occurred.

Warm regards, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 12:39, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

I've bolded to clarify. As Wittgenstein said, the task in problem resolution is to get the fly out of the fly-bottle, not clamp the lid and listen to it buzz for an eternity.Nishidani (talk) 13:43, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Apologies

After having an insult on my section reverted twice, I've responded without a cool head and, had it been possible, would have rephrased myself. Apologies to the community I will make a sincere effort that such an instance would not re-occur.
p.s. I'm still unclear as to why an editor is allowed to disrupt my Arbocm section without having their comments removed. Best I understood, Arbcom clerks are under mandate to remove/deal with such instances.
Warm regards, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 09:15, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I've just moved that entire discussion to this page, you may selectively restore some comments to your main statement if you believe they are relevant. The reason the threaded discussion lasted so long is because I spent most of yesterday away from the keyboard with some MeatSpace problems. No, they are not supposed to edit in your section, and yes, we are supposed to deal with it. Flagging a clerk down via our noticeboard is usually the fastest way to get us to handle something. I do not see the cited civility problem however.--Tznkai (talk) 17:24, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Additional statements

I've moved these statements, the statements on the main case page are archival - reflecting statements made at the time the case was accepted. Please do not add statements to the main case page unless you are adding yourself to the case.--Tznkai (talk) 17:15, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Ravpapa

I have been involved in this dispute only once, in the article, Passover massacre, where there was an argument over how to refer to the town of Tubas, where the perpertrator of the massacre was run to ground. "Tubas, in the West Bank" became "Tubas in Samaria" and back again, at least three or four times, each revert accompanied by choruses of invective on the talk page.

Was this idiotic, or what? The solution was: "Tubas, about 70 kilometers north of Jerusalem."

I believe that in most cases, this dispute can be avoided by providing the precise location of the town or event in question, without using either term. There are thousands of ways to say just about everything in the English language. No need to get all worked up over this word or that - just use another. --Ravpapa (talk) 12:05, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

As one has come to expect from you, this is an obvious yet ingenious solution. It simply sidesteps the WP:RS criteria. However, unless we are thinking as Irishmen and Spike Milligan occasionally do ('4 and a half square kilometres north of Dublin' etc.), it won't hold for areas, as opposed to villages, towns etc.Nishidani (talk) 14:28, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Statement by User:Ynhockey

Firstly, let me say that I find it unfortunate that ArbCom agreed to look at this case. I shudder to think at what the next case will be. Having said that, I will make a statement on the dispute regardless, because the ramifications of this case, depending on how it develops, could be far-reaching indeed.

I believe that there is a serious misconception in this dispute, which all parties have fallen for. Basically, there are three different issues here, which are lumped into one, in order to accuse the 'other side' of POV pushping, etc. The three issues are:

• The political issue: One of the first things that are said about any location on Wikipedia (or any other encyclopedia) is the political entity in which the location is located. For example, "Marjayoun is a city in Lebanon" or something like that. The political area in question is today referred to as Judea and Samaria (sometimes Yesha (Judea, Samaria and Gaza)) in Israel, and West Bank everywhere else. I believe this is a question of due weight, and here West Bank is clearly the term we should be using. This political entity relates to all localities within it, Jewish and Arab, and its boundary is the Green Line.
• The administrative issue: Another thing that's mentioned about every locality in Wikipedia is what administrative district it's located in, e.g. "Arad is the capital of Arad County in Romania". This is a complicated issue in this case, and there are overlapping administrative districts in the West Bank, one Israeli and several belonging to the PNA. The Israeli administrative district is called Judea and Samaria Area/District (note the Area or District) and it is not synonymous with the West Bank. The Judea and Samaria Area is under military administration (which, ironically, is the POV advocated by pro-Palestinians worldwide), and does not include East Jerusalem, the no-man's land near Latrun, and Area A of the PNA (large parts of the northern and southern West Bank, as well as some parts in the center). Israeli localities in the West Bank, except Jerusalem neighborhoods, fall under the Judea and Samaria Area, while Palestinian localities (areas A and B) are administrated by PNA's 11 governorates. There is absolutely no reason not to use the correct administrative district for each locality in the West Bank, or avoid it because of POV concerns.
• The geographical issue: A third and final thing that is said about every locality on Wikipedia, if possible, is the geographical region in which it is located. For example, "Varna is the largest city on the Bulgarian Black Sea coast". Neither West Bank nor Judea and Samaria Area are geographical regions—however, Judea is a geographical region, not limited to the West Bank. In fact, many of Judea's localities are located within the Mateh Yehuda Regional Council, which means "Tribe of Judea Regional Council", and is located within 'Israel proper'. Other geographical regions which the political and administrative entities above partly cover include Samaria, the Jordan Valley, Jerusalem Mountains, and maybe a couple more I missed. Again, there is absolutely no reason not to use these terms where applicable. Palestinian localities are located in these geographical areas as well, and these areas have both Arabic and Hebrew names (the Arabic name for the Judean Mountains is actually Hebron Mountains, Jibal al-Khalil, which means they can be used interchangeably if it offends anyone).

Finally, some editors seem to believe that these terms are all mutually exclusive. This could not be further from the truth. Yes, we shouldn't strive to use two administrative terms for the same locality, for example, but there is absolutely no reason not to include the political, administrative and geographical regions that these places are located in. Doing anything else would be akin to censoring nudity to please religious groups, and other such examples. Sources are not really a problem here at all, because for example every prominent (and thus reliable) Israeli gazetteer includes all three distinctions for each locality. In fact, now that I think about it, in these disputes so far, both parties strove to make Wikipedia read more like a politically-correct pamphlet than something like a gazetteer, which is highly unfortunate. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 12:54, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Discussion

I would like to recommend this analysis as a basis for solving this debate. Best. Tkalisky (talk) 21:17, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I think most editors agree with Ynhockey on point 1 and 2. Point 3, however, is still (so far) unsupported by sources, and editing to it would still violate WP:NCGN, WP:UNDUE and WP:NPOV. There is no outward difference between a "geographical" instance of the disputed terms and a "political", so in practice, basing a solution on this analysis would not actually change anything at all. MeteorMaker (talk) 08:08, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

That makes no sense at all. Are you saying that there is no difference between a geographical and a political entity? I'm afraid I'm not following you. By the way, as I said before, sourcing is not a problem. Just because the mass media takes little interest in the geography of Israel and the territories, does not mean that there are no reliable sources for this. For instance, the Ariel Encyclopedia, likely the most comprehensive and authorative tertiary source for Israeli geography, provides the geographical region for every locality it lists (the problem is that it was published in 1976 and doesn't include most settlements). Ofra is listed in the Jerusalem Mountains, for example. Unfortunately I don't have access at the moment to other geographic books, but there is one modern 15-tome gazetteer which is found in all Israeli libraries and includes every settlement's geographical region as well. Also there are many more books on the geography of Israel and the territories which should have this information. I'm not really sure where the notion that this 'isn't supported by sources' comes from. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 23:01, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

If you have a neutral, reliable source that clearly states that "Judea" and "Samaria" are terms that enjoy widespread acceptance in English (and thus comply with WP:NCGN), they would be a welcome change in the discourse. So far, none at all have been produced, while the opposing position has quite a few. To clarify my point that there is no outward difference between a "geographical" and a "political" instance of the disputed terms, I ask the same question as Nudve below. MeteorMaker (talk) 23:15, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

That's exactly the point I was trying to make—the geographical issue is completely separate from the political issue, and you are wrong by lumping them together as one. A geographical entity usually has absolutely nothing in common with a political entity, and usually both are included in Wikipedia articles. None of the source you or anyone else provided made any comment about the geographical entities within Israel and the West Bank, and are only valid for the political question ("West Bank" vs. "Judea and Samaria"), which I addressed in point #1. In the past, both the geographical and political terms were included in the articles for most settlements, but actually you were the one who removed them without addressing the geographical issue at all. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 23:53, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Could you provide us with a source to justify the, to me, extraordinary assertion that,'A geographical entity usually has absolutely nothing in common with a political entity'? Thanks Nishidani (talk) 18:52, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Moving to left
Are you serious? I can't really say how I feel about this request. This is a completely obvious fact, just like the sky is blue and the sun rises in the east. For example, the Sahara Desert is a geographical entity. The Black Sea is a geographical entity. Mount Everest is another one. There is nothing political about them. If you insist on a source, the New Israeli Guide (מדריך ישראל החדש), a modern 15-time gazetteer, divides Israel and the West Bank (within their combined political boundary) into the following geographical regions: Hermon, Golan, Hula Valley, Upper Galilee, Lower Galilee, Kinarot Valley, Carmel, Plains of Menashe, Jezreel Valley, Samaria, Jordan Valley, Sharon (middle coastal plain), Pleshet (southern coastal plain), Shfela, Judean Mountains, Dead Sea Valley, Northern Negev, Negev Mountain and Arava. Look up any of these political entities in any reliable geographical source, and you will see that many of them are not limited to Israel or the West Bank. For example, according to the Ariel Encyclopedia, the most authorative tertiary source on the geography of the region, lists the Lebanese Galilee (most of southern Lebanon) as part of the Upper Galilee (p. 1364), and the Arava (Arabah) is partly in Israel and partly in Jordan (same with the Jordan Valley and Dead Sea Valley). I can upload a map from the New Israeli Guide on the approximate boundaries of these regions if you still don't see the connection. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 23:45, 5 March 2009 (UTC) P.S. I just noticed that Tkalisky already provided sources and maps for this below. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 23:58, 5 March 2009 (UTC) P.P.S. Another note: It is true that many political and/or administrative boundaries were made with geographical thinking, especially the borders of some European countries and the administrative regions in northern Israel. However, many were not, such as the 49th parallel. The Green Line was one of the borders clearly not made with geographical thinking, and if the article on it doesn't have a source for this and it isn't already clear from the map, I believe it says so in one of the Carta books I have (I'll try to find out if it's important). -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 23:58, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Deadly serious. I don't know whether to address this here or on the other page, but see provisorily below. Your problem is the use of an Israeli gazetteer as a single source. Note in the meantime that you now call geographical regions 'political entities', whereas you distinguish the West Bank as a political area but deny it is a geographical region. Simply because your definition of geographical region comes from the topological analysis in the Israeli gazetteer which blurs the political distinction between Israel and the West Bank. This is, despite the formal simplicity, extremely confusing. Nishidani (talk) 15:12, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I share Nishidani's puzzlement at this supposed firewall between political terminology and geographic terminology. It is precisely the use of the names "Judea" and "Samaria" qua geographic terms that is politicized and controversial. We know this because countless excellent secondary sources say so. This is also why mainstream sources avoid the terms in their neutral voice, and qualify them when they arise in reported speech. Wikipedia follows the lead of the consensus of mainstream sources. There are times when the consensus terminology of mainstream sources is hard to nail down ("terrorist" v. "militant" for example), but this isn't one of them.--G-Dett (talk) 15:26, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not basing this on a single Israeli gazetteer, but rather on a series of gazetteers and other authorative geographical secondary and tertiary sources. It's not my fault that there are not many English-language sources about Israeli geography, and again, I don't expect there to be many Hebrew-language sources on American, British, Australian, etc. geography either. However, some English-language sources on Israeli geography do exist. One of them is called The Middle East by Prof. William Fisher, which has this map to offer. I am strongly against the mixing up of politics and geography, and believe that only someone who either doesn't know or doesn't care about geography would wish to mix them up. I challenge anyone to come up with a single source which discusses the geography of Israel and the West Bank and uses a term different than Samaria for the region of Samaria (Judea is different, as I said a few comments below this one). -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 18:49, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

It's indeed not your fault that there are not many English-language sources about Israeli geography, but a healthy amount of English-language sources is in fact a requirement Wikipedia has for inclusion of geographical terms, particularly terms for areas that already have an accepted name in English. MeteorMaker (talk) 21:14, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I also endorse Ynhockey's analysis. However, It still leaves the question of which term to use in a general context. For example, if an article says: "John Doe lives in the Israeli settlement of Ofra in the..." which term do we write next? -- Nudve (talk) 08:13, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

How about "John Doe lives in the Israeli settlement of Ofra, 25 km north of Jerusalem."--Ravpapa (talk) 14:03, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I would like to recommend this analysis as a basis for solving this debate as well. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 08:42, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Ynhockey's approach, from a preliminary analysis, would make most areas in the West Bank, including many with Arab villages, subject to Israeli administrative topology. But I think this is not the place to argue this, since it requires extensive review. A useful contribution nonetheless.Nishidani (talk) 14:53, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

As far as I know, arab villages (those that are not in the Palestinian National Authority) are governed by a different administrative body (המנהל האזרחי) and do not belong to the "Judea and Samaria district" (מחוז יהודה ושומרון), which governs Israeli settlements only. But again there are overlapping authorities there so this has to be verified. Best. Tkalisky (talk) 21:07, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually Nishidani, no Palestinian villages have are administered by Israel on the civic level, except East Jerusalem if you consider that Palestinian territory. However, since East Jerusalem is also not part of the Judea and Samaria Area, it's not really relevant to this discussion. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 23:48, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I should say first of all that Ynhockey's post has been one of the most fruitful yet. That said, I think there are a few problems here with part (3) of it. MeteorMaker is right to ask, are these widely accepted as standard "geographic terms" in English? The answer, my research thus far seems to suggest, is absolutely not. They were standard geographic terms in English, but use of them falls off precipitously in the second half of the 20th century, for what seem to be obvious reasons. Secondly, I think it's a little bit disingenuous to say that the geographic issue is "completely separate" from the political one. Both Israelis and Palestinians use geographical terms for political purposes. If I'm right that the consensus of reliable sources in English is to avoid these terms, then that is very significant.

Finally, you need to think about the implications of your argument. "Palestine" is also a geographical term; like "Judea" and "Samaria," it seems to be avoided by current geographers writing in English. I'd imagine it enjoys a healthy currency in Arabic, just as Judea and Samaria do in Hebrew. What are you going to say when someone says Tel Aviv should be described as situated "in Palestine," and says look, it's just a geographical term. This is completely separate from the political controversy?--G-Dett (talk) 01:10, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I guess this is a kind of side debate (in terms of where it's taking place, rather than on the basis of its relevance - there are useful points here), but I thought I'd just add to the comments that it's not that easy to disentangle the "political" and the "geographic". Equally if we're going to try to make that distinction, in terms of denoting smaller areas within (or which might overlap) defined political entities, again we come back to the point that the standard, common description in English language sources these days for the "northern West Bank", or the "northern part of the West Bank" is precisely some variation on that theme, not "Samaria". Drilling down further than that, we could also say "2km east of Nablus" or whatever. In answer to Ravpapa's point, I don't see that we can (or even that we should) avoid using "West Bank" when siting Israeli settlements and Palestinian towns - that's the way these things are ordinarily described elsewhere, and fortunately it also happens to provide clarity, not least for example as to which side of the Green Line they stand on (which, of course, neither "Samaria" or "Judea" do, as in some usage, the areas are seen to spread across into Israel). We shouldn't be looking to rewrite or avoid standard descriptions and terminology, even if we might think that there are good reasons for doing so, or because we wish to "compromise" in some way. WP follows, it doesn't lead.

