Archives
1 | 2

Hello,

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Allegations of apartheid. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Allegations of apartheid/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Allegations of apartheid/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee,Newyorkbrad 18:15, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know that this now may make it look like an exhortation to gang up and help each other in the editing process - but I did just want to say thank you for (unintentionally) making me feel today that I am not alone or mad when it comes to dealing with this crazy article and some of the people who seem to think they have taken charge of it and seem impervious to any rational debate, or statement of the obvious, which happens to contradict their own deeply held beliefs. And to think I only started here (anonymously under an old IP address) editing out typos in film articles. Btw I have also posted this on Nwe's talk page --Nickhh 19:47, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Madam, I thought I would save you the trouble of archiving.:)) Palestine forgotten 15:30, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but you buried my barnstars! I'm not too proud to admit I'm proud of them things.--G-Dett 16:07, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Silly of me. going to fix it now. Palestine forgotten 16:19, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is that ok now? I actually lifted that panel on top from a guy. Palestine forgotten 16:24, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hell yes Palestine forgotten! All clustered together like that now I'm super proud.--G-Dett 21:50, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that I inadverently placed the notice of the arbitration case (which someone has moved now) on your userpage rather than your talkpage. Sorry about that. Newyorkbrad 16:20, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You might be interested in my comments at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Allegations of apartheid/Workshop#Injunction. Would you say that was a fair summary of the "clique" problem? -- ChrisO 00:12, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

i thought it over and decided that these escalating comments of yours, in which you state that:

• I need to understand that my "sophistries" won't fly with you. and that you will "explode them" every time, and that every time you will "explode them" my credibility takes a hit.^[1]

• I need to significantly raise the pitch of my discussion if I want to be taken seriously on the page^[2],

are a tad too personal. i request you go over WP:CIV and WP:NPA and avoid such statements in the future and stick to the talk issues rather than make things personal.

i note that to your first "explode them" comment i already asked you to take a step back and noted to you that i have no interest in personal conflicts.^[3] Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 21:10, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

3RR note: i'v now noticed that this revert (on 16:23, 16 August) of yours was the 6th edit in the span of 24hrs. i don't plan on reporting this, but i suggest you stick to the rules and avoid edit wars. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 22:46, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I count five but your point stands, and I apologize.--G-Dett 23:10, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks will lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you.

i find you latest comment that "Jaakobou ... You should revert your latest stupid propaganda edit if you wish to be taken seriously" to be a breach of both WP:CIV and WP:NPA. this is the second notice you've received on such an issue in the span of 72 hours,^{sep. 2 - static} and i request you avoid this type of behavior and consider other alternatives to resolve whatever issues that bother you. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 10:10, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

i honestly don't know why you insist on this.^{20:34, 5 September 2007} i request you restrict yourself to the article issues and avoid this type personally oriented wordings. if there are non-article material issues that bother you, you should consider other alternatives to resolve them. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 20:48, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

note: please consider easing off on making claims on how i regard other editors claiming i don't trust or respect others,^[4] i don't think i elicited such a description even when i noted you about uncivil commentaries. also, i would appreciate it if you don't "pair me up" with anyone else just because you are in a heated exchange with them.^[5] Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 22:27, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not attack other editors. If you continue, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia.

regarding your statement on who or what i consider laughably or what i am supposedly thrilled with; but most of all, the allegation that i've now, according to you, "doctored [it] and puffed it up".^[6] these interactions are unacceptable personal attacks and i request you avoid any mentions regarding what you allege i think, feel or do - unless you wish to open an ArbCom discussion on the matter. i honestly don't know why you insist on this but from your earlier comment i'm guessing i should deduce that you don't trust or respect me much.^[7] not that there is any prerequisite for you to in order to edit wikipedia, but such statements certainly don't help and you should consider other alternatives to resolve whichever issue it is that bothers you. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 00:29, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/G-Dett for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page.

comment - i hope this is just my own paranoya and not an intentional and blunt breach of protocols. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 02:21, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I trusted your assertions, as I didn't have time to check. I would, however, appreciate it if you could delete the comment you made on my section about the DRV (as it doesn't seem relevant); and more generally if you could just try a less strident and accusatory tone. I've read through your various contributions, and you make good points (even if we don't always agree), but if you don't mind a bit of feedback, you'll seem a lot less partisan if you a) tone down the rhetoric a bit, and b) accept that we can all have honest disagreements. --Leifern 15:47, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

please note this discussion - Talk:Battle_of_Jenin#martyrs.27_capital - and consider changing your last edit. btw, i've had another couple sources for this, but i did not keep them since i figured the BBC reference was good enough. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 20:29, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I really appreciated your comments at the 3RR here. As usual, you did your homework and presented the case much better than I could have. I just wanted to say thanks. Tiamat 14:28, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Due to your interest in the Allegations of apartheid article I think you may be interested in this proposal Talk:Allegations_of_apartheid#Proposed_Move. Lothar of the Hill People 19:25, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

previous issues related with this article - Battle of Jenin - WP:NPA , Sockpuppetry case.

i apologize for the sock inquiry, however, it seemed a possibility at that time and it was my first dealing with the SSP prossess.

regardless, it would seem that your revert in this instance^[8], justified under: "your edit of the ADL material was verbose, ungrammatical, superfluous, and incredibly well-poisoning." was (1) most uncivil. and (2) removed the adjustment to the reference, in which page 38 was noted as the location of the quote.

to add, i'm not sure on why you objected (/removed) to a note about the ADL being an organization intended on advocating against the defamation of the Jewish people? it surely clarifies your earlier concerns about partisan commentary.^[9] Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 23:33, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jaakabou, thank you for posting this apology, but please understand that I have no hard feelings about the sockpuppet thing. I thought it was funny. It is my personality to make the most of such things.

Regarding the revert, my edit summary referred to the material I was reverting, not to its author. That material was indeed verbose, ungrammatical, superfluous, and well-poisoning; that was exactly the problem with it and exactly why I was reverting it. All of those problems were, moreover, related: the material had become verbose and superfluous in the process of poisoning the well, trying to predispose the reader to be receptive to the ADL's commentary, reminding him that the anti-defamation league opposes defamation (a bit like reminding readers that Mothers Against Drunk Driving consists of mothers who oppose drunk driving), indeed reminding him of this multiple times ("defamation of the Jewish people," "demonization of Israel," etc.); and it was ungrammatical because its verbosity had created a run-on sentence with its clauses all out of joint. You obviously have an excellent command of English. If I thought you were struggling with the language (as opposed to struggling with NPOV), I'd never have posted an edit summary like that.

Now, to your question about why I don't think your sunny description of the ADL as "an organization intended on advocating against the defamation of the Jewish people" belongs here. First of all, because it's well-poisoning (one can poison the well with positive information as well as negative). But "surely," you argue, "it clarifies [my] earlier concerns about partisan commentary?" Well, no, it doesn't. The ADL isn't regarded as partisan because it opposes the defamation of the Jewish people. It is regarded as partisan because it aligns itself – with absolute, unwavering and unreflective consistency – with whoever is currently in power in Israel, with whatever Israeli policies currently are, and with powerful domestic Israel lobbies such as AIPAC. And, finally, because it regularly and indiscriminately denounces anyone critical of Israel, with a vehemence (and not-infrequent dishonesty) that verges on outright character assassination. The ADL is a political organization; do you not realize that? Why do you think they deny the Armenian genocide? Because of Israel's strategic ties with Turkey. There are many, many intelligent people on all sides of the political spectrum who are passionately opposed to defamation of the Jewish people, who are just as passionately opposed to the poltical and lobbying machine that is the current incarnation of the ADL. I stress "current"; the ADL has done extremely valuable work in the past, and was not always so corrupt and cynical an organization.

Finally, it is gross exaggeration to describe an ADL press release as a "case study." It's bad enough that we're including a statement produced by ADL staffers surfing the internet in a section on "post-fighting investigations" produced by human-rights experts on the ground at the site of the battle; let's not compound this poor judgment by engaging in puffery.

I hope this answers your questions; if not, do post again.--G-Dett 01:19, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(1) i find your commentary in the 1st paragraph increasingly uncivil. i'm starting to wonder to the type of explanation that you require in order to stop as this is not the first time i've given you a notice.^[10]

(2) you'll pardon me if i disagree with your presentation on paragraph 2 and note that the ADL describes their document as a case study and that is how i registered this: "commented in a report which presents their case study"^[11]. (this objection, which should be on talk, could be touched up)

(3) i haven't seen you object to "puffery" when the sources had the opposite perspective and i remind you that you ignored both points in this notice. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 06:27, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

to the issue of the totally disputed tag, you are invited to comment here. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 00:10, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can I encourage you to strikethrough the last sentence ("Understand, however, ...") of this comment? It strikes me as unnecessary, provocative, and incompatible with WP:AGF... Jakew 13:38, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi G-Dett. I applaud your decision to strike some of the other comments, but I think you should reconsider this one. I'm sure that it wasn't your intention, but the impression it creates is something like this: "Clearly you lot have no concern whatsoever for NPOV, and have been getting away with rabid POV pushing for ages. But I, G-Dett, will not tolerate your misbehaviour any longer."

Please give it some thought, anyway. Jakew 14:59, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

after some extra thought, and considering your displeased expression to it, i've decided to remove the link to the previous talk.^[12] i'm left though to wonder at what POINT you presume i was trying to make. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 23:09, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Talk:Allegations_of_apartheid#Propose_move_to_.22Apartheid_analogies.22. Lothar of the Hill People 21:09, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey G-Dett, hope you're enjoying the cruise! Meanwhile, please do me a favor and help me understand why you are claiming that "editors are evidently lying" and, accordingly, AGF can be dropped. Specifically, what statements are you claiming are deliberate falsehoods? Or are you saying, in a somewhat more rhetorical(?) fashion, that some edits are "lying to readers" and hence the editors are themselves lying? Thanks for letting me ask you here. HG | Talk 03:35, 11 September 2007 (UTC) P.S. Shouldn't I be asking you also to comment on the article restructuring proposal at Talk:Allegations of Israeli apartheid? Ciao.[reply]

Ahoy matey! Thanks for you note, I sure hope Fred B, Flo et al aren't tempted to create AoLA for fun, lest they have to take their own pending remedy (non-remedy?). Anyway, betw island jumping, pls do look at Part A of the restructuring, since you seem to have gotten up to speed on more material than just A&M. Rabidly yours, HG | Talk 16:21, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again, G-Dett. I'm real honored that you've offered to co-nominate me for adminship. I'm interested in serving as an admin but would like to avoid a premature or otherwise unsuccessful RfA. Since I know my own real life experiences and responsibilities, I am confident that I can be trusted as a responsible sysop at Wikipedia. However, I realize Wikipedians only know me through HG's edits/contributions. So I wrote Jossi a few questions and thought I'd run them by you to, though maybe you're currently back on cruise. Here ya go: What do you think I should do to prepare for the RfA? Do you have a sense of whether/how I should address some of my shortcomings prior to an RfA? Or during the RfA discussion? (e.g., gaps in technical know-how) Given the above etc., any advice on when would be a good time to start an RfA? Thanks very much, G-Dett, for being so encouraging to me since we've met. I;d like to chat with you more about an RfA when you have a chance. Take care, HG | Talk 16:48, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

regarding this archiving revert, i accept to leave the pallywood subsection out for a little more, but i note you that i archived it considering that for almost a week, no one has made a comment on the topic and it seems that no one is interested enough in taking the link out other than you (only eleland made some google related commentary - almost 10 days ago). Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 16:17, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

10 more days have passed, what do you say we archive it for the meantime and if you want to reopen it, we will? Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 05:16, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:AN/I#PalestineRemembered_IV are you prepared to accept me as PalestineRemembered's mentor?Geni 01:12, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that Board of Deputies of British Jews‎ - an organization which is the main representative body of British Jewry is a 'Middle east" article covered under my topic ban. I made that edit over a week ago, while both my mentors were quite active, and neither has saw fit to comment on this. I am of course willing to hear otherwise from them. Isarig 22:28, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I love this comment - I may even start a Top Ten Hit Parade for it. Nice to meet you - I'm sure our paths will cross soon enough. Tvoz |talk 22:06, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

hahahaha- I know what you mean Tvoz |talk 03:37, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I love it too. But suffer me as you wish, I really think you need to redo your last edit to Talk:Battle of Jenin. See my note there, ok? HG | Talk 15:02, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Replied on my Talk, maybe keep thread there for Tewfik's sake. If so, should I msg you or do you watch it enough? Be well, HG | Talk 15:42, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

per removal of the following from the article and also for the claim that i should, "Stop galloping around on your hobby horse misrepresenting source material,"^[13]

i'd expect this uncivil personal attack to not repeat itself, and also perhaps some notes on the article's talk page regarding whichever content issues you might have.

removed material:

• Palestinian Fatah investigation - death toll is 56 - <ref name="Qadoura56">
• Page numbers for United Nations material - Pg 11-12, Para 52-53, 56-57</ref>
• Statements made by Erekat to which the controversy section is all about.

-- Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 15:52, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was delighted to read your comment at my editor review. Maybe you get crusty around the edges, but you're really sweet in the middle. Plus, you paid me about the highest compliment an encyclopedist could wish for! Thanks so much, HG | Talk 00:59, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ummm, you might not be as delighted when you see my q's and ideas at Jenin. I am trying to mediate, as you both seem to want, but I do press you to shift your stance. Yes, I'm sure you understand, and wouldn't want me to do otherwise. Take care, HG | Talk 04:01, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Do me a favor, choose a calm moment and check out my initial ideas. Let it sit a bit before you respond, too, ok? I seemed to get a positive response from Tewfik (on my Talk), so now I'm worried about how you'll react. Thanks. HG | Talk 22:58, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Still holding my breath for your response on Jenin. Turning blue, HG | Talk 12:32, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First installment here.--G-Dett 14:13, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. We've ocasionally taken part in the same discussion pages, and I was impressed by your cold-headedness.

I noticed you were not comfortable with David Duke being quoted at length in the article about Mearsheimer and Walt's The Israel Lobby.

You were right. Extremist sources, according to WP:RS, should only be used in articles about themselves (e.g. as proof for their extremism), and then with extreme caution. Definitely, Duke does not belong in the article in question.

I've reverted the Duke quotes, citing the policy, but of course my revert has been reverted; and, of course, the reverter did not answer my points at the talk page. An uphill battle looms. Maybe you would care to pay a look at the article and the talk page and, if appropriate, take some action? Thanks. --Abenyosef 04:42, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Egads, are they really gone? Really?? OK, I guess I'll come out of hiding then. Glad you missed me! -- Kendrick7^talk 19:39, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I take your point. Btw, do you know where Jayjg and SlimVirgin have gone? And during their extended wikibreak, who is keeping a tally of your edit count? ابو علي (Abu Ali) 23:24, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ooooo, I can't stay mad at you... come here.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 01:08, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As the Mighty Defender of the Wiki, I call upon you to visit a damsel in distress. Please see the bottom two sections at User talk:Nishidani and the related section at WP:ANI. Tiamut 16:05, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

a single article edit in two months (00:25, 6 December 2007) and it's an 'edit summary-less' rv on me without any talk page commentary. i invite/request you use the talk page. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 00:44, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

note:

• Please avoid making improper jokes and talk page randomness. [14] Such random jokes are both disruptive and counter-productive.

• p.s. this is not what i had in mind when i invited you to join the talk page.

cordially. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 22:51, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• A version of the Argument clinic was indeed what you had in mind when you "invited" me to the talk page.--G-Dett (talk) 22:53, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This was nothing more than a personal attack on Sami. I've removed the bit that violates NPA and I'm reminding you of that policy and WP:CIVIL. I'm seeing far too many biting comments of others of that sort coming from you, Cla68, and others there, and it's not going to fly. Please limit your comments to the topic and not other editors, especially those opposed to your proposed content changes. Do not make a simple content dispute into a flame war around personalities. There's a limit to both the amount of drama the community can bear and it's patience in dealing with it. FeloniousMonk (talk) 04:04, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That wasn't a personal attack by any stretch of the imagination, Felonious. I suggest you restore what you deleted promptly, as it was germane to the discussion. If you are concerned about the decay of civility on that talk page, I suggest you have a look at Sami's incessant, unwarranted, and withering attacks on me.--G-Dett (talk) 04:07, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of the situation, who's right and who's wrong, please keep civility in mind, which you, and others, are currently lacking. - Rjd0060 (talk) 04:33, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello G-Dett. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#G-Dett regarding an issue that you may be involved with. You are free to comment at the discussion, but please remember to keep your comments within the bounds of the civility and "no personal attack" policies. Thank you. -- Rjd0060 (talk) 04:39, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure thing. - Rjd0060 (talk) 04:46, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, missed his "question", seeing as how an edit summary is a pretty bizarre to place to ask such a question. That's what the talk page is for. Newtman (talk) 07:19, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Fiery the angels fell. Deep thunder rolled around their shores... burning with the fires of Orc." Jayjg ^(talk) 03:17, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi G-Dett; I don't want to clog up that page with extraneous talk so I brought it here.

You say there that you "find Tiamut to be an eminently reasonable editor". I'm really surprised at you. You come off as a reasonable person and a scholar. How in the world do you come to such a conclusion? Doesn't bias play some part in man and maybe women too? I won't say a word more lest I'll be accused of personal attacks.