To take an example from my own country - written up slightly clunkily, to make the point - we would say that Dudley is a town in the English Midlands (a literal "geographic" term, but without a precise definition as to its exact area, akin to "northern West Bank"), in England (a wider "political" entity, with clearly defined borders, akin to "West Bank"), part of the Metropolitan Borough of Dudley (the local "administrative" area, eg the relevant PNA governate or Israeli council as appropriate). What we would not say is that we could find the town in Mercia, the archaic name for the region - which is still nonetheless used in some contexts, and which would no doubt be adopted by any local "Saxon nationalist" movement, were such a thing to exist. --Nickhh (talk) 09:31, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Ha ha. "Were such a thing to exist" - how dumb am I? I'll never learn. --Nickhh (talk) 10:03, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Just as a side-node to all this... Can anybody post a map (political or geographical) showing the exact border between Judea and Samaria? Or even any borders thereof?

Cheers and thanks, pedrito - talk - 05.03.2009 09:46

As in many geographical regions, the exact borders differ according to the context. The topographical border between the two geographical units is usually taken to be Wadi Uja [1]. You can find a map with some of the geographical regions here [2][3] or in this map (titled "Major natural regions in the land of Israel"). If you are looking for a map with exact borders between geographical entities, please note that none of these maps give the exact border between the Negev and the Shephelah for example, which I hope you consider legitimate geographical terms for these regions ...

p.s. of course there are other ways these places are called (e.g. "west bank" in the political context). My point here is that both terms are used in different contexts.

Thanks for your interest in the geography of Israel.

Best,

Tkalisky (talk) 22:11, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Comment: Just to clarify something, in the original post, I stated that it would be fine with me to use Hebron Mountains in place of Judean Mountains where applicable, to avoid conflicts. In other parts, I believe the term Jerusalem Mountains would be applicable anyway, so it is not necessary to use the term Judean Mountains (although I would prefer it, for Israeli localities; as I see it it's kind of like using American English for American topics, and British English for UK topics). Samaria is also called Samaria in Arabic though, so I don't really see the problem there. It is even labelled as a geographical region on a CIA map provided somewhere above (I think). -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 00:06, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure there is, or has ever been, any dispute about noting places which are in the West Bank as also being in the "Jordan Valley", the "Mount Hebron area" etc, ie noting them as also being located in smaller, more specific areas within the West Bank that nonetheless have fuzzy borders, where those terms are understood as being standard descriptions in English, if perhaps somewhat obscure to the average reader. This is no different from saying that a town or site in Britain is in the Cotswolds, or the West Country; or that somewhere in the US is in the Rocky Mountains, the Appalachians or the Midwest. Indeed some secondary detail of this sort might be welcome in some articles. What is at issue of course is the use of terminology - ie Judea and/or Samaria - which is contentious, politically loaded and rarely used in most contexts or sources, and virtually never used outside Israel. Nothing in the thread above, or indeed any discussion to date, has explained why WP should use language which overrides standard terminology used elsewhere. If by "Samaria" we simply mean the "northern West Bank", then let's just use the latter term like everyone else does. Equally, as a secondary point, if we're going to argue (as one of the two random and to be honest pretty obscure maps cited above seems to) that in fact we might mean some vague area stretching all the way into Israel, then we're surely being confused as well as POV in our proposed terminology.--Nickhh (talk) 01:02, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

The problem here, as I see it, is that the international sources provided in all of the previous discussions which supposedly don't use 'Judea and Samaria' also don't relate to the geographical issue (point #3) at all, so I don't think it's fair to discount certain geographical terms because of a completely different/unrelated issue. I agree that we should use less loaded terms if possible, and this is why I suggested using Hebron/Jerusalem Mountains in place of Judean Mountains for localities there (even though, as any reader will clearly see from the linked article, it talks about geography only). However, the term Samaria is universal, and this is even the name in Arabic (it's usually not used in Arabic for political reasons). There are thousands of Bible and religion-related sources talking about Samaria as a geographical area, and fewer sources about modern geography, but at the same time there are also very few English-language sources discussing the Sharon plain, the Shfela (in a modern context), the Kinarot Valley (almost non-existent), etc. In other words, there just aren't many English-language sources on Israeli geography, and that's fine. I wouldn't expect anyone to cite Israeli sources on British or American geography, and don't expect the opposite to be true either.

About Samaria's borders: I agree that they roughly correspond to the north-western West Bank, but this is not precise and 'north-western West Bank' is by no means a geographical region anyway. The Ariel Encyclopedia defines Samaria as the land between Judea in the south, Jezreel Valley in the north, the Sharon Plain in the west, and the Jordan Valley in the east. The borders seem to be mostly topographical, but there are a few localities outside the West Bank which are in Samaria, notably Umm al-Qutuf. This information doesn't even have to be in the lead section though. I think only the political and administrative regions must be stated in the lead. However, there is no reason to withhold geographical information elsewhere in the article. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 01:27, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Well I would suggest that some terms and phrases crop up infrequently in English language sources because the areas they are describing are not commonly referred to, while others crop up infrequently because there are other, more standard terms for the areas they are talking about. That's a key difference which is kind of being glossed over. We know that in some variations, Samaria refers or relates to a wider area and/or to a biblical kingdom; but equally it is usually used (on the occasions when it is used at all) as shorthand for "northern West Bank", see here and here And we know that in something like a ratio of 100:1, mainstream English language sources use the latter phrasing on the many occasions when they wish to point to something as being in the top half of the West Bank. Now the following won't wash for WP evidential purposes, but out here when I see the phrase "Samaria" and/or "Judea" being used in a modern context in respect of the West Bank, it's exactly the same as when I see either "Ulster", or alternatively, "the six counties" being used as alternatives to Northern Ireland. Regardless of the rights or wrongs of the political viewpoint being represented in each case, that is precisely what is going on - it's very loaded language, being employed to make a political point. And WP should be avoiding its unqualified use in the substantive narrative, outside of a discussion about that language. --Nickhh (talk) 11:11, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi Ynhockey, I'm still a little unclear about what you mean by geographic usage. If you're talking about a body of fairly specialized literature in which words like Samaria and Judea still have currency, that's one thing. But if you're speaking of "geography" in the loose and idiomatic sense, just sorta where things are on a map, then you're quite wrong to say "the geographical issue is completely separate from the political issue." They are absolutely not separate. These geographic terms have become highly politicized; that's the political issue.

So I can get a better sense of your use of the term, can you tell me in which of the following sentences is "Samaria," to your mind, a standard, uncontroversial geographic term to which the "political issue" doesn't apply?

1. Nablus a Palestinian city situated in Samaria, approximately 63 kilometers (39 mi) north of Jerusalem, with a population of 134,000.
   
2. Samaria, then, is a zone of folds interrupted by cross-faulting and differential earth movements producing tectonic basins: what on a larger scale in Asia Minor would be called ovas.
   
3. In 2005 Israeli unilaterally withdrew from settlements in Samaria.
4. Elon Moreh is an Israeli settlement located in the Samarian Hills of the West Bank northeast of Shechem/Nablus on the slopes of Mount Kabir ridge.

I look forward to hearing your thoughts. In your initial tripartite division of the issue (which I applauded in the main), you seemed to be saying that the "political issue" was wholly confined to the use of these terms to designate "political entities." I want to be very clear about this: that's wrong. It is the use of these terms as "geographic terms" (in the loose sense, at least) that is politicized, according to the secondary sources, and this is why the operative consensus of the overwhelming majority of mainstream international sources is to avoid these terms in the neutral voice, and "explain" them when they appear in direct or indirect quotation. Now, if it's the case that academic geographers continue to use these terms in the scholarly literature, then Wikipedia should follow that lead in matters of specialist interest. The operative principle is always the same: Wikipedia follows; it doesn't lead. If most mainstream RSs for the most part don't say Elon Moreh is in Samaria (at least without then qualifying that by saying it's a "biblical name" and/or that it's preferred by ultranationalists and the settlers themselves), then we shouldn't either.--G-Dett (talk) 13:11, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi G-Dett! You can actually know what I think of the four sentences by reading my previous comments on this page, but I will answer you specifially as well. Of the four options, I would fully support only the wording of the second one. The first one is technically also fine, but as I said to Nickhh, the separation between geography and politics should be clear. People expect the political/administrative entity to come up first and might wrongly assume that in this sentence, 'Samaria' refers to the political term 'Judea and Samaria', so it should be separated. The third sentence is not good for a similar reason (mixes politics with geography), and the fourth is no good because the Samarian Hills aren't 'of the West Bank', as I told Nickhh above, so it can be reworded to: "Elon Moreh is located in the (northern) West Bank, northeast of Nablus, on the Samarian Hills and the slopes of the Kabir Ridge." Alternatively, the part about the geography can be moved out of the lead to avoid confusion to readers who know/care little about geography. Again, this is no reason to withhold the information from those who do want it. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 19:03, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for this clear, considered, and nuanced reply, Ynhockey. I am going to mull it over. My initial response is that if you were appointed Terminology Czar in Charge of all References to Samaria on Wikipedia, the result would be pretty decent and common-sensical, certainly nothing I'd take issue with in a published text. Whether it's right for Wikipedia....I want to look further into the use of these terms as neutral, standard geographical terms in English, before I commit myself. I should say, I'm not convinced by what you say about this in a post further up: It's not my fault that there are not many English-language sources about Israeli geography, and again, I don't expect there to be many Hebrew-language sources on American, British, Australian, etc. geography either. English is a world language, and the dominant language for scholarship, research, etc.; the comparison with Hebrew is way off in this regard. I'd be very surprised indeed if there isn't a sizable literature on Israeli geography written in English and coming from international universities and institutions. If a sizable literature does exist, and if the bulk of it avoids the disputed terms, then that certainly bears on this discussion. If not, not.:) I'm also concerned that a resolution based on this will be very open to gaming, but that's not your problem, and it's a matter for another day.--G-Dett (talk) 19:25, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

As often, conceptual fuzziness arises from a lack of clarity in the use of words. A landlocked territory whose neighbouring borders (Israel to the west, north and south) and Jordan to the east are stable, fixed and recognized under interrnational law, constitutes a geographical as much as a ‘political’ entity. You are using the word geography solely in its geophysical sense. However that is highly restrictive. The full O.E.D. definition of ‘geography’ runs,

1.a. ‘The science which has as its object the description of the earth’s surface, treating of its form and physical features, its natural and political divisions, the climate, productions, population, etc. of the various countries. It is frequently divided into mathematical, physical and political geography’ O.E.D Vol.VI p.459 col.3

.

Political geography is defined as:-

'that part of geography which deals with the boundaries, divisions, and possessions of states’ ( Vol.XII p.33 column 1)

The last definition also covers the politically undefined areas like the West Bank, though it is not a state, since standards works on the area do refer to ‘the political geography of the West Bank’ now, (Arun P. Elhance, Hydropolitics in the Third World: Conflict and Cooperation in International River Basins, US Institute of Peace Press, 1999, p.104), or when it was a region of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan (Mary Christina Wilson, King Abdullah, Britain and the Making of Jordan, Cambridge University Press, 1990 p.193)

In Wikipedia articles, as so far drafted, and the accompanying maps, there is no doubt that the West Bank is defined as a territory with defined borders, and thus a distinct geographical entity Any two nations will have, on their borders, a geological and geographical continuity with neighbouring countries denied by the random boundaries and borders of history. The fact that cross-border geographical continuities exist does not invalidate the universal practice of describing a political entity, like a state or territory, in its geographical aspect. Austria’s Tyrol and Italy’s Trentino Alto-Adige are geomorphologically of the same typology, but they constitute politically two separate entities. The existence of borders is political, but not for that reason do these exclude defining the area in 'geographical' terms.

Both these points are present in the two articles on The West Bank and the Palestinian territories. Alto Adige is a geographical reality in the larger sense, just as the West Bank is. The former is also a political unit, which the latter isn't.

The borders with Jordan were fixed under the 1994 Israel–Jordan peace treaty. Look at just two wiki articles:-

'The West Bank . . is a landlocked territory on the west bank of the River Jordan in the Middle East. To the west, north, and south the West Bank shares borders with the state of Israel. To the east, across the Jordan River, lies the country of Jordan.'

'The Palestinian territories are composed of two discontiguous regions, the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, whose final status has yet to be determined.'

The last named article has the header:‘The article deals with the Palestinian territories as a geopolitical phenomenon’.

Your distinction makes the West Bank into a political phenomenon only, and, consequently, implies that the mass of WP:RS material designating the neutral term for the area as ‘West Bank’ is in fact a ‘political’ definition rather than a geopolitical and geographical one. The neutrality of the term is thereby ‘neutralized’ by politicizing it. Yet its political status is, to the contrary, precisel1y what is an ‘incognito’, whereas all maps and literature define it as a territorial unit with fixed geographical borders. As I will show, 'West Bank' is a geographical entity rather than a political entity, and your first postulate inverts this. There are understandable reasons for this. But I am not sure whether it is appropriate to expatiate here or on the other page to clarify this further.Nishidani (talk) 15:12, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Nishidani, you are again mixing politics with geography, and introducing another solution looking for a problem. It's true that sometimes geography is used to describe political borders (as you said yourself, political geography), but I've made it clear in this entire thread that when I say geography, I mean the properties of the land, not human geography. If this wasn't clear enough previously, I'm repeating it now. There are some geopolitical entities other than the West Bank which could be relevant to the political issue, for example the Etzion Bloc or the loosely-defined Ariel Bloc, but it's not relevant to the geographical issue at all, which I discussed at-length above. I ask you this: are you saying that we should purposely censor geographic information from the reader, e.g. what mountain range a locality is in, in order to avoid offending someone? You tell me. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 19:20, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

No: you used terms that are fluid in one of the several senses, and this is part of the problem with using 'Judea and Samaria'. It has two distinct meanings, and Israeli editors appear to use it in one sense or another according to convenience. (b) In saying 'It's not my fault that there are not many English-language sources about Israeli geography,' you ask to be reminded that this is not an argument about Israeli geography, and though you did place inverted commas around 'Israel', this phrasing lets the cat out of the bag, or exposes the Achilles heel of your otherwise innovative approach. This is an argument about the appropriate words to use to designate an area that is not a part of Israel, but which Israel desires to acquire in good part as an extension of its legal state borders. That an Israeli gazetteer's usage privileges Hebrew terminology is self-evident, even with regard to the geographical (in the restricted sense) lay of the land. 'Geographical' descriptions reflect land-use, which is a human institution, and the Arab land-use, being distinct from Israeli land use, will read the landscape differently. Land reclamation by Israel has profoundly altered the geophysical landscape, so your 'geography' thesis as distinct from the 'political' is deeply flawed. Geography in nthe sense you use it does not deal with the objective state of an eternal topology, but a describes a static space subject to deep historical, climatic changes that in turn reflect economic and political choices. It is the latter which, in Israel's gazetteers, then end up being cited as the 'objective' lay of the land. Further, the use of such a national source as the definitive source creates NPOV problems, and invites the counter-use of Arabic-language gazetteers with their historical or contemporary usage. My solution is not complex. It is simply to use given reliable sources, giving weight to their consensus, in describing a geopolitically conflicted area. That said, I repeat, I welcome the debate you have introduced.Nishidani (talk) 12:21, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Comment by User:Cerejota

The core issue in this case, and in WP:ARBPIA in general, is not content issues but behavior. In fact, I think that when editors' behavior is tightly controlled and sanctioned, many of these articles develop a better editing environment, in which slow but sure progress is made.