BTW wouldn't it make sense for Tiamut and me to step aside while you and the other editor’s hash out all that was said? Thanks. Itzse (talk) 22:01, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But, then again after more than a week of consternation, I am seeking your advice regarding what I should do, within Wiki-acceptable bounds, concerning someone's totally uncalled for response (of Dec18) to my (sarcastic) pointed reply. The end of his reply stated "It bought lots of simpletons; lots of ignoramuses; and sure, it goes without saying, it bought all the anti-Semites of the world." That response, added after my reply has totally stopped progress on debate and, naturally, left the page locked on the 'normal' POV. I totally understand and appreciate that "Opinions are like assholes, everyone has one" but what I can not accept, based on the Five Pillars, is the corollary "and everyone else's stinks". I have been smeared with the 'A-word' on my second talk-page comment. From where does he get his imperious perspective; am I supposed to sit idly by and let this POV-BS gain credence? I feel that I can not let it pass without reply (where appropriate), but I am too new to know how best to reply. I am seeking your guidance, Dr Ruth, should you be willing to give it. CasualObserver'48 (talk) 13:33, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As you weren't willing then, I have now been asked for evidence and it is the best I have to contribute. Does this constitute evidence of disruption/mis-behavior or not? I believe it does and therefore should be included, but you have more experience and I tend to believe your views. I'm asking for a few words in reply. Regards, CasualObserver'48 (talk) 07:22, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, G-, as a newbie, my skin isn't so thickened, so I will pursue it as I see fit; I do believe it constitutes a part of why I commented and we shall see how it flies at this particular time. I had to look up strawman when you had used it before and found it in propaganda, but am still unsure I would recognize one if it was dropped in my lap. I have, however, added half-truth to the list of techniques because that tends to be a large part of the other's RS tactics. I will likely also note moving goalposts in regard to one particular subject as well as an as-yet unplanted goalpost on another subject of particular relevance within the workshop section. Personally, the list of subjects possibly (but unlikely) to be reviewed is far more important to me than the specific editors. Regards, CasualObserver'48 (talk) 17:10, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi CasualObserver; Please re-read what I wrote, and you will see that I didn't call you an anti-Semite. That discussion took place in a paragraph named "Are Palestinian Arabs a nation?" where I argued that Palestinians have their reasons for wanting to believe so; or want you to believe so. But everybody else who believes so, falls into different groups; they are either simpletons, ignoramuses, anti-Semites; or countries who say so for selfish reasons. I assumed that you were in the Palestinian group because you had attacked me unjustly as saying that Palestinians aren't people; which you know full well that I didn't and wouldn’t say such a thing; and if you remember I called it a shallow trick. Now if you are honest and have any decency; you will retract your accusation that I called you an anti-Semite. Itzse (talk) 19:21, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Itzse, sorry, you said much more than that, more than a mouthful, which I have pondered since and decided to 'kicked upstairs'. We live by our words and deeds. I am little inclined to discuss it with you until it comes back from 'on high'. Let's not clutter G-'s page. CasualObserver'48 (talk) 00:55, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what you mean. If you think I attacked you personally then spell it out. Don't confuse defending and attacking. If you said something nasty about me and I threw it in your face; that doesn't mean attacking, that means defending. But even that I don't remember doing. Being sarcastic has nothing to do with you; it is at most sarcasm of an opinion, not yours necessarilly.

Please read again and you won't find an iota of an accusation that you are an anti-Semite. Itzse (talk) 01:08, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Palestinian people, and indicate whether you agree or disagree to mediation. If you are unfamiliar with mediation on Wikipedia, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. Please note there is a seven-day time limit on all parties responding to the request with their agreement or disagreement to mediation. Thanks, Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 20:24, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the case subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Palestinian people. For the Mediation Committee, Daniel 08:00, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

G-Dett,

Thx for your comments on the mediation case. What you say makes a lot of sense. I'd say I agree with all of it.

Unfortunately GHcool disputes the reliability of Finkelstein. That's why we have this mediation. --JaapBoBo (talk) 23:59, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can see that. But what I'm saying is that there's legitimate grounds for mediation about the use of Finkelstein in this article, but it's on the verge of being sunk by frivolity. Between the weak local contention (that a political scientist who's written a great deal about Zionism can't be quoted on the subject of "Zionist thinking") and the entirely spurious general contention (that peer-reviewed scholarship published by prestigious academic presses can be declared unreliable by Wikipedians), a legitimate intermediate contention is getting drowned out. That intermediate contention runs along the following lines: Finkelstein is not a historian of 1948 (when Hilberg praises him as a historian, he's talking about his history of Holocaust reparations), and he is very much a partisan with regards to the I/P conflict, so any inclusion of material from him in an article on competing accounts of a historical event should be cautious, limited, and justified. That intermediate contention should be at the heart of this mediation. I consider this helpful advice to GHcool as opposed to criticism of him. An overzealous prosecutor who presses for murder charges against someone clearly guilty of manslaughter and no more runs the serious risk of getting no conviction at all.--G-Dett (talk) 00:59, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GHcool chose to attack Finkelstein's reliability, not the relevancy of the text I want to add. --JaapBoBo (talk) 01:08, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear G-Dett,
Thank you for your recent message to me. I don't agree with most of it, but I appreciate the tone in which you wrote it. It is rare on Wikipedia to be treated with respect by someone who disagrees with me.
That being said, I prefer that you do not contact the mediator, Tariq, with your views on issues discussed in the mediation. The mediation is only valuable if the mediator isn't influenced by forces outside of the mediation (namely, anybody but me and JaapBoBo). Another editor nearly derailed the process for trying to undermine the mediation in this way. I appreciate your help in this matter. --GHcool (talk) 07:16, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:GHcool's protective attitude towards the mediator is touching but difficult to understand. There are valid reasons why non-party editors might wish to contact the mediator - for instance, to protest the slow and unresponsive nature of some of the responses. To suggest that the mediator cannot cope with such contributions seems positively insulting, suggesting total lack of faith in the person chosen.

Meanwhile, discovering that the mediation has been moved out of public view on such a flimsy and tendacious excuse raises concerns that there could be interference going on. PR^talk 22:29, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If I understand you properly, -from your point of view- the main concern with Norman Finkelstein is less his scholarship (which wikipedia editors should not discuss, we are not a kind a peer-reviewer committee) but the due:weight to give to his analysis on different topics. Do I understand you properly ? Ceedjee (talk) 15:11, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The mediation, according to this concerns "The use of Finkelstein as a reliable source in this article" and (potentially but likely very controversially to some of the parties) "Use of any other commentator on the Arab-Israeli conflict that similarly doesn't hold a position as a tenured professor at a major university or does not do his/her own primary research of the Arabic, Hebrew, and English texts using the historical method as a reliable source in this article". PR^talk 01:06, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sure.

G-Dett, did I understand you properly ? Ceedjee (talk) 18:11, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ceedjee, sorry for the delayed response. Yes, it sounds like you understood my point. I would only that the same applies to any other scholar on any subject.--G-Dett (talk) 17:47, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not worry for the late reply.

I have just come back here.

I share your Pov but that is obvious : this is the way I understand : WP:NPOV.

If I need support to convince people it should be like that I will not hesitate to contact you.

That should arrive soon ;-)

Regards, Ceedjee (talk) 13:34, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've responded in the appropriate spot on the Talk: page. Jayjg ^(talk) 06:31, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks G-Dett for the barnstar and your kind note. I have never had any problem misgivings (this is not the right word in this context - my English is going to shit!) with your comments anywhere at Wikipedia (about me or anyone else) and have deeply appreciated your patient and diligent review of sources and policy in dealing with difficult discussions, such as the one at Palestinian people. It's very thoughtful of you to recognize how difficult the compromise was for me, in light of the sources (and of course the personal dimension). Keep up your fine fine work and thanks. Tiamut 11:54, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You probably want to throw your hat in the ring over at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Palestine-Israel conflict. Actually, I'm not sure why you weren't named initially. Probably an oversight. <eleland/talkedits> 19:27, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the above link as I have requested arbitration for a dispute that you are involved in. Feel free to contribute there. Regards, Ryan Postlethwaite 20:57, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

who says I don't call when I see it!? Lol. Thanks for your heartwarming and misguided faith in, yours truly, HG | Talk 00:09, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PS Durova asked you politely to strikeout your comment. Your civility watchdog, HG | Talk 00:20, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see there's atleast one valid reference and sourced text that you deleted here including one from Canada.com. Could you explain? --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 00:37, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• "My second suggestion is that we have some sort of moderated ME-related forum".

That is a very good idea. But is ArbCom the solution or could even ArbCom help. I am sure not. The only solution is to fill this : Project:Middle-East Forum
Unfortunately the Project:Middle-East doesn't exist and Project:Israel/forum and Project:Palestine/forum are not neutral.
Rgds, Ceedjee (talk) 11:12, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if we can't do any of that, perhaps the medcab case noted below is a good start, until we can get our own effort running? :-) --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 04:01, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, there are these two, as perhaps another alternative. they're not really that active right now, anyway. see you.

• Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Arab-Israeli conflict oasis
  
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Arab-Israeli conflict.

--Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 17:40, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A case has opened in the WP:Mediation Cabal and a user has listed you as an involved party, related to edits/comments at Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The case is located at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-01-09 Israeli-Palestinian conflict‎, please feel free to comment on the article talk page. Thank you. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 04:01, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PS. I felt like it was time to open a mediation case, since in spite of all the contention, dissent and new proceedings curently going on, as well as edit-protections on several entries, there are actually very few active mediation efforts for any articles right now. so this is a step in hopefully a right direction. by the way, did you know that a single MedCab case can cover a few articles at once? so this seems like possibly an appropriate way to go. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 04:01, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

hey, how come you're sitting all the way over there with 6SJ7 having tea? I like tea too you know. :-) thanks. good to hear all your recent comemnts at the talk page. see you. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 15:14, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, — Rlevse • Talk • 22:13, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi G-, know you are busy on this subject, sorry to bother you. Could you give this [15] the 'sniff test' and see if it could gain some elevation? I was thinking of putting it here [16] under SM8900's input where I have already commented. Thanks, CasualObserver'48 (talk) 04:08, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that i unconditionally support the use of the phrase "a/the Palestinian people" at the article Palestinian people. this is not as a compromise, but rather in accordance with all valid sources and facts. please feel free to make whatever assertions you may wish in favor of this view. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 22:07, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have proposed a mediation on the underlying issue at New antisemitism. The request is here. It's up to you whether or not you want to participate. I am asking everyone who has been extensively involved in discussions on the talk page. *** Crotalus *** 05:21, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This arbitration has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The area of conflict in this case shall be considered to be the entire set of Arab-Israeli conflict-related articles, broadly interpreted. An uninvolved administrator, after issuing a warning, may impose sanctions including blocks of up to one year in length; bans from editing any page or set of pages within the area of conflict; bans on any editing related to the topic or its closely related topics; restrictions on reverts or other specified behaviors; or any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project. The Committee shall convene a working group, composed of experienced Wikipedians in good standing, and task it with developing a comprehensive set of recommendations for resolving the pervasive problem of intractable disputes centered around national, ethnic, and cultural areas of conflict. The group shall be appointed within two weeks from the closure of this case, and shall present its recommendations to the Committee no later than six months from the date of its inception. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:53, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi G-Dett,

I've proposed an amendment to Wikipedia:No original research that would strengthen (or more accurately, reiterate) the requirement of editors to reliably source interpretations of images in articles. This would particularly apply to depictions of allegorical or symbolic artworks or artifacts, where the meaning was not immediately clear or was subject to differing interpretations. You can see the text of the proposed amendment at Wikipedia talk:No original research#Interpretation of images - please feel free to leave comments.

Another editor involved in the discussion has suggested providing an example of "an actual ongoing dispute to illustrate the problem". I believe you're active in editing or monitoring articles in controversial subject areas, and I was wondering if you were aware of any such ongoing or recent disputes. It would specifically have to concern something like an illustration of unclear meaning, which editors were disputing what it represented, maybe because of a lack of reliable sourcing about the image itself or about its interpretation. If you've come across anything like this scenario, could you please chip in at Wikipedia talk:No original research#Interpretation of images? -- ChrisO (talk) 22:47, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party has been accepted. You can find more information on the case subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/New antisemitism. For the Mediation Committee, WjBscribe 18:45, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My effort to regain adminship was unsuccessful, and I'll do what I can to ensure your opinion of my suitability for adminship improves. Thank you for taking some time out of your day to voice your opinion.--MONGO 19:48, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An RfC on the Mantanmoreland sock allegation has been opened here. Cla68 (talk) 23:46, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hot shit. I've been following the Mantanmooreland case with a sort of detached interest, and I absolutely loved your "novelistic" expose on the links between GW and the two puppets. Since I don't know of proper barnstar procedure, I'll just give you some kudos. Dr. Extreme (talk) 21:44, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's the first time I can say that I have read "evidence" in a Wikipedia case when I didn't feel that I was being browbeaten or whined at, manipulated or patronized. It may be true that you were doing any or all of these things, but the writing itself is excellent, Weissian even (if I am allowed a sense of humour about all this), and I found that the story was all that mattered. I have no axe to grnd here, no side to take. So, thank you, for an amusing read. ៛ Bielle (talk) 03:16, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I must also give you major propers for your evidence (I also commented on it at the evidence talk page). I'm sure it will be dismissed out of hand by a lot of folks but you should not have written it any other way.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 04:13, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Likewise. I was enthralled by the dénouement you presented. An incredible piece of work; both readable and highly plausible. Well done indeed! - Alison ^❤ 09:06, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In Jan 2006, (which Lastexit edited within 3 mo), I was amused and awed by your clever synthesis, but there's something you missed: Earp was a gentile who married a Jew. Mantanmoreland claims to be a gentile with some Jewish blood, and an admitted fascination with antisemitism (and of course India). I suggested on the TALK page that the easiest explanation of the Mantanmoreland fascination with Weiss, followed by their joint trip to India to the same odd village, where Weiss went to marry, is that Mantanmoreland is simply the person Weiss went to India to marry. That person's an economics geek from the East coast, who now lives with Weiss and has always editted on his time schedule. Duh. My comments were not only deleted, but my conclusions were labeled "silly." They may be wrong, but I fail to see why they are "silly." No evidence has been presented for Mantanmoreland being Weiss, which isn't explained just as well (even better) by the idea that Weiss' biggest fan and biographer (Mantanmoreland) is more than a fan (but less than a sock). Anyway, thanks for the essay. Dunno why your ideas are allowed to survive on the evidence page, names and all, but mine are not even allowed on the TALK page. Sheesh. SBHarris 02:33, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

G'day, just wondering if you might be able to take a look at Wikipedia:Centralized_discussion/Jewish_Neighborhoods_versus_Settlements_of_Jerusalem, I thought it might interest you. Colourinthemeaning (talk) 15:27, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

hi. i may be stating the obvious here, but thanks very much for your support. I appreciate it. I also appreciate your courteous and well-reasoned attention to upholding Wikipedia, and keeping an atmospehre of real helpfulness. thanks so much. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 19:39, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

After that silliness about Shulman at the WP:RSN, I was dreading the prospect of reading the actual talk page discussion. Much to my surprise, Nishidani and you kept your end up despite the almost infinite inanity and willingness to troll apparently shown by many editors who opposed the Shulman quote.

I wonder, do you think any purpose would be served by compiling more of these paired examples where a certain prolific "pro-Israel" editor has clearly adopted one version of WP:POLICY for his favoured views, and a drastically different one for views he opposes? Even if an RfC led to nothing, it would be useful to have a public record of this apparent perfidy. <eleland/talkedits> 00:56, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since you have been involved in discussions with Jayjg on the Jewish lobby article, and since he has started a discussion on a project page concerning that article, I thought you might be interested in checking this out HERE. Thank you, Jgui (talk) 16:10, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You made a statement on the NOR noticeboard that surprised me, stating that you thought the OED quote I found does not belong on the JL page. I expected that statement from the POV-pushers, but I don't consider you to be one of them, so I am curious why you said that. It strikes me (and it was long argued by Jayjg back when he thought that no such usage existed) that a usage in a dictionary is a clear indication of a reliable and accepted usage of a term or phrase. And it also seems to me that a dictionary can be used without reservation or arguments about primary/secondary/tertiary sources.

Can I ask whether you read this explanation that I added:

In fact, the OED is defining "lobby", and is defining "special interest lobby", and by extension is defining "Jewish lobby" as a sectional special-interest lobby by using it as an example of a sectional special-interest lobby. This is the context (please refer to your own OED if you have one to verify):

OED2 p. 1074 definition of "lobby" as a noun; number 3. "In the House of Commons ... chiefly serving for interviews between members and persons not belonging to the House"; c. "In extended use: a sectional interest (see INTEREST sb. 4), a business, cause, or principle supported by a group of people; the group of persons supporting such an interest." Followed by examples of its use in this way as a sectional interest; 1952 from Economist "American interests have maintained their effective lobby against the project"; 1954 ibid. "France has to face powerful colonial lobbies in parlaiment"; 1958 from The Listener "The United States Government, sensitive to the Jewish lobby backed the Jews"; 1959 ibid. "They even tackled the vested privileges and subsidies of the powerful alcohol lobby"; 1971 Daily Telegraph "The anti-pollution lobby might claim that a spot of exaggeration is justified in such a cause".

It is not, as I was accused, that the term is used randomly somewhere in the dictionary, of course; it is the fact that it is used as an example of a special-interest lobby in a definition of a special-interest lobby; thereby making plain that it is considered by OED in the example they cite as a straightforward adjective phrase to describe a special-interest lobby: it was used to simply mean "lobby for and by Jewish members" just as "alcohol lobby" was used to simply mean "lobby by the alcohol industry".

It is this straightforward "descriptive" usage that Jayjg is blocking with his misapplication of WP:NEO. When this usage is incorrectly blocked by WP editors we are left with a WP article that is slanted and inaccurate that denies the non-pejorative way it has been actually used for many decades (and is still being used in Israeli media and elsewhere) and we are left with the only usage Jayjg will allow: as an antisemitic slur. We are left, in effect, with an article that is promoting Jayjg's view of the meaning of "Jewish lobby" (as an antisemitic slur based on his OR that the term is a "neologism") and nothing else, when it is clear to any scholar that it has historically been used in this other way. We have found scholarly references (OED and others) to back up that usage - but in a Catch22 we are not allowed to use them - can you see the source of the frustration caused by this?

I have no problem with restricting cited text to secondary/tertiary sources in the article as per the normal (non-NEO) WP policy - I agree with you that it will lead to a better article. But I absolutely oppose Jayjg's "law" that the term must only be discussed as an antisemitic term, since clearly that is simply Jayjg's fantasy world (which is once again clear from reading the OED definition of "lobby").