When ruling in this case, I urge arbitrators to expand WP:ARBPIA, and make systemic solutions - not to concentrate on a limited set of editors and articles, but on the whole WP:ARBPIA.

ArbCom should look at several issues that affect behavior, and rule on them. I will be propossing remedies, but in brief there are six key points:

1) WP:POINT/WP:GAME - the entire set is full of editors who say contradictory things in different forums, who have no consistency of argument, and who have WP:SYNTH that they push well beyond WP:DEADHORSE limits. I think that a method to sanction repetitive, circular, and inconsistent arguments should be imposed. And before we get on which side it is, it is all of them.

2) Meatpuppetry and wikistalking - Everyone accuses everyone of this. We need a more clear criteria, and more effective admin intervention. So either real instances stop, or false accusations stop. There is a disingeniousness that borders in the disruptive around this issue, and it is time it is faced head-on.

3) Constant accusations of policy violations without pursuing dispute resolution, and heavy critcism of editors who do seek dispute resolution. This has become entrenched. There should be a more clear statement on the part of ArbCom that pursuing even misguided DR shouldn't allow people to abuse editors, and that making accusations without pursuing DR is sanctionable, blockable/bannable behavior.

4) 3RR and edit warring - WP:ARBPIA should be set in 1RR. Not buts or ifs. This will concievably create a sockpuppet/meatpuppet problem, but it will be an obvious one that would weed out the bad apples on all sides. There are many of us very willing to have coherent discussions based on sources, but this work is interrupted by edit warring, excessice and imprudent boldness, and WP:POINT edits. 1RR is a step forward.

5) External influence - The CAMERA fiasco demonstrated that even editors in good standing engage in meatpuppetry. The ArbCom should remain vigilant for this, as no dount it is still happening, albeit using better discipline.

6) Permatagging and over-quick removal of tags - Articles that are deemed by one side or the other as "inherently POV" by force of their mere existence are permanently tagged with {{POV}} and related tags, without any specific consensus options being given. This form of hijacking articles is a lazy form of discussion and editing, and is WP:POINT. ArbCom should ban tagging of articles in which no specific content issue is raised: if a topic survives AfD, it stays. Likewise, articles with clear content issues have their tags removed without any discussion. At a minimum, a tag should not be removed until it has been in place for at least five days, and there is rough consensus for removal.

Comment by User:Number 57

I haven't been involved in this issue aside from a few edits to NPOV articles which use terms controversially. Each of the relevant terms is legitimate, but only in certain circumstances, as detailed below:

• West Bank should be used to refer to the area in question as a whole, e.g. as the location of the cities/settlements in it.
• Judea and Samaria should only be used when referring to the specific Israeli administrative district - e.g. Har Hebron Regional Council is a regional council in the Judea and Samaria administrative district. It should not be used as an alternative to West Bank, as its usage as such is effectively suggesting that the territory is a legitimate part of Israel (just as Malvinas should not be used for the Falklands, and whatever the Moroccan term for Western Sahara is).
• Samaria I have no problem with this being used as a description of the northern West Bank - it's quite legitimite to say that Nablus is in central Samaria. Unlike J&S, it is not an Israeli imposed term, and was around a long time before the conflict began.
• Judea I would usually refer to places being in the Judean desert, which again is not an imposed term.

пﮟოьεԻ 57 09:35, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Number 57, I admire your succinctness. I understand why you personally conclude that it's legitimate to say Nablus is in Samaria, because the individual term has a historical pedigree and was not imposed by the state. If you were an author and I were reading your book and you said this in a prefatory "note on terminology," I'd think to myself, fair enough, well said. But you are a Wikipedian. Do mainstream RSs writing in English use "Samaria" this way? It seems to me quite clear that they do not. And many excellent secondary sources describe the use of the terms "Judea" and "Samaria" – both individually and in the joint term "Judea and Samaria" – as ideologically loaded. Isn't it the case that in terminological matters such as this, we are not to come up with our rationales for what's fair (eg "Samaria" wasn't state-imposed, so it's OK) but rather simply to follow the consensus example of the reliable sources?

"Palestine" also has a long pedigree and wasn't imposed by the PLO, but we don't say Tel Aviv is in Palestine. The political valences of geographic terminology in the holy land have, ahem, been shaken up a little in the last 60 years. This shakeup has resulted in a new terminological consensus. Given that that terminological consensus is pretty darn solid and stable, it doesn't seem to be our role to evaluate it according to varying notions of fairness; we follow rather than lead in these matters.--G-Dett (talk) 16:01, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but Palestine is a loaded term, as it more often used to refer to the future state of the Palestinians than the old meaning of the region. In contrast, I see no reason why Samaria is considered to be loaded term if not used in conjunction with Judea (italics showing my emphasis). пﮟოьεԻ 57 23:36, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

The reason to see Samaria as a loaded term in your capacity as a Wikipedian is that reliable secondary sources identify it as such, and reliable primary sources avoid it or qualify it as such. Your reason for disagreeing with this mainstream consensus in your personal capacity as a thinking individual may be sound, internally consistent, etc., but that is by the by. I personally think "Palestine" is not a loaded term at all for the West Bank, Gaza, and East Jerusalem collectively, and in my personal capacity I refer to it consistently as such. In my role as a Wikipedian, however, I'm bound to use, accept, and even endorse consensus terminology, even if I find the grounds for that consensus to be logically flawed. Same goes for you, and any other Wikipedian. This really is a very simple matter.--G-Dett (talk) 15:50, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Because the Arab/Palestinian population dropped using the corresponding 'As-Samara' precisely after Israel occupied the area. It became an 'historic' term for the Palestinians when the Israelis tried to dust off 'Samaria' from its biblical desuetude in order to describe land they then started to colonize. As sources show abundantly, such words are used appropriatively, to seed territorial rights via unilateral changes in the linguistic currency, which here deflates the counter coin of Palestinian terminology. Nishidani (talk) 12:29, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

So, it was a current term for Arabs right up until 1967, and then right when Israel captured the territories, it became "historic" and "biblical", overnight? This is ridiculous. What you are suggesting is, exactly as Ynhockey claimed, that we avoid using an accurate geographical term because the political POV of one side is opposed to it. NoCal100 (talk) 14:31, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

No, what Nishidani is suggesting is that we avoid a term that reliable mainstream primary sources avoid, and reliable mainstream secondary sources identify as politically loaded.--G-Dett (talk) 15:50, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Official Israeli usage before 1967 referred to the area as the 'West Bank', as international usage generally did after 1949 when the Hashemite Kingdom began speaking of Cisjordan as aḍ-Ḍiffä l-Ġarbīyä. The corresponding Israeli term HaGadah HaMa'aravit was a calque on the Jordanian term. In the months from June 1967 to December 1967, the first term Israel employed was ha-shetahim ha-kevushim, the 'Occupied Territories', until a decree was made on December 17th., never actually honoured in official documents at that period to any extent, that the 'West Bank' or 'Occupied territories' were to be called 'Judea and Samaria'. These terms only came into official currency after the victory of Likud in 1977, so much so that at Camp David, in 1979, Begin and Carter wrangled over the words, until an exchange of notes was made whereby Begin's 'Judea and Samaria' was admitted to refer to 'the West Bank'. In the meantime, the occupied Palestinians resented the fact that their homeland area as-Samara was being Hebraized or Judaized, and dropped the term. Two further things: no one has shown that the territory that Arabic gazetteers or local Palestinian usage referred to as as-Samara is commensurate with what Israelis understood by 'Shomron/Samaria', esp. since, in Biblical usage, Samaria was as much a Samaritan country, as it was a Jewish country (neither group recognized the other), and the biblical Samaria extended to the sea, and the Plain of Sharon, which the present Israeli usage implies in so far as it resurrects the Biblical term, but at the same time denies, since it restricts its modern meaning to the northern sector of the West Bank. In other words, 'Shomron' in contemporary Hebrew denotes part of a territory defined after 1949 by an Israeli-Jordanian ceasefire, the northern West Bank. All of these complications we have to deal with do not exist in standard English usage, they arise from attempts to thrust into wikipedia Israeli national usage. Secondly, Palestinian usage is invisible here. We are discussing Israeli usage versus international usage in English, and that we do so wholly excluding the third party, the Palestinians, who have their own topological and administrative nomenclature, is a sign of how weird all of this is. NPOV would require that we strictly limit ourselves to a neutral voice, which exists, standard English geopolitical terminology. Instead we have a debate mediating between a national nomenclature and an international nomenclature, while the other 'nation' to the dispute, the Palestinian nomenclature, is invisible. Procedurally, this is a fundamental formal vice that raises serious questions as to the propriety of the way the issue is being addressed.Nishidani (talk) 17:32, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

You raise an absolutely essential point here, Nishidani. I think those arguing for the naturalization of Israeli national usage in English Wikipedia do not fully appreciate the implications of their argument. If Israeli national usage becomes a legitimate "alternate" terminology for Wikipedia's neutral voice – to be used side-by-side with the standard accepted English terms – then the same will hold for Palestinian national usage, for the preferred terminology of Palestinians. And believe me, "West Bank" it ain't.--G-Dett (talk) 18:09, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I concur that, bar one or two, many of our colleagues supporting the Judea and Samaria, do so for cultural reasons, and not out of what some onlookers might think of as bad faith. They may well think we are in bad faith for not accepting what to them seems obvious. Allow me to quote a passage that comes to mind, which I read some time ago, while running the risk of sounding condescending:-

'There is another interesting situation in Israel. There, the geography of the country has always been taught in schools as the geography of the ‘Land of Israel.’(The Land of Israel, as distinct from the State of Israel, equates with the borders of British Mandate Palestine, i.e. Israel and the West Bank) . .The constant shifting of boundary lines since 1948 has greatly confused the Israeli public’s understanding of what constitutes the real borders of the state, if not the ultimate ones (Bar-Gal 1979; 1991). Whereas the norm for many Israelis who entered their formative years in the 1950s and 1960s includes the Green Line and the partition of the Land of Israel between Arabs and Jews, many younger and older people fail to make this distinction. For many, the borders of the Land of Israel form the normative boundaries of the country.’ Clive H.Schofield, Global Boundaries, Routledge, 1994 p.25

With our colleague Ynhockey, the problem is different. He has a very sophisticated and close command of Israeli sources, and thinks critically. However, in assessing his position, particularly about the reliability of Israeli gazetteers, I would suggest that all take some time to read Meron Benvenisti's beautiful if profoundly melancholic, Sacred Landscape:The Buried History of the Holy Land since 1948, tr. Maxine Kaufman-Lacusta, University of California Press, 2000, esp.chapter one (pp.11-54) on the hebraization of the landscape by government dictate. It shows, in particular, that naming and renaming involved a political decision to totally obliterate the traditional Arabic terms all over the landscape, and conjure up an Hebraic, biblical sounding toponymic world in order to deny 'proprietorial rights' to Palestinians (Ben Gurion's words, if I recall). He shows, further, that the origin of the Israeli gazetteers in which our friend places so much trust, was anchored in, or dictated by, political interests throughout. Well, that is done, and history is history. What is not yet history is the naming convention battle between Israel as belligerent occupying and settling power in the West Bank, and the Palestinians. The exact same process, techniques and politics of naming, the use of appropriative toponyms, is under way there by the colonizing power. It is precisely for these reasons that I am extremely wary of dragging wiki articles into a geopolitical struggle between Israeli and Palestinian naming. The only neutral way out of what otherwise promises to be a reprise of conflict is to cleave to the standard English and international conventions for the area and its geography, with, naturally enough, adjustments made so that Israeli settlements north or south are given their appropriate Israeli administrative contexts.Nishidani (talk) 22:13, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

As to your second point. There are large numbers of Palestinians who strongly dislike the term 'West Bank', since it reminds them of Jordanian power and its abuses (Jordan diverted all the international, foreign funds allocated for industrial development of the West Bank into road building in Jordan, and, as Israel does today, destroyed the export potential of Palestinian areas in order to create a passive importer economy). The 'West Bank' has no historical sense for them. For Palestinians it is 'Filastin'. So it really is neutral as regards Palestinian and Israeli usage.Nishidani (talk) 22:18, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Motion to amend prior case: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/West Bank - Judea and Samaria

Arbitrator views and discussion

• See this discussion for background. There's an ambiguity in the decision resulting from the wrong term accidentally being used. The definition of the scope was intented to extend to all articles related to the conflict, or edits related to the conflict made to any other article (cf. the definition of what the biographies of living persons policy applies to). --bainer (talk) 23:49, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Motions

There are currently fourteen active arbitrators (excluding one recused), so eight votes are a majority.

1) In remedy 1.1 ("Area of conflict") of the West Bank - Judea and Samaria case, "... the Palestine/Israel dispute ..." is replaced with "... the Arab-Israeli conflict ...".

Support:

1. bainer (talk) 01:53, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
2. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 02:20, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
3. --Vassyana (talk) 03:01, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
4. Carcharoth (talk) 22:38, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
5. Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 05:05, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
6. That was my reading, and clearly the intent. — Coren ^(talk) 13:07, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
7. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:52, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

1. Recused. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:41, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Motion enacted - Tiptoety ^talk 23:10, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

---

Request for clarification: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/West Bank - Judea and Samaria

Statement by SlimVirgin

I have a question about the use of checkuser in relation to Israel-Palestine articles. We've had several ArbCom cases triggered by these articles, the latest of which was settled a month ago with several topic bans. There was talk about how these could be enforced, and whether checkuser could be used more liberally than normal, but nothing came of it, so far as I know.

I'm therefore submitting this to ask that the ArbCom authorize checkusers to use the tool more liberally when it comes to these articles, and not to require a specific suspicion regarding who might be behind the checked accounts.

We have a number of accounts hanging around— some new, some set up before the ArbCom case but not used much—who are arriving to thwart normal editing in various ways. One of them, User:Hadashot Livkarim (talk · contribs), was recently found to belong to NoCal100 (talk · contribs), who had been topic-banned during the recent case. Under the current rules, it is difficult to get a CU done unless we already think we know who the account belongs to. I have just requested a CU on LuvGoldStar (talk · contribs), an obvious sock or meatpuppet, and was told by a clerk that it would violate the "no-fishing" rule: see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/LuvGoldStar. But I have no idea who's behind it, and it really doesn't matter. If we can't act against an account like that, then we're basically powerless to stop the kind of highly partisan editing the latest ArbCom case acted against. Editors on the I/P pages shouldn't be expected to spend hours or days analysing edits to come up with a suspicion to justify a CU, when it's obvious at a glance that the account isn't a legitimate one.

Two things would help enormously: (1) if checkusers could be told the normal "no fishing" policy is eased when it comes to I/P articles, and (2) if admins could be reminded that checkuser and other evidence isn't always necessary: that if a new account, or an account with very few edits, is acting in a highly partisan manner on the I/P pages, admins may consider blocking it under the reasonable suspicion that it's a topic-banned editor returned, or an account acting as a meatpuppet. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 00:21, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Response to Vassyana

Vassyana, thank you for your response. Speaking for myself, I can only say that this is a distress signal (and I speak only of the I/P pages, though I suspect this also applies to the other nationalist disputes Chris has mentioned). Since the I/P (Samaria/Judea) case closed, we have watched as apparent sockpuppets spring up here and there—usually not new accounts, but old ones not used that often— and there's nothing we can do about it. They may be connected to banned editors, they may not be, but we're not allowed to find out by requesting a CU, unless we have a reasonable suspicion as to who is behind the account, which usually we don't. It's worth mentioning that, so far, the accounts in question are all pro-Israeli (or what they think is pro-Israeli).

It goes beyond simple POV pushing, which you have to expect, because everyone has a POV, and everyone thinks they're right to some extent. I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about single-minded people who only ever edit from one strong and narrow POV, who would never dream of doing anything else, and who show no respect for NPOV at all. They are here as advocates for Israel.

What I'm asking is that the ArbCom work with the regular editors on this issue, and help get rid of the drive-bys and the socks. Two things would help:

• First, lifting the "no fishing" rule just a little, not to the point where the Foundation would need to be involved necessarily. I'm talking only about relaxing "no fishing" so that we don't have to guess who's operating the account before we can request one, not doing totally random checks. We would still need to show that the account had behaved suspiciously.

• Secondly, advice to admins to be more aggressive in topic-banning accounts with very few edits who conveniently turn up to revert or add support for a position. A statement such as, "The Committee hereby invites administrators to pay special attention to new accounts, or old accounts with few recent contributions, who arrive to focus on specific positions at the Israel-Palestine pages, and to have no hesitation in topic-banning them." That one sentence would make a huge difference.

The IP articles are in a mess. Specifically, material offering the Palestinian perspective is not being fairly represented. It is left out entirely, or it is added in a mealy-mouthed fashion so that the sense of it gets lost. I say this as someone who is not known as a pro-Palestinian editor—far from it, so I'm not simply trying to make things easier for "my POV." I'm genuinely interested in finding a way to enforce the real meaning of NPOV, which is the representation of all majority and significant-minority POVs in reliable sources (preferably historians in this area), even the POVs that make certain editors uncomfortable. NPOV does not mean that everything on Wikipedia must be acceptable to right-wing Israelis. I'm sorry if that's an inappropriate way to put it, but it's the bottom line. There are a small number of editors on the I/P articles who just want to be allowed to write articles, using scholarly sources, in whatever direction those sources take us. But we need help from the ArbCom. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 00:39, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Statement by IronDuke

I don't see this as being particularly useful, aside from it violating WP:AGF andWP:BITE. You will, at best, generate a more sophisticated generation of socks. Why not use the ARBPIA sanction process already in place? Indeed, I wonder why it wasn't used on the editors involved in the Judea Samaria case -- much needless waste of talent on both sides would have been avoided, as well as the apparently very great temptation to sock. IronDuke 02:03, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Statement by ChrisO

I'm interested in this proposal primarily because of its applicability to two cases in which I was involved, in which sock- or meatpuppetry was a significant issue - Scientology and Macedonia. Sockpuppetry was one of the main issues in the Scientology case and led directly to the IP ban of editors from Church of Scientology networks. In the Macedonia case, there was clear evidence of editors seeking to recruit meatpuppets off-wiki. In both cases, a number of long-term partisan editors were topic-banned or given lengthy blocks. There is a high likelihood of further sockpuppeting in both cases. SlimVirgin's proposal would be a useful way of dealing with this eventuality. -- ChrisO (talk) 11:35, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Comment by Thatcher

Checkuser may be used to investigate and prevent disruption, broadly construed. The response that  CheckUser is not for fishing is not part of checkuser policy, rather, it is a filter, used at WP:RFCU to discourage particular kinds of user-requested checks ("User:Smith is bugging me and I want to know if he is a sock of someone" kind of thing). It is also often the case that checkuser will not result in a clear finding without a suspect in mind, particularly with certain dynamic ISPs. With a suspect we can sometimes at least say "possible--same ISP, same geographic area" and let other admins review the contributions. "Fishing" cases are sometimes accepted, and may also be self-initiated, as long as the element of "investigate and prevent disruption" is satisfied. Where I would become concerned is where a checkuser is also a partisan editor on the topic or article in question; "involved" checkusers should seek a second hand to carry out checkuser investigations just as involved admins should seek assistance in carrying out administrative tasks. Barring "involvement", there is no reason that checkusers can not be more aggressive in patrolling disputed articles and topics, especially when subject to Arbitration remedies, provided the purpose is to investigate and prevent disruption. Thatcher 02:42, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Comment by MastCell

As a tangential notice, I've closed Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/LuvGoldStar by indefinitely blocking LuvGoldStar (talk · contribs) on the basis of behavioral evidence that I consider compelling. I don't have anything of substance to add to the comments above, though I would welcome further brainstorming on how best to deal with problem editing on the topics in question, as well as any guidance for administrators who patrol the area. MastCell ^Talk 20:23, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Comment by Nathan

One thing to keep in mind is that a CU on this account had already been performed prior to the filing of the SPI case. As the clerk who declined the RFCU request, the no-fishing problem wasn't the main issue - without comparing LuvGoldStar to specific other accounts, a new CU check was unlikely to result in new evidence.

I don't think it unreasonable to allow checkusers some latitude in checking suspicious accounts in very controversial areas; that latitude was used in this case, but it appears checkuser evidence was simply not sufficient to come to a conclusion. That happens, particularly with committed and experienced trolls. An administrator appropriately weighed the behavioral evidence and made a decision - I'm not sure what other outcome was possible. Perhaps the best use of this clarification request is to communicate that the first CU was acceptable under the circumstances, and thus encourage other checkusers to take similar steps when appropriate. Nathan ^T 22:14, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Arbitrator views and discussion

• Could the clerks or the commenting editors please invite a few of the administrators that commonly work at ANI and arbitration enforcement to comment on this request? I'm interested in hearing the views of more admins that work in the trenches before coming to a conclusion. I also want to hear what commenting editors specifically want ArbCom to do in this circumstance. A sock- and meat-puppet enforcement provision? An encouragement to use exisitng process? Something else? Please bear in mind while considering this that CheckUser is bound to a some degree by Foundation and Meta policy. Also note that while ArbCom may clarify policy and principles (and institute enforcement provisions), refashioning them would require a community or Foundation motion that is outside the remit of Arbcom (except perhaps by way of encouraging discussion or resolution on the issue). I am also of the mind to think that to a large degree, many of the issues uncovered and/or highlighted by arbitration cases must be resolved by the community if it requires a significant revision, addition, or other alteration to standing policy and principles. --Vassyana (talk) 22:02, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

• Awaiting comments from other arbitrators. I would also appreciate it if admins working in enforcement could comment on SlimVirgin's thoughtful comments in response to me. --Vassyana (talk) 09:31, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

• I agree that the issue is as one narrows down the scope, when does 'fishing' become proper detective work of a number of suspects. It has been a vexed area and a number of editors topic-banned. We now have an audit subcommittee looking at tool usage and comments from Thatcher here would be appreciated. My feeling is veering towards condoning use of the tools but I do agree that open discussion and consensus-forming is prudent.Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:01, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
• This is not a clarification request. If we need to augment this case or any other, please raise suggestions at Amendments. However I would want a lot of evidence that this area is especially more sock-prone than all the other hot spots. Development of the checkuser policy to better deal with all these hot spots should be undertaken by the community in the usual manner, such as Wikipedia talk:Sockpuppet investigations. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 06:26, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Request for clarification: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/West Bank - Judea and Samaria

Initiated by Count Iblis (talk) at 17:42, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:

• Count Iblis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
• Jayjg (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) notified here

Statement by Count Iblis

Jayjg has recently behaved in a disruptive way while editing the essay WP:ESCA. He has wikilawyered to get his opponent User:Likebox out of the way there, by misreprenting the facts of Likebox's propbation at AN/I. To get Likebox unblocked, I had to spend time and effort to explain the situation to the reviewing admin [4], and I had to convince Likebox to stick to 1 RR to avoid future trouble [5]. This ultimately had the desired result [6].

Jayjg, while entitled to his opinion about WP:ESCA, is clearly behaving in a very unconstructive and combative way there. Likebox, an expert in theoretical physics, almost left the project. This would have amounted to irreversible damage to Wikipedia. Everyone would be better off if Jayjg were to get back editing his favorite topics to which his type of editing/logic applies much better. I was recently made aware of Jayjg editing restrictions w.r.t. to this Israeli/Palestine related topic, so I was wondering if Jayjg could be allowed to edit his favorite topic again, perhaps with some mentoring agreement or other type of oversight. In return Jayjg should agree to stop getting involved in topics related to science.

Count Iblis (talk) 17:42, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Explanation of why I removed this:

Georgewilliamherbert has let me know that my request is incompatible with how Wikipedia works. So, I've removed this request. I'm not saying that I was out to disrupt Wikipedia or to make a point. But I accept that this problem cannot be addressed in this way, as that is what the people involved in Arbitration have told me.

My reply to Thatcher about his henhouse analogy is that I really intended to send a wolf back to a wolfpack, not a fox to a henhouse. This is really my honest opinion about some of the contentious politics articles. Count Iblis (talk) 19:09, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Reply to Slrubenstein. I've been editing here at Wikipedia quite some time now, so I am used most of the problems we face here. In this case, it was not about my personal editing dispute, rather the fact that Jayjg almost succeeded in getting Likebox removed from Wikipedia that made me think that some sort of action was needed. I'm against banning people unless it is absolutely necessay. The more people can edit in their fields of expertise, the better it is. So, from this perspective, having Jayjg focus more on politics articles and Likebox remaining a Wikipedia editor (and agreeing to stick to 1 RR), is not a bad thing at all. Count Iblis (talk) 19:19, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment by Thatcher

In a word, no.

To expand: Jayjg was found, through a full Arbcom case lasting 10 weeks, to have edit warred and behaved inappropriately, for which he was given an indefinite topic ban. Now, since you don't like his editing of an essay on science articles, you propose that he be allowed to edit I-P articles again if he will leave science articles alone (and not even based on a full case with a formal review of everyone's edits but on an informal Request for clarification). In other words, you propose to throw open the doors to your neighbor's henhouse in the hopes that the fox will eat his chickens and leave yours alone. Even if I did not believe there are legitimate concerns about your and Likebox's editing, this would rank high on the list of silliest Arbitration proposals ever. Thatcher 18:25, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment by Slrubenstein

Per the above. The generous reading is that this is a little twisted. The less-generous reading is that it is vindictive. The lack of logic is just charmingly ironic. Thank heavens ArbCom rulings are specific; that is how conflict resolution processes ought to be. Jayjg's ArbCom history has no bearing here.

Count Iblis, you think Jayjg ought not to be editing science related articles. But the issue here really is Jayjg editing a policy related essay, and Jayjg's position was simple; Wikipedia policy should be consistent. This seems reasonable to me, and you do not need a degree in physics to see that.

Count Iblis, as I understand it the real problem for you is that you feel our policies are not working. You say they are not working for science articles, but you know, people run into serious conflicts at articles on religion and literature too, and at least one person in almost every conflict thinks that the existing policies do not, or cannot, or should not, apply to the case at hand. I personally do not accept your argument that science articles need to be edited following different guidelines. Sometimes you just have to suck it up and accept the fact that the article is not going to reflect your own views, we all have to deal with this feeling of frustration. If you really feel the policies are flawed, go to the policy pages and propose improvements to the policies. Make the policies better!

But honestly, what you wrote above, it just sounds like you are taking your frustrations out on Jayjg. It's not seemly. And not fair. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:03, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Arbitrator views and discussion

• Comment; appears moot. — Rlevse • Talk • 12:46, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
• Request has been withdrawn by the initiator, and thus is moot. I believe this can be archived. Risker (talk) 16:35, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

---

Request for clarification: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/West Bank - Judea and Samaria 30 November 2009

Initiated by Canadian Monkey (talk) at 20:45, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:

• Canadian Monkey (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
• Nickhh (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Diff of notice [7]
• Nishidani (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Diff of notice [8]
• Nableezy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Diff of notice [9]

Statement by your Canadian Monkey

Can topic-banned users, who have been “prohibited from editing any Arab-Israeli conflict-related article/talk page or discussing on the dispute anywhere else on the project” participate in AfD discussions related to articles that fall within the scope of the topic ban?

Background

Earlier this year, as an outcome of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/West Bank - Judea and Samaria , I, along with 7 other editors, were topic banned from editing any Arab-Israeli conflict-related article/talk page or discussing on the dispute anywhere else on the project. Two of the topic-banned editors have been actively participating in an AfD discussion regarding Jonathan Cook, a freelance journalist whose notability arises from his writing on the I-P conflict, as is stated in the first two sentences of the lead of his article. Several other participants in the AfD have expressed concerns that this violates the topic ban. ([10]; [11]), and have removed the banned users’ comments from the AfD ([12]; [13]; [14]). These comments were re-inserted into the AfD, one of these re-insertions being done by User:Nableezy, who is himself subject to a similar topic ban, arising from a different Arbitration Enforcement ([15].

Clarification requested

The editors themselves have acknowledged that their participation is questionable (e.g: User:Nickhh: “I wonder if I'm allowed to say anything here, given the topics the man tends to write about” ([16]; User:Nishidani: “Yes, technically we should keep out of it.” ([17]), so a clarification seems to be in order.

Reply to Nableezy

I don't know if this is a violation of the topic ban - this is why I am asking for clarification here, rather than for enforcement at AE. Since this topic ban affects me, I'd be happy to know the answer - perhaps I've been foolishly avoiding contentious AfDs in the I-P area, when in fact I am free to participate.
As regards your own topic ban, the update you linked to clearly states "Nableezy banned for 2 months from all pages within subject areas relating to this arbitration case, except article talk pages" - I don't think an AfD project page is an "article talk page" - but perhaps I'm wrong, and a clarification with regards to this would be good, too.

Statement by Nableezy

If CM or any other user feels it is a violation of the topic ban the proper venue for that complaint is WP:AE. That is all that I asked those who were taking it upon themselves to make that determination to do instead of remove other peoples comments. Those removals also left the replies to the comments, making parts of the page completely unintelligible. And CM, you may want to look at this regarding my being subject to a similar topic ban.