So can I ask why you stated you are opposed to using the OED quote? Is it that you think the quote is usable but poorly worded and can be improved? Is it a technical issue having to do with including dictionary examples? Do you question that this article should even include its descriptive usage as it has been and continues to be used for decades in a non-pejorative fashion? Or more likely something else I haven't considered? I'll check back here on your user page unless you prefer to discuss this somewhere else. Thank you, Jgui (talk) 07:08, 29 February 2008 (UTC) Jgui (talk) 16:37, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PS, if you have the time and haven't already seen it, here's Jayjg's current version of the JL page HERE; here's the version that included its Descriptive usage and Antisemitic Criticism HERE. Jgui (talk) 07:27, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

G-Dett, thank you for your response to me on my User Talk page. I left a response to you there; please let me know what you think when you have had the chance to read it. Thank you, Jgui (talk) 03:25, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much.[17] Durova^Charge! 01:02, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. I read stuff like this of yours that brings such clarity to the abuse that has been happening and all I can say is thank G-d … er, I mean thank G-dett, that there are those like you willing to not simply stand idly by and allow this to happen. The integrity of the encyclopedia is at stake, not to mention the people who’ve been damaged by the process that has allowed this to go on. Bravo to you for your willingness to wade through thick layers of mud for the sake of good. --MPerel 18:30, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, that at least deserves this trinket for this and everything else you do:

		Upholder of the Wiki
		For your wit and candor and your delightful audacity in standing up against the forces of evil and championing article integrity and balance on behalf of our global encyclopedia project. --MPerel 19:15, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1. I endorse this award, G-Dett's work, and Jihad Mcgraw as an alternate acount. It is a spectacular user name. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 20:48, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Outstanding. I saw the corrections you made, though your point still stands. And really, I think you've done some really solid explainitory work on this mess. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 23:03, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's Pallywood again, and a remarkably shameless performance from Leifern and a new user who I strongly suspect is someone's sockpuppet (I've submitted a CU request). They seem to be arguing for a total abandonment of policy with regard to stuffing the article with original research, material sourced from blogs (sorry, "non-traditional sources") etc. I'd appreciate your input on Talk:Pallywood#Relevant Updates,Slanted Interpretations, Lack of Neutrality, seeing as you've been dealing with an identical issue on another article over on the WP:ORN. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:00, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is strictly buisness (mostly) which is why I am sending these messages to random people.

These listed Wikipages Need your help!

Whoever knows when Alf Schofield died please put in on the Alf Schofield page, that would really help.

Look at the Talk:Kangaroo (meat) page regarding my post- Kangaroo Species- that would really help.

Look at Talk:Katharine McPhee regarding her spouse under Relationships by Keane Rox.

For April 2007 Nor'easter well, I put in a fact and referenced it and now I don't know how to complete the reference. Click the blue 2 reference and you'll know what I mean. Then click the [2] at the top of the April 2007 Nor'easter article and complete the reference.

Spread the word for these Wikipages in need! That is all.

--RayquazaDialgaWeird2210 (talk) 18:08, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comment, G-Dett. The funny thing is that nobody realized I could just be MM... not to joke. But it's probably good you showed up late if we would have ended up in a Spartacus moment. Could still happen for all I know. Mackan79 (talk) 17:55, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You insight into policy and guidelines would be appreciated. Three months of discussion over one sentence have come to naught. Tiamut^talk 00:42, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, nevermind. I almost began counter-canvassing after seeing another user do that for the RfC. Just ignore this request. Thanks. Tiamut^talk 02:13, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the barnstar G-Dett. You are, of course, deeply missed at those pages where someone with your insight, patience, and attention to detail is always welcome to untwist the Gordian knots that some others keep tying up as tightly as they can. I look forward to seeing you at one of those pages there again soon. And thanks again. Tiamut^talk 13:32, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanted to thank you for keeping the Ouze Merham discussion between us civil and cordial. I know full well how these topics can easily inflame personal opinions, and I appreciate your efforts to keep this restricted to policy and guideline, and leave our differences in opinion and ideology outside the issue. Thanks! -- Avi (talk) 16:05, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While out-of-date in terms of the history (so please edit the current version) I would like your thoughts about this. Thanks. -- Avi (talk) 21:18, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could I have some backup here? I'm trying to deal with a POV-pushing newbie who's obviously ignorant of basic NPOV requirements, but it's an uphill struggle. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:32, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much. You might also wish to see the questions that I've posed at [18], which nobody has yet addressed. I'm concerned that some editors may be seeking to turn the article into a POV fork of Media coverage of the Arab-Israeli conflict. I'd be grateful for your views. -- ChrisO (talk) 13:43, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've started drafting an RfC that you might be interested in here. Please feel free if you'd like to participate in adding anything to it that you feel might be relevant. Cla68 (talk) 02:29, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Heya G-Dett.

I would first like to apologise on behalf of the Mediation Committee for the delay in this case being dealt with, which is due to a shortage of available mediators. I have expressed interest in taking this case to help with the backlog and to assess my nomination to join the committee. As i am not currently a member it is common practice to for the involved parties to consent to mediation of an RfM from a non-committee member. To give your consent for me to act as mediator for this case please sign as you have for the acceptance of the case on the case page. I look forward to working with you and finding a solution to the dispute.

Seddon69 (talk) 17:01, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just to let you all know, the case has been started. I have created a little navbox for you to navigate between pages and will be expanded as the case goes on so that its easier for you to navigate. The first page you need to visit in this case is here so you can give youre opening statement. There i have left a few questions for you all to answer. For those that have been busy and unable to confirm their participation in the mediation, they are welcome to join the mediation at any stage.

I can be contacted in several ways in the event you need to. I am normally present on the wikipedia-en, wikipedia-medcab and wiki-hurricanes IRC channels at some point between 15:00 UTC and as late 02:00 UTC depending on college and real life commitments. To find these channels and instructions on how to access IRC go to WP:IRC. Throughout the day, even when i am in college, feel free to email me using the email tool or by emailing the email address on my user page or both to make sure. You can also leave a message on my talk page which again ill do my upmost to reply to as soon as i can. Seddon69 (talk) 20:23, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Heya. I noticed that you hadn't left your statement here regarding the New Antisemitism case. Its important for the success of this mediation that you stay involved in this otherwise i cannot guarantee that your views will be taken into consensus agreed upon by the parties. I hope that you will be able to participate soon. Seddon69 (talk) 22:58, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The mediation im getting rolling as its been a long time waiting so i think its best to get moving. Most of the mediation will be on the talk (discussion) page. so make sure its in your watchlist. Seddon69 (talk)

In light of your comment on the Jewish lobby mediation page, I've created a new mediation page so that we can try this again, hopefully with a better result. If you wish to join, please sign here. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:39, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Any insights you might offer to this discussion would be helpful and appreciated.  : ) --MPerel 03:48, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think thats its time we got moving. A couple of the points have been raised before and felt they were the foundations to the dispute:

• Firstly whether the picture can be confirmed to have been taken in the rally in San Fransisco.
• Secondly to come to an agreement on what new antisemitism is and then to decide what the image is depicting and whether it purely illustrates New Antisemitism or whether it also addresses other issues which could be confused with new antisemitism by new readers.
• If we cant confirm the those then we need to find a viable alternative.

A point i would like to raise is that at some point a lead image might need to be found if this article got to FA. The image in question is not free and couldn't be put on the main page with this article as todays FA. Although not an immediate point a long term solution might wish to be found so that this article could feature on the main page with a viable alternative.

Does anyone have access to Lexis Nexis? It might help as a search on the network could uncover something not readily available on the internet. Reliable sources that use the image would be helpful. Do you reckon that there would anyway of finding third party images that might possibly contain the poster/placard? Also i would be grateful if images of other placards at that rally could be found to find whether this was a small minority at this rally or perhaps a larger group.

Whilst that is being done i wanted to find out on what the consensus view is on what New Antisemitism is? I have read the article and the previous discussion and attempted to get a proper understanding but i wanted to ensure that this was current.