Reply to the reply. I look at the AfD as an extension of the talk page, but if I am mistaken I wont participate further. But my point on AE is not that AfDs dont apply to your, and Nick and Nishi's, topic bans (they clearly do), but whether or not this specific AfD is within the topic ban should be taken up there. Whether or not a BLP of an author who writes about the conflict is a part of the conflict is something that should be taken up at AE in my opinion.

Cptnono, the edits to the file had nothing to do with the conflict. When a file is listed as an orphaned fair use image it is deleted after 7 days. The images, at the time of my edit, were not orphaned fair use images (one is now). Besides that, they were listed as orphaned as fair use images by a sockpuppet of the banned User:NoCal100 (User:Millmoss). But my edits to the files had nothing to do with conflict, I did not change the description or add the image to any article. This petty game of trying to catch me on something is getting tiresome, would you mind finding a new hobby? If you feel my edits to those images violated my topic ban, which had nothing to do with Judea and Samaria case which this request for clarification is about, WP:AE is thataway. nableezy - 04:50, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I have, not one thing in them relates to the Judea and Samaria case which this request for clarification is about. If you feel the edits listed were a violation of my topic ban go to WP:AE, you dont need a request for clarification for that, much less one on an unrelated case. nableezy - 05:00, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

It would appear that CM has himself "likely" commented in the AfD in question and was one of the users who removed the comments by Nick and Nishidani ([18]. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mr. Hicks The III) nableezy - 01:37, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Nishidani

I apologize to both Arbcom, and whoever found my remark there objectionable. I allowed my spontaneous disconcertion at what was happening (a perfectable reasonable page on a perfectly notable journalist and author being pushed for deletion on no other grounds than a patently political WP:IDONTLIKEIT sense one might get away with wiping Cook out, and, with the vote at 4-2 in favour of deletion, I dropped my comment, and I think most, Canadian Monkey and arbitrators, would be right in saying I am in breach of a sanction, though certainly my remark is not characteristic of a member of a 'gang of bullies' as Gilabrand suggested. If you think my ban should extend beyond the I/P area, to elsewhere, I won't object. Indeed, it would be logical, though I must confess I haven't examined this thread, or the fine print of the decision to see if there is wriggle room to sneak out of this lapse and its consequences. I admit I felt strongly, once the edit went up, that, though rational and eminently appropriate to the aims of the encyclopedia, that I was in breach, and should have shut up.Nishidani (talk) 22:15, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I should add that admitting my own culpability should in no way reflect on Nickhh's position, who is under the same ban. For the simple reason that he sees this differently, being an editor who has an intense interest in the area of journalism, and Jonathan Cook belongs professionally to that generic category, as his record shows. My interest, instead, was in the I/P area, from which I was banned.

I would note for the record, as I have on my page, however, that something good has come out of my infraction since, thanks to Mackan, it brought to light something former I/P editors had a good deal of implicit empirical knowledge of, but which, since it was intuitive, could not be documented for the Arbcom Committee. The Arbcom Committee could have had no knowledge or awareness of the fact that User:NoCal100, and User:Canadian Monkey were the one person (and they could not know, as I think it was generally understood by I/P editors on my 'side') that User:Tundrabuggy, who participated in the debate, on many of those pages, and regarded himself as 'involved' but was not included in the indictment, employed sockpuppetry while editing, stalking and targeting for AN/I reports several of the I/P editors who were subsequently perma-banned. In the Arbcom Decision, retrospectively, it now turns out that 5 experienced editors (6, if you include NoCal100/Canadian Monkey/Tundrabuggy's successful attack triangulation to get User:Ashley kennedy3 banned several times, and finally for a year)who were classified as working to ensure that the Palestinian side of the issues was duly represented, were taken out, while Jayjg and one other editor were removed from the side engaged in ensuring that one of many Israeli perspectives was defended. Over that period therefore, at least 6 serious editors were removed, in good part because of a conflict with just two editors, with numerous sockpuppets, who all used sockpuppetry to harass them, or belabour articles where they edited with tendentious interventions, at the expense of one known, experienced editor on the other side(User:Jayjg). That imbalance is striking. I note this not as a pro-memoriam for review or revocation, but simply to underline how little of what was really going on actually could be noted, given the rules of evidence. If therefore my infraction, on being reported by a sockpuppet (who hasn't even deigned to defend himself), has contributed to bringing this to air, then I'm quite happy to wear the consequences. Rules are rules, and I broke one, and have no right to complain. Indeed, the infraction has inadvertently cleaned up another of the many zones of obscurity that hover over much of the historic I/P area, and in that sense, was functional to the aim of this encyclopedia, that of ensuring quality, and not trash articles made up of compromises by serious editors with the unending sockpuppets and political manipulators who are naturally attracted to it. Nishidani (talk) 11:57, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Look, this is getting out of hand. What began as as a patently obvious attempt to wipe out an article on a professional journalist made me loose my self-restraint for a few minutes, and I made a comment, when the voting indicated that this dodge might succeed without anyone noticing. Unlike Nickhh, who is passionate about all journalistic issues, I thought this a sign of manipulative behaviour in the I/P area. When my behaviour was in turn denounced, I fully admitted my fault, or lapse, or breach of the protocol governing my ban, apologized, and expressed my readiness to suffer any further sanction an arbiter might wish to impose on me for my egregious lapse.

I expressed my guilt and readiness to be punished almost a week ago. In the meantime, the community has by a very strong 'keep vote' underlined the spuriousness of the original proposal (made by someone who should have known better since he was subject to review in the original Arbcom case), which was deeply ill-advised (2) various editors have shifted the goalposts, trying now to get Nableezy indicted as well, more or less over a dispute on whether what I and Nickhh wrote should or should not be kept on the page. It was this malady, of obsessively having recourse to AfD's, AN/I, AE etc.etc., endlessly to create trouble for serious editorial work on articles that led to the Arbcom case, and it is now being revived, using the Arbcom judgement only to worsen conditions in here for dedicated I/P editors. Nableezy's only crime over the last week has been that of helping me with his technical gifts, and some additional research, in creating a new article for Wikipedia (Franz Baermann Steiner), and if this is to be taken as guilt by association, and reason to go after him as well, then we have lost focus, in the intricate weave of rules and wikilawyering, that the goal is to work on articles, not on other people.

It's like watching a cancer metastasize. I apologized a week back, I've waited to be banned from all wiki articles since then. I suggest the way to stop this bickering is to act immediately and extend my perma-ban. Otherwise, my own lapse, and the niceties of where it may be shifted, who may shift it onto what page, will be manipulated to take out one more extremely good conscientious editor who is not responsible for my original sin.Nishidani (talk) 08:41, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Nickhh

As noted on my own talk page, of course this does run close to the ban. However, I did not "vote" on the AfD, and I did not discuss his politics in my comments. I simply observed that there were other journalists of far less notability and who have not made such serious contributions to the journalistic record who have pages, and that - as a journalist - he would seem to pass the inclusion threshold. I also said that the AfD should avoid the politics, and left a note on the WP:JOURNALISM project page asking for outside input, in a bid to steer the discussion down that road. Overall, that seemed to be a constructive contribution. My interest on WP (and my fairly sporadic edit count) has always been far more about media issues, general politics and other topics than it ever has been about I-P issues per se. Sometimes these overlap, and there are borderline areas in relation to the - totally bizarre, but that's another matter - topic ban. I acknowledge this is one of those. Having said that, I'm not sure exactly what clarification is being requested, and whether the litigant is actually after some form of punishment or enforcement. And I note from their own submission that editors were deleting comments from the AfD page - personally I'm far more concerned about that, about politically motivated deletion drives and about the risk that if it survives, the Jonathan Cook page will now become a magnet for BLP-violating contributions from those who dislike what he writes. Perhaps fortunately, I'm not allowed to get entangled in any of those issues in any substantive way of course. That at least, we can be clear about. --Nickhh (talk) 17:15, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

ps: in response to Vassyana below, I don't think anyone's claiming that relevant AfD pages - in principle - are not covered by the topic ban as worded. I'm certainly not, and agree that they pretty clearly would be. The point is more about whether making a general comment about journalistic notability in an AfD debate about one journalist's page is indeed a breach of a ban that stops editors discussing I-P issues. Also note that Nableezy's situation is different from that pertaining to me and Nishidani, as he has explained. I would add as well that brief humourous notes on friendly user talk pages surely do not need to be policed with quite the same rigour as a substantive intervention on article pages. Nor, as far as I am aware, are they usually. We're all muddling through here in an online environment, not building a correctional facility

Curious as to where this lies in the grand scheme of things. In case there's any confusion, this was the opening sentence, prior to deletion - Many Islamic Terrorism Organizations have tried to justify why Terrorism is allowed in Islam in their view. Organizations such as Hamas, and Al Qaeda have done so using verses of the Quran and their Interpretations of the Hadith. Maybe a good call, who knows. But that's not the point of course. --Nickhh (talk) 01:27, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Statement by other user

From Cptnono

I think clarification is definetely needed. In Nableezy's case, he edited files within the topic here and here. These were helpful edits and they were not contentious. He also edited user talk pages in discussions of the topic. These reverts (here and here) could be a concern but they also could just be considered keeping an eye out. The decision was "all pages (including both article and article talk pages) within those topic areas". Was the intent of the decision to prevent edits to the articles and their talk pages and not files or discussion on the topic in general? Cptnono (talk) 01:20, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Reread my comments, Nableezy.Cptnono (talk)

I didn't say it was. I seconded clarification on your Arbcom case that another editor brought up. I said your edits to the file were not contentious. I'm on the fence about your reverts. Stop knee-jerking and relax. I'm not out to get you or hurt your feelings.Cptnono (talk) 05:03, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

From Tarc

Hrm. As similar questions were raised back in Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive46#Jayjg about MM coming off a 6-month absence to "get Jay", it is worth noting that Canadian Monkey here is back from an absence of the same time frame to file this? Tarc (talk) 19:25, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Mackan79

A clarification may be appropriate, since there appears to be more pushing at the boundries of this decision than in most cases, partly because of the large number of interested editors who arrive at enforcement discussions and obscure what is generally done.

If there is a clarification, however, I would like to raise two more points:

1. Does the topic ban prevent one editor under the ban from reporting another editor under the ban for a violation at WP:AE?
2. Does the ban cover edits to articles which are not directly related to the IP conflict (such as one on Jonathan Cook), but where the edits change material relating to the IP conflict?

One enforcement discussion, here, addressed both of these issues, with confusion about whether this edit would violate the topic ban. The point has been raised since, with what seems to be ongoing confusion. I have some concerns about the ban, but I think that certainly the boundries should be as clear as possible so that everyone can understand the scope. Mackan79 (talk) 19:28, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Canadian Monkey, NoCal100 and apparent sock puppetry

I have just filed a report here regarding apparent sock puppetry relating to this arbitration case. A checkuser has been run and found it "likely" that NoCal100 and Canadian Monkey (both having been sanctioned in this case) are both the same editor as User:Mr. Hicks The III, an account that has recently been attempting to enforce this remedy. User:NoCal100 has already been banned for socking that preceded this case. This may be separate from whether a clarification is needed, or perhaps it is relevant, but it does seem that more eyes will be needed to sort all of this. Mackan79 (talk) 03:28, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Statement by JoshuaZ

A few minor remarks. Regarding Mackan79's remark, Jayjg's edit to the section on anti-semitism in the Unification Church is not comparable to editing Jonathan Cook. In the Unification case, the section is primarily about remarks made claiming that the Holocaust was retribution to the Jews crucifying Jesus. Completely separate. Indeed, everyone seems to agree that the insertion of Israel related material in that article was utterly irrelevant. It seems unreasonable that the addition of marginally related material that probably should not be in an article would somehow add the article to the I-P umbrella. Worse, if so, does the article permanently go under it? Does it only stay as long as the material stays? This way lies madness.

Cook on the other hand is a journalist who primarily reports on Middle-Eastern issues. He has multiple books about the I-P conflict and related issues. His most recent book is "Disappearing Palestine: Israel's Experiments in Human Despair." I'm thus puzzled by Mackan's characterization as Jonathan Cook as being an article "not directly related to the IP conflict".

The next issue then is whether edits to AfDs should be included in the ban. That seems to me to be pretty obviously yes as a matter both of how the ban is worded and what the ban was trying to solve. Many of the most serious problems on I-P articles have been in AfDs. So yes, it seems pretty clear that the AfDs should be included in the ban (and for that matter, *fDs in general). JoshuaZ (talk) 03:00, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Epeefleche

As to nableezy:

1. He suggests his ban does not apply to the AfD because after one month it no longer applied to talk pages. However ...
2. An AfD is clearly not a talk page. When one performs a search under "Wikipedia talk", AfD pages do not show up. See also this, where Wiki pages (which include AfDs) and Wiki talk pages are two different search categories. Though AfD discussion (or "talk") pages show up. AfD pages fall squarely within his "all pages" prohibition.
3. As to timing, his ban was first handed down on October 29. In its original form it was for four months, " all pages within subject areas relating to th[e] arbitration case."
4. Two portions of the "all pages within the subject area" were then shortened on November 3. Article pages to "2 months from all pages within subject areas relating to this arbitration case, except article talk pages, from which he is banned for 1 month."
5. He was editing the AfD page by November 28. Even if the 1 month ban started on October 29 (and not on November 3, the day it was handed down), and even had the AfD been an "article talk page" (which it clearly isn't), he was editing on a page on the subject before he should have.
6. But, most importantly, its clear that AfDs are not "article talk pages". That is the only area he has been allowed to edit during the entire time of the AfD--all of his many edits at the AfD, on his talk page, and on the AfD talk page have been in flagrant violation of his ban.
7. nableezy had indicated on my talk page that this "request for clarification in no way applies to my topic-ban." As he was a named party, and his ban discused here, it would be helpful if arbs were to indicate (if it is the case) that it does apply to his ban as well.

--Epeefleche (talk) 08:01, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

As to Nishidani:

1. He refers above to the two comments he left at the AfD as a "spontaneous disconcertion", and says the AfD "made me loose my self-restraint for a few minutes". But that fails to explain why he left his two comments--made 12 hours after the AfD opened--up for the next 7 days. Only crossing them out a few hours before the AfD closed (w/the accurate edit summary: "Striking out comment written in breach of my ban, as indeed I should have when this was first complained of"). For me, that clearly takes this out of the category of a crime of passion, and places it in the category of a willful flouting of his ban with intent to influence the AfD.
2. I don't know how he became aware of this AfD, but whether it is because he is watching for AfDs in the I/P area or is in contact with other editors with that interest, it may perhaps be more prudent for him to desist while his ban is in place.
3. My view is that at the beginning of the AfD the article did not have sufficient RS support to be a Keep. Additional RS support was surfaced in the middle of the AfD, and I changed my vote to Keep. But Nishidani's suggestion that this was an unreasonable nomination is wrong IMHO.
4. Nishidani says the reason he weighed in was because the vote at the time was "in favour of deletion". That reflects a desire on his part to influence the outcome of the AfD, which--mildly speaking--he was not allowed to do.
5. I would think his ban should be extended not in scope, but in time.

--Epeefleche (talk) 15:40, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

As to Nickhh:

1. I also don't know how he became aware of this, but the same suggestion that he try to avoid whatever prompted his ban violation in this instance apply.
2. He started off the first of his three comments at the AfD by saying "I wonder if I'm allowed to say anything here". I didn't know about his ban at the time. But I am surprised that he would have had any doubt as to whether he could say anything at the AfD. Given Nishidani's express motives, and the fact that the two of them violated their bans in quick succession, legitimate concerns as to Nickhh's motives may perhaps be reasonable.
3. Nickhh left his AfD comments up for the entire course of the AfD, never striking them out.

--Epeefleche (talk) 15:53, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Tznkai

Enforcement of arbitration is handled here and sockpuppets are handled here. You will find this is not merely bureaucratic shuffle, but non overlapping specialties.

Also, seriously? Topic bans means write about something else. Not some thing the same, but different. --Tznkai (talk) 10:42, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Arbitrator views and discussion

• Short reply to CM's question: No. More complete reply: AfD discussions about IP-related articles quite clearly falls under "participating in any community discussion substantially concerned with such articles". There is no grey area. An AfD is about as perfect of an example as you get for a "community discussion substantially concerned with such articles". Even less broadly worded topic bans are treated in a broad fashion. If ArbCom or the community says that an editor is prohibited from editing or discussing certain articles or topics, that editors should not edit or discuss those topics. Shifting discussion over to user talk pages or other venues is at bare minimum a gross violation of the spirit of a topic ban. I, individually, consider shifting discussion to another venue as an unwelcome attempt to skirt the edges or jump through loopholes of the sanction. As far as I'm concerned, the confusion here is only arising from splitting hairs and trying to look for grey areas where they do not exist. The topic bans are perfectly clear and AfD is unquestionably included even in a strict reading of the sanction language. Vassyana (talk) 18:30, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

• "[A]ll pages ... which relate" seems to make the scope inclusive and clear in a similar fashion. Neither topic ban makes an exception for discussing unrelated issues on related pages. They are prohibitions on editing related pages. Full stop. Vassyana (talk) 21:48, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

• Agree with Vassyana. When someone is given a topic ban in a particular area, they are meant to move away from that topic area and develop interests in other areas, and demonstrate that they can edit other areas without similar problems arising. At that point, it may sometimes be possible to relax the original restrictions given the good behaviour in other areas. If, on the other hand, an editor shows an inability to move away from a topic area, then sanctions should be enforced, and if the sanctions are reviewed, this inability to stay away would be taken into account. The normal response would be to either extend the topic ban (if it is not already indefinite), or to move on to harsher sanctions. In essence, an inability to disengage from and move away from a topic area is generally indicative of a battleground mentality, of being too invested in a topic area to edit neutrally, and (in some cases) or becoming a single-purpose account. To be charitable, it may also simply indicate a lack of self-control (if that is the case, a prompt apology and genuine contrition and recognition that someone has lapsed briefly, might be accepted, but not in all cases). AfD discussions are, in my view, part of broadly construed topic bans. Carcharoth (talk) 12:57, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

• I agree entirely with Vassyana. --bainer (talk) 00:32, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
• Agreed with my colleagues; an AfD discussion of an article within the topic area definitely and unambiguously falls into that topic area. The only case where I would consider any ambiguity is if the topic ban specifically excluded talk pages or was explicitly limited to articles; and even then it could be argued that a discussion about deletion is too "close" to the topic ban to be confortable. — Coren ^(talk) 04:34, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
• Comment: Agree with Vassyana et al. Wizardman 06:08, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
• Recuse. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:05, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
• Agree with Vassyana. Risker (talk) 22:14, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

---

Request to amend prior case: West Bank - Judea and Samaria (December 2009)

Initiated by Nableezy at 20:43, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Case affected

West Bank - Judea and Samaria arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

Clauses to which an amendment is requested

1. Remedies 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9

List of users affected by or involved in this amendment

• Nableezy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
• Nishidani (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• G-Dett (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Pedrito (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Nickhh (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• MeteorMaker (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Jayjg (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Confirmation that the above users are aware of this request

• Nishidani
• G-Dett
• Pedrito
• Nickhh
• MeteorMaker
• Jayjg

Amendment 1

• Nishidani restricted; G-Dett restricted; Pedrito restricted; Nickhh restricted; MeteorMaker restricted; Jayjg restricted
• The topic bans of the above users are lifted

Statement by Nableezy

User:Canadian Monkey has been blocked as a sockpuppet of User:NoCal100. NoCal100 was using a number of sockpuppets during the dispute that brought this case about (see WP:Sockpuppet investigations/NoCal100/Archive for examples and Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of NoCal100 for a list of confirmed socks) as well as a sockpuppet during the actual case. The entire process was disrupted by abusive sockpuppetry by one user. The actual dispute has seemingly been resolved by the community. The only thing the topic bans are doing now is depriving the encyclopedia of 6 highly capable users in a topic area that badly needs them. Other restrictions can be used to limit any edit-warring, such as imposing a 1RR for however long.

Statement by IronDuke

I have long felt this was a good idea, and I must offer heartfelt thanks to Nableezy for having the courage and thoughtfulness to propose it. I understand that the committee was unhappy with the editing patterns on I-P articles, and that unhappiness was well justified. However, we lost some of our best editors in the service of making things ostensibly more "pleasant" on those pages (which has not, AFAICT, in fact happened), and banned editors for extraordinarily picayune offenses. I would add NoCal to the list of parolees, NOT because I approve of sockpuppeting -- I am emphatically against it -- but because the "crime" he was banned for was so ultimately minor (compared to what so many others get away with on a daily basis) that a fresh start with a solemn promise never to sock again would benefit him, Wikipedia, and the subject matter at hand. IronDuke 02:41, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Mackan79

I think this request may have merit. To briefly recap for new and old arbitrators, the above case involved a dispute over the use of the terms "Judea and Samaria" (or either term by itself), and whether these terms have been superseded by the modern name, "the West Bank." The named editors in this arbitration were all clearly on one of two sides. On the one side User:Nishidani, User:G-Dett, User:Nickh, User:Pedrito, and User:MeteorMaker sought to limit the use of the terms, while on the other side User:Jayjg, User:Canadian Monkey, and User:NoCal100 sought to maintain or expand use of the terms. These were not the only editors to address the issue, of course, but it seems that they were the most actively involved.

It's now been accepted that two of the above accounts, User:Canadian Monkey and User:NoCal100, are the same user, and most likely the return of a previously banned editor. If arbitrators review the request for checkuser here, I think you will see that all of this was even more involved, with likely at least two more accounts of the same editor (User:I am Dr. Drakken and User:Mr. Hicks The III) having been used to bolster his position and perpetuate the larger dispute. All of these accounts were noted for their highly confrontational style. While presumably it was not known that these were all the same user, the fact that each of them appeared to be a sock of someone, and the possibility, had been noted.[19][20]

The difficulty in my mind is that all of these editors have been at least somewhat combative, even if at this point I think one has to consider the reasons why. The question may be whether the editors are willing to continue in a different mode. This may work in part, though in truth I have no hope that it will happen in all cases. Perhaps 1RR would work. One other approach would be to allow each editor to make an appeal based on a "change in circumstances" for why they should be unsanctioned. With a good explanation of what went wrong and what will be different, and a thoughtful evaluation, that could be a reasonable response and achievable for any of the involved editors. Not perfect, but maybe a possibility. I see in my edit conflict something similar is proposed by Vassyana. Mackan79 (talk) 10:26, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Nickhh

While I appreciate the reluctance to approve anything that is perceived as being a "blanket amnesty", I think it is worth clarifying a few points, especially in the light of arbitrator comments below. Some of the individuals who are still on the committee may have forgotten the details of the timeline and case, newer members may not be aware of it. I'd also add that I'm not that bothered personally about being allowed to edit in the area itself - it's something I know a little about and have a vague interest in, and also happen to see a lot of bad editing in; but I'm not in fact desperate to fight any corner in this issue, and am actually far more interested in making minor edits to a range of other topics. Having said that, I resent the implication that the topic ban carries, and also the fact that it means I get chased off any article - especially journalism pages - as soon as anyone who disagrees with me on content waves the "it's an Arab-Israeli conflict page" flag at any passing administrator -

• This case was brought to ArbCom by User:Pedrito, specifically in response to obstructive behaviour and edit-warring being conducted primarily by what is now known - months after the case was concluded - to have been the same editor using several separate accounts. Other users who ended up being topic-banned, myself included, supported coming to ArbCom to get resolution of some sort. We weren't aware of course that we had been dragged by a sock farm into signing our own death warrants.
• One problem was I think that ArbCom then took this case to be some kind of battle between Israeli and Palestinian editors or activists, when in fact it was much more simple than that - should WP use standard, international words for places (as English, Swedish, Uruguyan and American editors, among others, were saying) or should it instead give undue weight to fringe nationalist Israeli terminology. Specifically Palestinian views never got a look-in.
• In response to Steve Smith, in fact that key issue has been addressed - unsurprisingly broadly in favour of "our" substantive position, as it happens - by the naming conventions. The interesting point is that those of us on our side were calling from the outset, and throughout the case discussions, for something like that to be sorted out. ArbCom ignored that until the last minute, instead deciding to ban editors suggesting exactly that, along with those who were dismissing any attempt to deal the problem constructively.
• As for the edit wars resulting from that underlying dispute, they had ceased months before. In my case, my contribution had been about four edits to actual relevant article space in three months, three months previously (including one attempt at compromise), for which I was condemned with no debate or explanation for having "repeatedly and extensively edit warred". Could any arbitrator explain how exactly I can "significantly improve [my] behaviour" beyond that? User:MeteorMaker for example spent hours compiling an exhaustive list of sources to demonstrate the obscurity and narrow nationalism of the terminology the now revealed sock farm were trying to push into multiple articles here. Should they acknowledge their error in having done that and promise not to do it again?

The only thing I personally would acknowledge is an occasional frustration with the political games that people play here when trying to push articles here to a particular point of view, and with the tendency for arbitrary administrative decisions - which often affect people in pretty serious ways, and break the fundamental principle here that people are free to edit - to be made without proper analysis of what has happened. I for one would not acknowledge that I had engaged in extensive edit warring, or disruptive behaviour of any sort. Hence I can't promise to "improve" my behaviour in either respect. Edit warring at all? Sure, bad. I promise not to ever do it again. It might even be easier not to now I and others are not being stalked around the place by an aggressive sockpuppeteer. If indeed the editor in question was User:Isarig from way back, I can only point out that from the moment I branched out from editing French wine articles and ventured a tentative inquiry into my first I-P article talk page (the Six Day War), it was they who roundly chased me out. And rarely left me - or others - alone subsequently, even on media pages not directly related to the conflict. --Nickhh (talk) 17:44, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Amendment 1A

• Nishidani restricted; G-Dett restricted; Pedrito restricted; Nickhh restricted; MeteorMaker restricted; Jayjg restricted
• The topic bans of the above users be limited to a duration of one year from the latest of the following that apply to them:
  1. the start of the ban,
  2. any violation of the ban which has been accepted at the arbitration enforcement page whether or not the admin who handles the violation chooses to take any additional action against the user in question,
  3. any unreversed block against the user in question whether or not it is related to the Israel/Palestine dispute.
• Should any of the above editors again behave problematically in this area of dispute, then any admin uninvolved in the dispute shall have the option of reimposing the topic ban.

Statement by Peter Cohen

I am disappointed by the initial response from arbitrators. I consider that the dispute that led to these editors being topic banned was hugely aggravated by an individual acting in bad faith through the use of multiple accounts. This factor has only come to light recently and was not known to arbitrators at the time of their decision nor to those who brought the original course or to admins who dealt with the dispute prior to the case being brought. I feel that, had they known at the time that there was a sockpuppeteer involved in the dispute, different actions would have been taken by these people in resolving the dispute.

I hope that the amendment as revised above will be seen as taking into account the reservations expressed by arbs below through:

• not lifting the bans immediately;
• taking into account that some of the affected users have acted in violation of the ban and treating them accordingly;
• taking into account any serious ongoing problematic beahviour anywhere else on Wikipedia;
• providing a means for the bans to be reimposed without Arbcom itself having to take action.--Peter cohen (talk) 14:09, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Statement by other editor

{Other editors are free to comment on this amendment as necessary. Comments here should be directed only at the above proposed amendment.}

Further discussion

Statements here may address all the amendments, but individual statements under each proposed amendment are preferred. If there is only one proposed amendment, then no statements should be added here.

Clerk notes

This section is for administrative notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Arbitrator views and discussion

• I absolutely and unequivocally reject any blanket amnesty. Step one in appealing sanctions is fully heeding the sanctions in both letter and spirit. This has not happened in many cases.[21][22] Productive editing within the bounds of restrictions and/or in other areas is also usually necessary. Similarly, a clear understanding of the problematic patterns that lead to the restriction is also usually a necessity. On the latter, a lack of taking personal responsibility and tu quoque arguments will usually bias the result against an appeal. Both of these are lacking in many instances. I would be open to seeing individual appeals, but be aware that in the absence of any of those three conditions being met, I would encourage the rejection of an appeal. Vassyana (talk) 10:22, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
• I concur with Vassyana above; while the committee might be willing to examine specific restrictions under certain circumstances where good faith is visible along with a notable improvement of editing behavior, there is no possibility of this being applicable to all editors at once. — Coren ^(talk) 16:42, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
• Concur with the two above. Blanket Amnesty is NOT on the table, to me. SirFozzie (talk) 20:58, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
• Agree with Vassyana. Individual appeals are needed. Failing to point to the arbitration enforcement threads is not a good start (though drawing attention to the checkuser case is useful - was that noted on the arbitration case pages?). Any appeal should start with a summary of what has happened since the case ended, and examples of productive behaviour the editors in question have been engaged in. Carcharoth (talk) 08:42, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
• Do not support these changes. — Rlevse • Talk • 12:51, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
• Finding that an editor was socking doesn't change the behaviors that led to these restrictions. Absent evidence that each of these editors has significantly improved their editing behavior, there is no way to approve this request. Shell ^babelfish 13:29, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
• Concur with Shell. Further, the suggestion that the underlying dispute has been resolved by Wikipedia:Naming conventions (West Bank) ignores that the de facto scope of the case was more than naming disputes. Would be willing to consider specific amnesty requests where there was evidence of improved behaviour, but not a blanket request like this. Steve Smith (talk) 14:31, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

---

Request to amend prior case: West Bank - Judea and Samaria

Initiated by Jayjg ^(talk) at 02:35, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Case affected

West Bank - Judea and Samaria arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

Clauses to which an amendment is requested

1. Remedy 11.3.4 Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/West Bank - Judea and Samaria#Jayjg restricted

List of users affected by or involved in this amendment

• Jayjg (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (initiator)

Amendment 1

• That Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/West Bank - Judea and Samaria#Jayjg restricted be lifted.