PS any sources you find can you please post in the section at the top of the mediation talk page. Seddon69 (talk) 16:10, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Following discussion at the mediation talk page, i would like to bring up a suggestion that until the end of the mediation to remove both images from the article. There is currently no real consensus on the images so in the interests of fairness it seems best to simply have no images. If you have any suggestions or comments then please come to the mediation talk page to be discussed. The discussion will be open for around 5 days if there are no problems. But the discussion will go on if there is ongoing discussion. ŠξÞÞøΛ ^talk 00:52, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - I just wanted to thank you for a thoughtful, informative, and even-tempered response to Jayjg's provocations on the mediation page. You made the distinction very clearly and provided compelling evidence to make the point; hopefully this will help settle the issue. csloat (talk) 03:09, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, I thought that's what might have happened :) Gatoclass (talk) 03:02, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have no opinion on the content at The Holocaust Industry, but the atmosphere at the talkpage is not helpful. Please try to keep future comments focused on the article only, and not the editors. Thanks, Elonka 04:17, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

G-Dett, I have removed your comments at Talk:The Holocaust Industry per WP:NPA (specifically, "comment on content, not on the contributor"). I've also noticed that you were a party in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles. Please keep in mind in the "Decorum" section, it states, Wikipedia users are expected to behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously in their interactions with other users; to approach even difficult situations in a dignified fashion and with a constructive and collaborative outlook; and to avoid acting in a manner that brings the project into disrepute. Unseemly conduct, such as personal attacks, incivility, assumptions of bad faith, trolling, harassment, disruptive point-making, and gaming the system, is prohibited. Because of this, if you continue to make uncivil comments, you could be sanctioned under this ArbCom case. Please try to stay cool, and only make comments on content in the articles themselves, not the editors who are editing them (as Elonka already said above). Thanks. Khoikhoi 04:21, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi folks, thanks for your input. In this particular case, content and editor are one and the same. I.e., an outlandish policy interpretation is being put forward by an editor who manifestly does not believe it (his "favorite article" by his own admission violates the interpretation), in what appears to be part of a campaign of harassment and lying regarding another editor.--G-Dett (talk) 04:31, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But the dispute is still about the article, The Holocaust Industry, right? If you have a dispute against Jayjg or his actions, the talk page of that article is not the correct place to discuss them. The reason that it is inappropriate to say "Jay doesn't have any particular views – or stable positions – regarding Wikipedia policies" is because it is a personally-targeted comment that also does not help solve the conflict. Please try to get to a consensus with Jayjg instead of making such remarks. Khoikhoi 04:51, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Khoikhoi, I appreciate what you're trying to do here, but.... I think if you look more closely at the thread you're referring to, you'll agree that what you've deleted is not so much a heavy-handed response to a bogus argument as it is a restrained response to out-and-out trolling.--G-Dett (talk) 04:59, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I don't think it's as restrained as it should be. Why make comments like that directed towards other users at all? Whenever I am in an editing dispute, I refrain myself completely from commenting on other editors in this way. They only make the situation worse. Khoikhoi 05:05, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are different ways of dealing with trolls, and yours may well be the best. Thanks again for your input.--G-Dett (talk) 05:09, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you are referring to Jayjg when you say "troll", please stop. I don't want to have to block you for personal attacks. Khoikhoi 05:19, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Khoikhoi. G-Dett, the term "troll" is highly pejorative within this culture, and should only be used to refer to an editor who is trying to deliberately harm the project. I am not seeing that kind of behavior here, so I would recommend that you avoid using that term, as it is quite uncivil. --Elonka 05:26, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jay is trolling when he reverts an editor he personally despises (and has lied egregiously about) on the grounds that a summary of a book in an article about the book is original research, while claiming an exemption for himself on grounds that his own book summaries are "brilliant and moving." If this knowledge prompts you to levy a retaliatory block, do your thing.--G-Dett (talk) 05:28, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please read meta:What is a troll?. It says:

Trolling refers to deliberate and intentional attempts to disrupt the usability of Wikipedia for its editors, administrators, developers, and other people who work to create content for and help run Wikipedia. Trolling is deliberate violation of the implicit rules of Internet social spaces. It necessarily involves a value judgment made by one user about the value of another's contribution. (Because of this it is considered not to be any more useful than the judgment 'I don't agree with you' by many users, who prefer to focus on behaviors instead of on presumed intent.)

Both of you are involved in a dispute over content. Both of you are editing and reverting each others edits in good faith. Please don't accuse other users of trolling in this case, because not only is it inaccurate, but it is also a blockable offense. This is why I am saying that you must respect WP:CIVIL. Khoikhoi 05:35, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"his own book summaries"? G-Dett, I think you're laboring under a misapprehension. I didn't write the Night (book) article, and certainly not the book summary found in it. I don't recall writing any book summaries, though I suppose it's possible I've forgotten one. Jayjg ^(talk) 06:08, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jay, you've contributed extensively both to the mainspace and the talk page of Night (book), your declared "favorite" article, which contains 3360 words of what you are now admitting is "original research." Your sudden admission follows on your rather sudden – and novel, and radical, and seemingly ad hoc – policy interpretation about book summaries, which appears to be part of a campaign of harassment against PR, whom you falsely accused last year of using Holocaust Denial sources for Wikipedia research. Those accusations were demolished at the time, yet you persist – with obvious intent to deceive – in suggesting that PR has a compromised "history" with regards to Holocaust denial.--G-Dett (talk) 06:26, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"contributed extensively"? Are you referring to edits like this, this, this, this, this, this, this, and this? Because that's the sum total of all the edits I've ever made to the article. And that's an article that's had almost 900 edits to it. Jayjg ^(talk) 07:15, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, I was thinking more of edits like this, this, and this, where you weigh in on the state of the article, give suggestions about needed improvements and applaud them as they happen, raise policy objections, etc. I am well aware that most of the hands-on mainspace editing was carried out by SlimVirgin, but you were very much present as a guiding and supporting voice in the shaping of what what was to become your "favorite" article. And not once did you even suggest that summarizing the book's contents was a violation of WP:NOR. There was no indication whatsoever from you that summarizing would even be problematic. Before Slim wrote the summary that you find "brilliant and moving" enough to transcend core policy requirements, there was an ungainly and badly written pair of summaries. You agreed they should be merged into a single summary, but said nothing at all about original research.

In short, even if your WP:IAR argument – that your friend Slim's summarizing prose is so brilliant that it needn't comply with core content policies – were legitimate as opposed to insolent and absurd, the fact remains that you are articulating it for the very first time now. And that strains my AGF beyond the breaking point. Your interpretation of WP:NOR in this case has elicited zero support and a great deal of incredulity from your fellow editors. Now adding to that incredulity you are asking us to believe that (a) your favorite article on Wikipedia has 3000+ words of exactly this kind of original research, but (b) it's OK because your friend writes wonderfully; and (c) that this extraordinary line of policy reasoning – wherein WP:IAR trumps WP:NOR if it's backed up by WP:ILIKEIT – can only happen in "extremely rare" cases, when you really really really like it, and yet somehow these moments of jettisoning core policy in the midst of a standing ovation are, well, ordinary enough that needn't even be remarked upon when they occur. Sorry, but I don't believe any of this. At some point Occam's Razor slashes through nonsense. That moment has arrived, and here's what it tells us about the present case:

You, like just about everybody else on Wikipedia, think it's perfectly fine to summarize a book in an article about the book. Saying otherwise was simply wikilawyering in order to delete a summary of a book you dislike by an editor you despise. When confronted with your own full-throated endorsement of an article consisting largely of exactly this sort of summary, you decided to brazen it out by invoking this post hoc IAR argument.--G-Dett (talk) 17:22, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see, rather than my paltry few edits to the article, which dealt almost exclusively with formatting issues, you meant my paltry few edits to the Talk: page, dating from over three years ago, which barely touched on content or policy - that's what you mean by "very much present as a guiding and supporting voice". I think it's fairly obvious that the claim is ridiculous at best. As for my own views on original research, as a significantly more experienced and mature editor I have indeed stated quite clearly that these kinds of plot summaries are pure original research - indeed, on December 20, 2007, I made exactly that point on the Arbcom mailing list, noting that even Featured Articles (regarding, in this case, "Episodes" articles) all suffered from this. So, I think that will be enough of you mistakenly telling me what I think, and certainly enough of you calling me a liar. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:37, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Before your recent flap with PR, I've never heard you argue that book summaries violate WP:NOR in articles about books. Is there a reason why you've never raised this issue on, say, The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy, another article you've edited extensively and that has this sort of summary? Have you argued this anywhere on-wiki? For what it's worth, I don't think I've ever heard anyone argue this interpretation anywhere.

And what does calling you a liar have to do any of this? You suggested to Ryan Postlethwaite that PR has a "history" of citing things to Holocaust-denial sources, which you knew wasn't true. But that's a separate matter from that of your sudden and eccentric interpretation of WP:NOR.--G-Dett (talk) 02:59, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

a) I've already told you that I've expressed that view before, and where - that means the view was not "sudden", and puts an end to your claims that I believe something different. Don't make either claim again.

b) I didn't suggest any such thing to Ryan Postlethwaite. Don't make that claim again.

c) I have not lied, and claiming so is uncivil. Don't make that claim again. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:19, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I gather you prefer the discussion here (big yellow box and all). The trouble with your response is that (b) and (c) are self-evidently false and a waste of your time to have typed and my time to have read, and (a) is sort of off-point. I asked if there is any on-wiki evidence from your 5+ years as a Wikipedia editor suggesting that you believe book summaries in articles about books constitute original research. I don't read "arbcom mailing lists," and don't even think I have access to them.--G-Dett (talk) 03:27, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have blocked you for 24 hours. I have repeatedly expressed to you here on your talk page to stop making uncivil comments. I have also repeatedly requested that you comment on content as opposed to the contributor. You completely ignored my requests with this post. Previous to that, Elonka left a message on my talk page saying "There have been sufficient warnings, which G-Dett does not appear to want to heed. I would support a block at this time." ([19]) However, I decided to give you the benefit of the doubt saying that you haven't made any more uncivil comments since then. But unfortunately you crossed the line after I gave you several warnings already. While you are blocked please review WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA so you that you won't make any similar mistakes in the future. Khoikhoi 08:02, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Khoikhoi, I appreciate your detailed explanation. I feel I owe you a candid response: this is not going to alter my opinion of whether Jay is trolling the talk page of the article in question, or whether he is harassing the editor he has been lying about, and so on. Should I have pursued the issue of a rogue admin's lying, harassment, and trolling in a different venue, such as AN/I? Perhaps. I acted on the belief that these behavorial problems were inseparable from the supposed content dispute, and I still think that assessment is correct.--G-Dett (talk) 13:25, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