Statement by Jayjg

It's been a year and a half since I was topic-banned from the Israel-Palestine area. I'd like to request that the ban be lifted per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/West Bank - Judea and Samaria#Lifting of restrictions.

I've reflected a lot on the reasons for the ban, and I can see now that I wasn't collaborative enough in my approach. I was too quick to revert, and too judgmental about edits I disagreed with. I apologize to the Committee and community for the role I played in the events that led to the ban, and I hope I've learned the appropriate lessons from it. I would very much like to contribute in the I/P area again: I have knowledge of the topic that I believe would help to resolve disputes, I'm very familiar with the content policies, and I believe I could make useful contributions that would benefit the encyclopedia.

The "Lifting of restrictions" section of the case mentions looking favorably on participation in the featured-content process. During the last 18 months, I've written and brought a series of articles about synagogues to FA and GA status: First Roumanian-American congregation, Temple Sinai (Oakland, California), Temple Israel (Dayton, Ohio), Congregation Beth Israel (New Orleans, Louisiana), and Congregation Beth Israel-Judea. Another article I wrote, Temple Israel (Memphis, Tennessee), is currently an FA candidate achieved FA status this week.

During the same period, I've participated in dozens of FAC reviews (e.g. [23], [24]), assisted User:Nableezy in improving Al-Azhar Mosque with a view to helping it gain FA status in future, and written over a dozen DYKs. I’ve also helped out at AfD, closing hundreds of AfD discussions, and at RS/N, where I’m the fourth highest contributor.

The topic ban has caused a few problems. For example, I was unable to take part in the FAC of the only other synagogue GA (Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Hurva Synagogue/archive1), because the synagogue is in Jerusalem, even though I was solicited to do so by FA Director SandyGeorgia.[25][26] The FA nomination ultimately failed. Similarly, the Israel FA went through a Featured Article Review, and was delisted in June. I was the fourth highest contributor to the article, but was unable to help it retain its FA status. There are other articles I would like to bring to FA status, but certain aspects of them touch broadly on the I/P debate, so I’ve been unable to.

I can assure the Committee that, if the ban is lifted, I will stick very closely to the content and behavioral policies on those articles, as well as the additional ARBPIA restrictions, and will endeavor to ensure that my input there is only constructive. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:35, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

@Carcharoth: Regarding FAC reviews, here are some other examples: [27][28][29][30][31][32][33][34][35]. I think my participation at FAC (and edits to FAC articles) have generally been appreciated; one FA author, for example, posted on my talk page "Thank you very much for your in-depth comments. It's reviews like these that make me want to come back to FAC. :-)" Another posted just 3 days ago "José Paranhos, Viscount of Rio Branco is now a Featured article! Jayjg, thank you very much for taking your time to review the article and for your helpful and constructive participation.". Regarding RS/N, I've made almost 800 edits to the page; here are some examples from this month: [36][37][38][39][40][41][42][43][44]. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:32, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

@Carcharoth: This appeal has so far been blissfully free of the usual partisan drama, but I suppose we all knew that couldn't last forever. :-) Sure, contact anyone you like. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:00, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

@PhilKnight: I am now, thanks, but I wouldn't have violated this restriction and guideline even if they hadn't been formalized. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:21, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Statement by jd2718

Jay's appeal is well-reasoned. But I also recall the difficulties that led to the restrictions. And I also recall that there were significant difficulties that did not make it into an arbitration. Forgive me for the lack of diffs and facts and dates - I'd like to express reservation, not opposition, and hope I will be allowed to do so without going into detail. Perhaps the restriction could be partially lifted, or phased out, or some other formula that would give Jay substantial immediate relief, but also provide a transition? Jd2718 (talk) 00:00, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Cla68

As everyone is probably well aware, the Palestine/Israel topic area is, arguably, the worst topic area in Wikipedia with regards to POV-pushing, partisanship, incivility, wiki-lawyering, refusals to collaborate and cooperate, and revert warring. A look at the current ArbCom enforcement page shows that this is still the case. When Jayjg was editing that topic area, not only did he engage heavily in many of these behaviors, he often assumed a leadership role, perhaps because of his standing as a former arbitrator and possession of special admin privileges such as checkuser and oversight, in promoting and giving credibility to that kind of behavior. Thus, he may deserve much of the blame for the negative tone that still afflicts those article talk pages.

In his statement above, he appears to gloss over his actions that caused so much trouble for so long in the topic area. He doesn't address whether, as rumored, he participated in a mailing list cabal to coordinate efforts to control article content in that or other topic areas, or why he chose to push a particular POV in those articles instead of striving to uphold the NPOV policy, which should be the default approach of all Wikipedia editors.

That being said, however, he is admitting that he was wrong, apologizes for his actions, and promises never to do them again. He has also helped out extensively at a noticeboard and contributed featured content. In short, he has done exactly the things an editor should do to merit removal of arbcom sanctions. I'm not sure what more could be asked of Jayjg to better earn serious consideration for removal of the sanctions. Cla68 (talk) 08:37, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Comment by Supreme Deliciousness

Why hasn't Jayjg commented on this:[45] ? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 10:59, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Statement by other editor (2)

{Other editors are free to comment on this amendment as necessary. Comments here should be directed only at the above proposed amendment.}

Further discussion

Statements here may address all the amendments, but individual statements under each proposed amendment are preferred. If there is only one proposed amendment, then no statements should be added here.

• I'll comment here, as I'm not a member of ArbCom until the start of January. Anyway, I guess you're aware of the of the WP:WESTBANK naming convention? Also, you should be aware the entire set of articles are covered by 1RR. PhilKnight (talk) 16:15, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Jayjg, thanks your reply. I support the lifting of these restrictions. PhilKnight (talk) 19:25, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
• Ditto me - Jayjg's behaviour is exactly what I presume is/was expected WRT this ruling was supposed to apply to. Hence I'd support lifting (posting here as I am not on duty till January but was involved in original case) Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:10, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Clerk notes

This section is for administrative notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Arbitrator views and discussion

• My first thoughts here is that I would be willing to lift the topic ban (with the appropriate caveat that it will quickly be replaced if there are further issues here.) However, before I would entertain a motion, I would like to see other statements. SirFozzie (talk) 20:18, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
• Jayjg, could you give a few more examples of FAC reviews you have participated in and also some examples of 'reliable sources noticeboard' discussions where you felt you made particularly helpful contributions? On a pedantic point, it is FA delegate, not director. Carcharoth (talk) 23:54, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Jayjg, thanks for the extra information I asked for. I will ask the other arbitrators to have a look as this as well. One more thing - given what SirFozzie said above, would you be happy with us asking the clerks to ask others to comment here, including some of those you have mentioned? Carcharoth (talk) 03:05, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
• I would have no objections to lifting the topic ban. Shell ^babelfish 20:36, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
• Barring any other comments, I will propose a motion in about 24 hours to lift the topic ban. Risker (talk) 03:21, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Motion

There being 18 active arbitrators, the majority for support of the motion is 10.

In view of his compliance with Remedy 11 of the West Bank - Judea and Samaria case, the editing restrictions placed on Jayjg (talk · contribs) in that same case are lifted effective at the passage of this motion. Jayjg is reminded that articles in the area of conflict, which is identical to the area of conflict as defined by the Palestine-Israel articles case, remain the subject of discretionary sanctions; should he edit within this topic area, those discretionary sanctions continue to apply.

Support

1. As proposer. Jayjg has complied with the expectations of the Arbitration Committee and (by extension) the community in participating in the development and improvement of many articles, as well as in community-driven processes to support content improvement, and he has done so while working within the consensus model of participation. One hopes that Jayjg will be able to translate these experiences to his participation in the Palestine-Israel area of editing, should he choose to return. Risker (talk) 02:05, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
2. I applaud the way Jayjg has argued that the topic ban removal will allow him to contribute to the encyclopedia in ways that were prohibited before. That is the best reason to lift a topic ban: a supported argument that the sanction is no longer preventing harm to the encyclopedia, but is now actively preventing its improvement. Jclemens (talk) 02:19, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
3. Shell ^babelfish 02:21, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
4. Jayjg has shown that he understands the problems that led to the restrictions being put in place, accepts that the behaviour was not conducive to a good editing atmosphere, and undertaken not to make the same mistakes again. Some editors have expressed reservations, and I hope that Jayjg will take these concerns on board: but everyone broadly agrees that removing the restrictions would be a net benefit. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 02:43, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
5. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 04:26, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
6.  Roger ^talk 04:28, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
7. as detailed above. Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:37, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
8. as detailed previously, Jayjg is aware of the issues in the area, and I'm glad to be able to lift this. SirFozzie (talk) 06:16, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
9. PhilKnight (talk) 14:18, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
10. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 14:52, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
11. In light of Jayjg's assurance that they will be editing in a collegial fashion in this area. –xeno^talk 17:49, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
12. Although I was recused on the original case, the reasons prompting my recusal do not really apply to this motion, and I feel able to participate. Support per Risker, Jclemens, Chase me, and Xeno. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:26, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Oppose

Recuse

Abstain

Motion adopted. Clerk to post and notify. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:20, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

---

Request to amend prior case: Nishidani

Initiated by User:Ravpapa (talk) at 18:01, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Case affected

West Bank - Judea and Samaria arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

Clauses to which an amendment is requested

1. Amendments

List of users affected by or involved in this amendment

• Nishidani (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Amendment 1

• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/West Bank - Judea and Samaria#Nishidani restricted
• I propose to grant an amnesty to Nishidani, removing this topic ban.

Statement by Ravpapa

This and the following request for amendment regarding Gilabrand replace the request that I submitted proposing a more general amnesty for blocked and banned editors in the IP topic area. A number of administrators commented in that discussion that they opposed a general amnesty, and would prefer a case by case discussion of amendments. Therefore I am submitting this and the following requests.

In a discussion of the state of the IP project here, it was the feeling of participants in the discussion that the blocking and banning of editors had done little to reduce the level of conflict on the project, while other measures (centralized discussion and 1RR restriction) had been effective. On the other hand, several of the participants felt that blocks had removed knowledgeable editors from the project on both sides, and had thus actually hurt, rather than helped, the project.

Nishidani is such an editor. Regardless of his often caustic and highly irritating comments on talk pages, he is unquestionably one of the most knowledgeable editors to tread in this sensitive topic area. His encyclopedic knowledge of sources was often astounding. His insights into article organization and language were always enlightening. True, he has an undisputed talent for aggravating his opponents; however, unlike other aggravating editors, he not only argued but also made important substantive additions to articles he worked on.

In the discussion leading to this request, editors from both sides of the IP dispute supported a lifting of sanctions against Nishidani and Gilabrand. I fear that by separating the requests, we will turn this into a partisan dispute, something I had hoped to avoid. In any case, I call upon editors from both sides to support the lifting of this ban, as an act of faith in the viability of our project and the belief that knowledgeable editors are a benefit to the project.

Statement by Nableezy

I think this is a no-brainer. In the WB/JS case ArbCom said that work in developing featured class articles in other topic areas would be looked upon favorably in a request for lifting the topic ban. Nishidani has done such work, helping bring the once very poor article Shakespeare authorship question to FA and improving a host of articles related to that, see for example his contributions at History of the Shakespeare authorship question, Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford, List of Shakespeare authorship candidates, and Oxfordian theory of Shakespeare authorship. Additionally, Nishidani has helped bring the article Al-Azhar Mosque up to GA quality and, if I ever spend the time needed to finish a certain section, nearly up to FA quality, working with an editor who was also banned in the WB/JS case (Jayjg) in doing so. See also his work at Barasana, which looked like this prior to him starting to work on that page, and like this after a few weeks of his working on it. He has also written, largely by himself, the articles Franz Baermann Steiner and Taboo (book).

Ill repeat what I wrote in the now archived "general amnesty" appeal, the restrictions put in place in WB/JS have not made the topic area better in any way. The main instigator of the edit-warring that brought that case about (NoCal100 and his socks, including another party to that case Canadian Monkey) continues to edit with impunity. Nishidani has not chosen to go that way; he has instead edited in a wide range of topics, helping to bring very poor quality articles to a much higher standard.

There are a lot of unsubstantiated accusations made below, some of which merit responses and some of which dont. I wont spend any time on that, but I would like to make one note. When Jayjg appealed his ban, you did not see editors who hold opposing views as him making such comments as the ones seen below. Those of us who disagree with Jay were silent. The opposition below comes entirely from editors who disagree with Nishidani and wish to maintain a ban on an excellent editor because it is to their advantage. The comments about Nishidani never having contributed any content to the topic area is so utterly ridiculous that I had not responded to it until now, and even now I will only provide a diff of an article that Nishidani is almost entirely responsible for. An article which would be more of a finished product if not for the fact that after spending a great deal of time and energy expanding the material on the Jewish history of the village, a sockpuppet tag team drove him off of the article when he turned his attention to the Palestinian history of the village. The topic area is filled with examples of Nishidani's work.

However, the appeal is not about what Nishidani did prior to being banned. Ynhockey's accusation that Nishidani has not worked on any good articles or featured articles while he was banned is demonstrably untrue; links in my original statement demonstrate that his accusation is false. Nishidani has indeed worked on featured content, helping to bring very poor articles, or non-existent ones, up to such a status. That those who oppose his views on the I-P conflict also oppose this request is not surprising, though it is disappointing that they chose to make such false charges against him to argue that his ban be maintained. I hope the committee will see through the comments of those that have been in conflict with him and instead make their decision based on the actual evidence. nableezy - 15:24, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Michael C Price

I agree with Ravpapa about Nishidani's "often caustic and highly irritating comments on talk pages" and "he has an undisputed talent for aggravating his opponents". Do we really want to let such a battlefield mentality editor loose again, without a clear acknowledgement of change of heart? I note that he regards himself as essentially innocent, in a recent statement blaming his ban on a "stray remark", and is presumably unrepentant. As Boris remarked "it is not easy to earn a permaban by a slip of the tongue". Indeed.

Note to Nishidani, yes, I am being selective in quoting Ravpapa - because I don't agree with the rest of his statement! :-)

I prefer not to be cited selectively. - BorisG (talk) 11:42, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Johnuniq

I support this amendment due to Nishidani's extremely helpful contributions at Shakespeare authorship question (SAQ). I started following the turmoil and article development at SAQ in October 2010 after seeing the matter raised at a noticeboard. I had no knowledge of Nishidani before then, and have never looked at P-I issues. At SAQ, I saw a tremendous amount of disruption from people wanting to promote the UNDUE notion that Shakespeare did not write his plays. Eventually, an ArbCom case resolved the disruption allowing the two main editors of the article (Tom Reedy and Nishidani), with several other expert editors, to continue article development with the result that it was promoted to FA in April 2011. Every step of the process was strenuously opposed by disruptive editors, and I observed that Nishidani remained calm and helpful despite a lot of provocation. Some recent discussions, now here, show some diffs of Nishidani falling short of CIVIL, but that was in May 2010 and involved an editor who was repeatedly misreading sources, and who is now topic banned for a year, while Nishidani has never been sanctioned regarding the SAQ area. Certainly Nishidani is now fully aware of the requirements for editing and civil collaboration, and there is no reason to maintain a topic ban.