G-Dett, I am neither supporting nor criticizing Jayjg's actions here. It does seem to me though, that you feel that you have valid concerns which you would like to express about his behavior. What I (and Khoikhoi) are trying to get across, is that your concerns are not being expressed in an effective way, and that indeed, the way that you are expressing concerns, is more likely to get action taken against you, than against Jayjg or SlimVirgin or whoever else that you have concerns about. There are definitely proper ways to express those concerns, but name-calling is not one of them. There is also a distinction between raising concerns about an editor, and raising concerns about edits that are being made to an article. If Jayjg (or any editor) makes edits that you feel are problematic, then you have the right to change those edits, preferably towards something that is a compromise. If a compromise does not seem possible, then take concerns to the talkpage, and try to get other editors to offer comments, via an RfC. Or, suggest mediation or one of the other steps at dispute resolution. While at an article talkpage though, comments should be limited to the article, and not to perceived misbehavior on the part of the editors. If there's a particular edit that you think violates policy, it's better to provide a diff of it and say, "This edit violated policy". But saying, "The editor who did this is a troll", is not going to evoke a positive response on the part of the administrators. Instead, your best bet is to stay very very civil, and to keep your comments very focused on policy. That will enable administrators to be more effective, because I'll be honest with you, when an admin comes to a page and just sees two people sniping at each other, the admin is going to assume that both are at fault. The admin isn't going to care "who started it."

If you truly believe that Jayjg has a pattern of problematic edits (and again, I have no opinion on whether he does or does not), then the steps you should follow are:

• Stay civil
• Identify specific recent edits which you feel are violations of Wikipedia policy. Choose blatant cases only.
• Diff these edits to Jayjg's talkpage, express your concerns in a civil way, and make constructive suggestions of how you feel that he can be a better editor. If/when he replies, continue to respond in a civil way.
• While doing the above, it is important that you continue to edit in other non-Jayjg areas as well, to show that you are not just focusing on his edits above all else. Because if all you are doing is following his edits, then it could be seen as a violation of WP:HARASS.
• If problems continue, follow the steps at Dealing with disruptive editors. File a report at ANI, or a User Conduct RfC. If that still doesn't work, an ArbCom case might be worthwhile, but you would still have to show that you had first tried all other available means to deal with the situation, before a case could be accepted.
• And again, stay civil. Especially when trying to address perceived problems with another editors's conduct, it is essential that your own conduct be above reproach. Because as soon as you resort to name-calling, it reduces the credibility of the rest of your arguments.

Hope that helps, Elonka 19:44, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your thoughtful input here, Elonka. You are almost certainly correct that there are better approaches to problems like this than mine.

That said, given your role in recommending my block, and given the time you've taken to write the above, I do find it a little odd that you've not read through the dispute closely enough even to know that there's no beef with SlimVirgin here, none at all. SV's only role in any of this is to have written a superb – and entirely policy-compliant, notwithstanding Jay's convoluted claims to the contrary – summary of Elie Wiesel's Night. I am also a little taken aback by your recommendations to edit more in "non-Jayjg areas." Jay is one of the most prolific editors on WP, and his "area" covers everything related to Jews, Jewish history, Judaism, and the Israel-Palestine conflict. I'm running a comparatively tiny operation here, and beyond my interest in (not specifically Jewish) literature my edits focus on a small topical subsection of Israel-Palestine articles – namely, articles covering ethical issues surrounding journalistic and scholarly commentary about the conflict. This brings me into necessary contact and regular friction with Jay. I don't consider our small area of overlap to be his "area," and I'm a little surprised that you've taken seriously his allegations of "stalking."

In the present case I was alerted to the page in question by an email from an editor called PalestineRemembered, who is under Ryan Postlewaite's mentorship. In a very ugly episode last year, PR was falsely accused of importing Holocaust-denial material into Wikipedia. The accusation was very quickly and unanswerably discredited, but he came within an inch of being permabanned. About a week afterward Jay, who was PR's accuser, apologized. In a post several days ago to Ryan's talk page generally questioning PR's good faith, Jay specifically insinuated that PR had a "history" regarding Holocaust denial. This is what I've referred to as a "lie." I don't think that's too strong a word.

I understand why you and Khoikhoi felt this block was justified. I appreciate your warnings and even your restraint (odd as it feels to be saying that, given that I don't think the block was justified). And again, I really do appreciate your helpful remarks about tone, civility and so on. If you'll allow just a small piece of counter-advice, I would suggest that in approaching admittedly nasty disputes like this, that you not measure civility solely by the temperature of one's tone. One can be lethally uncivil in the coolest of tones. Knowingly false insinuations about something as morally serious as Holocaust denial would be a good example of that.--G-Dett (talk) 22:14, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed you mentioned me in one of your discussions about Israeli settlements, making disparaging remarks. I prefer that when this is done, the person at least be kind enough to allow me recourse.

Should you care to pursue this further, please contact me at aemathisphd@gmail.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.247.166.31 (talk) 16:24, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I don't get it.--G-Dett (talk) 02:34, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please be more cautious in your messages. It is inappropriate to make bad faith accusations of "lying about editing" in the absence of evidence to sustain the charges. If you have an official complaint to post, feel free to compile evidence and post in the appropriate venues. Take note that the topic area is subject to discretionary sanctions (see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles#Discretionary sanctions) and that inflammatory comments (such as strong accusations sans evidence) may be considered actionable under that ArbCom ruling. Thank you for your time and understanding. GlassCobra 17:16, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

G-Dett, I'm assuming you already know the above and shouldn't have to be reminded of it since you were blocked this month for similar comments. I'm going to have to block you for 24 hours. This comment is totally unacceptable. It doesn't matter whether you believe it is true or not, that doesn't give you the right to go around accusing people of "lying", accusing a user of being "rogue admin" and making further uncivil remarks. I thought that you had understood what I was talking about earlier this month, but apparently that is not the case. As WP:CIVIL states, "A pattern of gross incivility, however, is highly disruptive, and may result in warnings or blocks." I really don't want to have this pattern continue. Regardless of whether you are frustrated with Jayjg or not, you still need to avoid these rude and personally-targeted comments that are inappropriate according to Wikipedia policy. Khoikhoi 18:58, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

KhoiKhoi, is this serious? From what I can see G-Dett's most uncivil mark was to call Jayjg a "rogue admin." The post was on the other hand entirely about Jayjg's actions in relation to PalestineRemembered, an editor whose banning had just been proposed and whose banning Jayjg was supporting, while failing to point out Ryan's mistaken repetition of Jay's entirely false and extremely damaging accusations about PalestineRemembered. If your concern is that G-Dett would not suppport her statements with specific diffs I am sure you are mistaken; why block before even asking? The idea that G-Dett can't raise complaints about Jayjg's editing in a forum where he is supporting the ban of an editor who he has indeed abused in the past, and where those events are being raised to support the user's banning, is hardly supportable. I would encourage you to reconsider the decision to block here before any attempt at discussing the issue. Mackan79 (talk) 20:17, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Khoikhoi, this block is remarkably ill-considered. I suggest you lift it and let other admins handle this. The discussion I'm participating in will decide whether an editor is banned or not. Do you understand that? And the editor up for banning has been lied about – yes, lied about – by an admin with a very troubling history of harassing the to-be-banned editor. WP:AGF is pretty clear about this: assuming good faith does not preclude direct confrontation of lying when it occurs.

Here is the link to the thread in which Jayjg lies about PR, saying he has a "history regarding [Holocaust denial]" which Jay knew was categorically false. (He knew better than anyone else in fact, since he was the one to make the original, spectacularly discredited, allegation).

Once again and for the record, I do not accept the legitimacy of this block.--G-Dett (talk) 20:18, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You were not blocked because you opposed the ban of PR. You were blocked for your violations of WP:CIVIL. There are many other ways you could've written your comment without insulting other editors. Saying that someone lacked the "decency and honesty" falls under many of the categories listed in this section ("Insults and name calling. Comment on the actions and not the editor.") In fact, the exact same section clearly lists the following:

Ill-considered accusations of impropriety; for instance, calling someone a liar, or accusing him/her of slander or libel.