Nishidani's knowledge is extraordinary, and he has excellent access to resources. Removing a topic ban is likely to assist the encyclopedia and cannot do harm since WP:ARBPIA allows sanctions to be readily applied should the need arise. Johnuniq (talk) 08:45, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Nishidani

Michael, the diff you cite in evidence against me does not support the deduction you make from it, and I would appreciate you clarifying on what evidence you base your contention that I regard myself as 'innocent', esp. since in the diff I clearly admit that I did break the rules, (in reverting 4 editors) and that Arbcom exercised its proper right to punish me for my infringement. Namely, I wrote, contrary to your inference that I was protesting my innocence, that

'In a stray remark, I failed the test, and I cannot complain that I was asked to pay the penalty for that lapse. They were perfectly right technically.'

Thank you. Nishidani (talk) 19:44, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

With regard to your reply, changing 'innocent' to 'essentially innocent' doesn't help, nor does selective quotation for advantage. The phrase 'stray remark' refers to this diff on the original Arbcom charge sheet. One is obliged to AGF which here, particularly in regard to the sockteam operating there, I did not. That is an actionable infraction technically, and therefore Arbcom was, I repeat, wholly within its remit and rights to punish me for it. One cannot be 'innocent', let alone 'essentially innocent' when one breaks a rule in witting disregard for sanctions. May I remind you that the proposer and those who second his suggestion, request an amnesty, not a retrial on some spurious late defence that I might be innocent of the original charge, as you appear to insinuate by suggesting I am here to protest my innocence. Nishidani (talk) 20:57, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Michael. I know many are tempted to speedread in here, but you have, again, misunderstood. 'Selective quotation' refers to your use of my comments, in the diff you added, not your citations from Ravpapa and BorisG. I have no animus against those who might entertain a spirit of enmity against me in this place. I do tend to get my metaphorical knickers in a twist, or to be more gender-consonant, my bowels in a knot, when long arguments ensue from habits of misreading everything one's interlocutor says. May I Cromwellize this rather fiddlesticky exchange? I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible that you may be mistaken about what you think I said. Nishidani (talk) 11:33, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

In reply to JClemens, I confess I do not quite 'wish' to return to the I/P area. Several fellow editors have expressed some confidence in the idea that, if I mend my scabrous tongue, and learn to refrain from, to misquote Sir Thomas Browne, abusing the incivility of my knee, I might prove helpful in the area they edit. However the vote swings, or I swing, I owe them a vote of thanks for their solicitude in expressing a desire to have me back as a colleague there. This motion imposes on me a sense of obligation, if the amnesty is passed, to work in a manner that will not disappoint their confidence.Nishidani (talk) 11:49, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Peter Cohen

I support this amendment. Nishidani is a very able and intelligent contributor to Wikipedia. Like JayJG, he has contributed high quality work in areas not covered by the ban.

Wikipedia is not some cult or extremist party where editors are expected to make obsequious replies to "just criticism". Shortly after the original punishment, Nishidani attempted to retire at a round number of edits which I think was 13K. he is now approaching 20K edits. He has not been blocked for over two years and does not attract much admin criticism. Although Michael note that Nishidani can be ascerbic, he has not produced evidence newer than the year-old edits in the other thread.

He is therefore someone whose presence is generally a benefit to the project and I think that Wikipedia can afford to take a small risk in lifting the topic ban in the same way that it did with JayJG with no subsequent problematic repercussions.--Peter cohen (talk) 22:04, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Broccolo

I strongly oppose this amendment. I agree that Nishidani is a veryable and intelligent contributor to Wikipedia, but he has violated his topic ban many times. For instance Nishidani inserted himself in the discussions directly related to I/P conflict, including introducing hate propaganda anti-Israeli cartoon

• Topic ban violation
• Topic ban violation
• Topic ban violation

Besides it is my understanding that Nishidani was not very civil editing in other areas of the project:

• [[46]] “Oh dear, man. Learn to read!...I'm presuming you are not an adolescent struggling in remedial classes in English, while you edit with furor here.”
• [[47] – “Are you just acting DUMB?...a reflection that English is not your mother tongue."

I do not believe I/P topic will benefit from this user incivility. Broccolo (talk) 16:38, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

None of these edits are from this year and some were considered in the SAQ arbcom case without action being deemed necessary.--Peter cohen (talk) 18:28, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

I provided the differences that prove that Nishidani has violated his topic ban and was uncivil while editing in another topics. Here is the difference from this year that proves BATTLEGROUND behavior of the user. Please read what Nishidani responded when asked by another editor why he is commenting in the meditation he refused to join.

There is a difference between posting new sanctions and lifting old ones. Nishidani has repeatedly violated his topic ban, Nishidani has repeatedly demonstrated incivility and BATTLEGROUND behavior, and his topic ban should not be lifted. Broccolo (talk) 19:22, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't see anything particularly battleground in that and I note it seems to have survived purges by the mediation moderators. It does explain why someone I had not heard of is taking interest in this thread.--Peter cohen (talk) 19:57, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Ynhockey

As I said in the proposal from a few days ago, and say again now, the last thing the I–P area needs is bringing back problematic editors. There are enough problems as it is, and there is no doubt that this editor was not banned for nothing. Broccoli above presents a solid evidenced case why there is absolutely no reason to lift the ban.

Moreover, the condition for lifting the ban was that the editor continues to contribute to Wikipedia in a significant way. With due respect to Nishidani's contributions, he has not written any FAs or GAs or even DYKs lately (as far as I can tell), did not participate in the major backlog drives, and mostly continued his pattern of editing little but writing TLDR talk page comments that waste everyone else's time, only now outside of I–P (about 64% of Nishidani's latest 500 edits, for example, are on various talk pages, which isn't necessarily a problem, but for anyone who remembers the case and why Nishidani was banned, it is). I feel that Wikipedia has not lost a major asset by banning Nishidani from the topic area, and won't lose anything by not lifting the ban. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 16:57, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Instead of quoting statistics, are you able to identify any problematic in the approx 320 talk page edits of which you speak? They would at least constitute more recent evidence than that put forward so far.--Peter cohen (talk)

I don't need to find "actionable" evidence because I'm not advocating that Nishidani be sanctioned, rather I'm asking that his sanctions not be lifted. There's a big difference. All I need to show is that Nishidani's editing pattern has largely remained the same. This in itself is a reason for not lifting the sanction. Also, please make further comments in your section per page guidelines. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 19:16, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Statement by No More Mr Nice Guy

@Jclemens - The "portion of the community commenting here" consists mainly of editors heavily involved in the topic area Nishidani was banned from. There are only two editors I don't recognize from I/P articles (in which I am also involved, for the record). No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:58, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Assuming you count the same too as me, their presence can be explained by one agreeing with Nishidani over the SAQ business and the other disagreeing with him over Ebionites.--Peter cohen (talk) 20:04, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

So the people who agree with him want the topic ban lifted, and those who don't, don't. And nobody else cares. What a surprise. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:46, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

FWIW, I agree with Brewcrewer. In the little interaction I had with Nishidani, I found him to be combative, condescending and long winded. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 09:24, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

@nableezy - The main reason that "when Jayjg appealed his ban, you did not see editors who hold opposing views as him making such comments as the ones seen below" is that Jayjg doesn't antagonize editors holding opposing views like Nishidani does. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 14:03, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Brewcrewer

I have no idea why Nishidani would want to have the topic ban lifted. He does not appear to have any history of solid contributions to the Israel-Arab topic. All I remember about Nishidani are his huge blocs of text he added to talk pages in which little was understood save for his belittlement of other editors. I am open to being corrected of course. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 00:34, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Biosketch

I'm thoroughly opposed to the idea of granting amnesty to banned users, regardless of whose side they're against. I'm not familiar with either of the two editors on whose behalf the amendment is being sought – though I suppose I do indirectly bear the blame for Gilabrand (talk · contribs)'s ban) – but my opinion based on my experience in the I/P topic area thus far is that more editors should be sanctioned, not have their sanctions rescinded. The topic area is bad enough with the small number of disruptive participants already involved in it. Opening the door for even more disruption will be a disaster.—Biosketch (talk) 10:00, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

@BorisG (talk · contribs), it's likely that the reason there are so few regular contributors in the I/P topic area is because of the intimidating atmosphere engendered by editors who don't know how to manage their anger and for whom assuming bad faith is the default option. I'm beginning to understand who among the regular contributors is genuinely devoted to improving articles and collaborating with unlike-minded editors and who is here primarily for amusement and to promote an agenda. This isn't the place to name names beyond the two individuals in regards to whom this Amendment is being sought – but specifically in their case, from what I've been able to gather, their sanctions were imposed on account of their inability to work constructively with the general community. It's my opinion that more users who demonstrate such inability should be banned. In the long run, it will be to the benefit of the topic area.—Biosketch (talk) 09:01, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Statement by BorisG

Biosketch has an interesting view. But: the vast majority of contributors to the I/P topic area have, shall we say, very strong views one way or the other. If we topic ban all of them, no one will be left to contrtibute. Thus any bans have to be weighed against past and potential contributions of the user(s) in question. In short: no users - no disruption, but also no content.

Even if it is true that more editors need to be banned, this needs to be consistent. I do not see that Nishidani is any more disruptive than a number of other editors. He is under such a drastic sanction because it was an ArbCom case. I think on this basis, Nishidani's ban needs to be lifted. He will certainly be under very close scrutiny.

One concern I do have is conflicting and confusing messages from Nishdani. On one hand, he says that he has retired partly because he was prevented from contributing to the I/P topic area. On the other hand, he says now he is not keen to return to this area. According to his talk page he is retired, but according to the user page, semi-retired. A bit confusing. BorisG (talk) 10:58, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

@Biosketch, your general point is taken. Basically, you are saying that my equation 'no users - no disruption, but also no content' is simplistic and incorrect because as we ban more disruptive users, others less disruptive will join in. Well, possibly. But in any case, I have (briefly) looked at Nishidali's ArbCom case, and I did not find his behaviour so outrageous as to warrant such a drastic sanction. Also I have looked at all the diffs presented here by opponents of the lifting of the ban, and they are not particularly compelling. Besides, I almost always believe in the second chance. The risks are actually minimal, as he will be under severe scrutiny. Cheers. - BorisG (talk) 11:41, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Statement by John Carter

As is noted in the decision itself, as well as in the comments lifting JayJG's restriction, any edits to the pages in question will remain subject to discretionary sanctions. That being the case, I believe that it is not unreasonable to lift Nishidani's existing restrictions as well. As is the case for JayJG, and, really, any and all other editors who will ever edit the related pages in question so long as the discretionary sanctions remain in effect, any misconduct they might make from this point forward may well cause the placement of sanctions of some sort on that editor. Personally, I think that those sanctions could, reasonably, include temporary topic bans, if such were indicated. Nishidani is a good editor who has done very good work in recently helping to bring at least one other contentious and difficult article, the Shakespeare authorship question, to FA. He appears to have demonstrated a significant degree of knowledge regarding this topic as well. That being the case, I can see no good reason to continue to permanently keep a good editor who is knowledgable about the subject and apparently willing to work on it from doing so. Should the misconduct recur in a non-trivial way, a block or temporary ban could be restored, or potentially edits to the article pages themselves placed on him. (A single instance of moderately insulting someone would at least to my eyes qualify as a trivial example of misconduct, for instance.) But I don't think it necessarily makes sense to keep a good and productive editor from being able to edit content he has, apparently, already demonstrated an ability to improve. John Carter (talk) 15:53, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Cptnono

Why? The editor has been semi-retired or retired for a bit. He even says that he does not wish to return. We don't need him and he appears to be fine with it. He thinks that simply biting his tongue will be sufficient? Why hasn't he made a statement acknowledging that he understands that his bias has been a hurdle to editing constructively and that is something he promises to keep in check? If he would have not violated his topic ban multiple times (see the warning last September) and then not made completely unneeded and possibly baiting commentary disguised as a "note to self" in March[48] then maybe I would believe that there could be some change. I also believe the never archived nsection at the top oh his talk page is still a concern even if consensus was otherwise.Cptnono (talk) 05:59, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Looking forward to saying "I told you so". General amnesty picked by an editor seemingly at random? One of them has no chance at coming back (see below) and another all of a sudden can even though they have not made it clear that they actually understand what they did wrong (edit warring and a sharp tongue are one thing, but completely ignoring the goals of this project by not keeping an seemingly uncontrollable bias in check is another). The requester (not even the editors in question) actually asked at the collaboration page what difference the sanctions have made. To paraphrase my answer: It is quite now but as editors get off their blocks it will all start up again. How many more AEs do we need?Cptnono (talk) 02:46, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Further discussion

Statements here may address all the amendments, but individual statements under each proposed amendment are preferred. If there is only one proposed amendment, then no statements should be added here.

Clerk notes

This section is for administrative notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Arbitrator views and discussion

• The portion of the community commenting here seems to reasonably support ending Nishidani's topic ban. If there's anything missing, it's an assertion that this editor wants to edit the topic area and expresses the desire to do so in line with community guidelines... but I suspect that's implied. Jclemens (talk) 05:45, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
• I'm willing to give it a go and lift the sanction. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:04, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
• I think we could give this a chance. Shell ^babelfish 23:25, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
• I think it's acceptable to lift our restriction and leave it up to the community if they want to enact their own measures. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 17:22, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
• As noted by Johnuniq and John Carter, the area is under discretionary sanctions - so any regression to past problematic behaviour could be handled at WP:AE. As the topic ban was placed over 2 years ago, it is not unreasonable to lift to determine if it has become unnecessary. –xeno^talk 14:48, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Motion

The editing restrictions placed on Nishidani (talk · contribs) in the West Bank - Judea and Samaria case are lifted effective at the passage of this motion. Nishidani is reminded that articles in the area of conflict, which is identical to the area of conflict as defined by the Palestine-Israel articles case, remain the subject of discretionary sanctions; should he edit within this topic area, those discretionary sanctions continue to apply.

Majority reference

For this motion there are 14 active arbitrators. With 0 arbitrators abstaining, 8 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Majority reference

Abstentions	Support votes needed for majority
0	8
1–2	7
3–4	6

Support

1. Proposed (adapted from Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/West Bank - Judea and Samaria#Amendments). –xeno^talk 14:40, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
2. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 15:17, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
3. Jclemens (talk) 05:28, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
4. PhilKnight (talk) 14:02, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
5. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 13:33, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
6. Okay. Mailer Diablo 17:44, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
7. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:14, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
8. — Coren ^(talk) 13:18, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Oppose

Abstain

Recuse

Motion enacted at 17:28, 21 July 2011 (UTC) by majority vote of the Committee. Original discussion located at [49]. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 17:28, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

---