G-Dett, there are other ways you could have made your comment in a perfectly civil way. The "Decorum" section of the Palestine-Israel ArbCom is very clear. Khoikhoi 21:36, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Khoikhoi, PR had been accused of importing material from Holocaust Denial websites, when in fact this was shown to be false an impossible. In this discussion, Ryan was repeating that an arbitration had found some merit to this claim, when in fact the arbitration clearly showed that the accusation was false. Jayjg has likewise recently repeated this, specifically to Ryan. I don't see how you can think a proposal to ban PR is the wrong place to discuss this. Please note also that she did not call him a "liar" -- your term -- but said that he had lied about PR. Similarly, I can't believe we are not under any circumstances permitted to say that someone lied, even when it involves false and incendiary accusations about someone else. Mackan79 (talk) 21:46, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I've previously stated to G-Dett, it doesn't matter whether it's true or not, name-calling is not acceptable regardless of the circumstances. Khoikhoi 22:02, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Khoikhoi, what I don't see you recognizing is that this was a proposal to ban a user, where Jayjg's actions were entirely at issue, and in which damaging allegations were being repeated. This was not a content discussion. When did you warn G-Dett about this? When did you raise the issue in this instance? Honestly, you also mistake a very specific complaint with "name calling." G-Dett was not name-calling, but pointing out exactly the problem with the proposal. With PR, the corresponding accusation is that he is in effect a "tendentious editor," and I hope that no one would be blocked for claiming this. The comment here was made here in a specific comment about how the situation should be addressed. I would think you must see that jumping straight to a block in this situation is hardly the right approach. Mackan79 (talk) 22:17, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

G-Dett's violations of civility in the thread under discussion are weak enough compared to the poor faith allegations against PR in that thread that a block for them is, imo, unsupportable. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 21:49, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

These are, quite frankly, unrelated issues. A discussion of whether or not to ban PR is, quite naturally, going to include negative statements about PR's behavior. That does not, however, give G-Dett a free pass to follow Jayjg there and start describing him as a "rogue admin" and a liar, especially since she has been warned about this multiple times by several admins, and even been blocked for doing so in the past. Khoikhoi 22:02, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Khoikhoi, I appreciate your response, but if as you say you don't want to see a conflict develop between us, I'm afraid you're going to have to be more explicit. The situation I'm dealing with (and will continue to deal with the moment this block is lifted) is that Jayjg, an experienced editor and admin of many years and considerable influence, has made knowingly false statements about PR, and those knowingly false statements were taken at face value by another admin, and have led directly to a proposal to have PR permanently banned, a proposal which may yet go through. Now, please understand that I do plan to continue discussing this, and the fact that the false statements were made knowingly is absolutely key to the situation, so I do plan to address that aspect. What vocabulary and phraseology will not result in further punishment from you? Right now I'm left to guess and try my luck. I can see for example that it would be OK for me to refer to Jay's "tendentious nonsense," and claim of him that he is an "SPA whose every edit is propaganda and every Talk: page comment is a typically irrelevant soapbox." [20] But I cannot point out that he has made knowingly false statements?

I am, moreover, puzzled by your claim that Jay's knowingly false statements about PR's "history" of Holocaust Denial is a separate issue from the proposal to ban PR put forth by an admin who believed the knowingly false statements.--G-Dett (talk) 22:08, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You've made some good points, and I in no way want to prevent you from continuing to discuss this. But some of the stuff you've just brought up is a good example of what you should have said. Instead of calling Jayjg a liar and rogue admin, a better way to go about expressing your objection is to say that that you disagree with the validity of Jayjg's statements, and then cite diffs why you believe this is correct. As you already know what WP:NPA says (comment on content, not the contributor), this is especially relevant here. Referring to his claims as "nonsense" or calling him an "SPA" would still be considered uncivil. The correct alternative for you to go about disagreeing is to disagree with his statements calmly and politely, making sure to cite diffs and avoid making remarks about Jayjg himself (do not call him a liar, etc., but say that you disagree with his actions) If you wish to say that his statements were false (I do not know whether they were or weren't), try to make sure to avoid name-calling and instead try the alternative that I've mentioned. Khoikhoi 22:20, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for this more detailed response. I think we can avoid stepping on each other's toes from here forward. Please note that the "tendentious nonsense" / "SPA...propaganda" examples were not hypotheticals, but in fact direct quotations from Jay's post calling for PR to be perma-banned.--G-Dett (talk) 22:25, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for understanding. I think you understand now why I blocked you, so I'm going to unblock you. However, please note that any further personal attacks directed against Jayjg or anyone else will result in an immediate block, for even longer. Agreed? Khoikhoi 22:30, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed.--G-Dett (talk) 22:32, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unblocked. If you have any further questions as to what constitutes an uncivil comment and/or personal attack you can leave a note on my talk page. Khoikhoi 22:35, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad to see this resolved. In looking at this in the future, however, I do hope you look closely at the situation to make sure you fully understand what is going on. The dilemma G-Dett mentions above is entirely serious: if someone acts abusively toward other editors, then surely there need to be ways to point this out that won't constantly run the risk of leading to blocks. Distinguishing between criticism and "name calling" goes to a point, but if your line runs short of calling something a "lie," even on proposals that an editor be sanctioned, then you are cutting out a great deal of legitimate and necessary commentary. I hope you give this some thought. Mackan79 (talk) 00:36, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

'further personal attacks directed against Jayjg or anyone else will result in an immediate block, for even longer.' Fine. But why does the use of ANI to call for a community ban on an editor by someone who files a suit with evidence in diffs which fail to show cause, not constitute a 'personal attack'? Avi may have well have evidence to back Ryan's complaint, but Jayjg apparently had none.Nishidani (talk) 21:17, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Have you received and read my e-mail? I am very interested in your response. Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 20:25, 5 August 2008 (UTC) Hi Avi, yes thanks I received your email. You'll have my reflections on your evidence later today. I assume you want it emailed rather than posted. I may however make a few general remarks pertaining to it on-wiki. Thanks again, --G-Dett (talk) 17:26, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Have you been following the discussions between PR, Nishdani, and myself? -- Avi (talk) 18:42, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just so you know, you've been mentioned in a posting at this website. (permanent link) Let me know if you experience any problems regarding this. Cheers. lifebaka++ 20:54, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads-up.--G-Dett (talk) 19:10, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I beg to differ with your reversion as the mainstream media is talking about the McCain - Khalidi relationship (see google, see reference to Huffington). Besides, the pdf of McCain's International Republican Institute IRS statement is available (cited in my edit) and shows McCain as chairman and shows Khalidi's grant. That itself is fact/evidence. AlbertHall (talk) 12:56, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please calm yourself and stop political edits on the Khalidi page or it will need to be submitted for arbitartion.Historicist (talk) 18:05, 2 November 2008 (UTC)Historicist[reply]

You have been temporarily blocked from editing Wikipedia as a result of your disruptive edits. You are free to make constructive edits after the block has expired, but please note that vandalism (including page blanking or addition of random text), spam, deliberate misinformation, privacy violations, personal attacks; and repeated, blatant violations of our policies concerning neutral point of view and biographies of living persons will not be tolerated. Ѕandahl ♥ 19:39, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This edit [21].— Ѕandahl ♥ 19:46, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, Sandahl, I fail to see what was wrong – much less block-worthy – about that edit. If you had dealt with the troll disrupting that page, and then came to admonish me for trout-slapping the egregious troll, that would be different; but as things stand, frankly your action was inappropriate.--G-Dett (talk) 02:46, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, calling an editors a "witless oafs and consummate morons" and "You are a moron" is a personal attack. I won't contest an unblock if say you can be more civil.— Ѕandahl ♥ 03:16, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are kind to offer, but don't worry about it; I am content to sit it out. I'd had "BEER!! DRINK!!" shouted in my face seven or eight times by what seemed to be a genuinely drunk, belligerent, and yes witless and oafish editor. I can see that in a quick scan of the talk page, words like "moron" stand out as seeming violations. This is one of my frustrations with the notion of civility on Wikipedia, that – like the core content policies – it too can be gamed. You can show up, as the editor in question showed up, write demeaning things about several editors, further insult their intelligence with a genuinely bogus (not dubious, bogus) argument about sources (to wit, likening Haaretz, Israel's most influential newspaper, to the Cedar Rapids Gazette, arguing that it's of limited weight and significance in an article about Israel-Palestine because of the size of its print run), then deny having made that statement (shrieking "Strawman! Strawman!"), then say that others lack "the grace or honesty to admit" that they're lying about it, then make the statement again, then deny the statement, accuse everyone of dishonesty while refusing to clarify the statement, then start playing a "drinking game" and shouting "BEER" oafishly and halitotically in people's faces until...

Until someone points out that you're behaving like a consummate jackass, at which point that someone gets blocked.

It's not your fault per se, but as long as civility guidelines are enforced merely by scanning for "name-calling," with no attention to chronic patterns of harassment, disruption, deliberate stupidity, witless bullying and low-level trolling (even on the part of established editors and admins), this is going to remain a problem.--G-Dett (talk) 15:41, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure what the argument is here, but the largest circulation newspaper in Israel is Yediot Aharonot [22], and that would make it also, I think, the most influential. Those most inclined to the political left (such as me) often find Ha'aretz more interesting. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 22:40, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

USA Today has a circulation twice as large as that of the New York Times, but few would say it's more influential. It really depends at any rate on what one means by "influential"– i.e. short-term impact on public awareness vs. long-term impact on consensus knowledge. Sources such as USA Today, Yediot Aharonot, and People Magazine are more influential in the former sense, while sources such as the New York Times and Haaretz are more influential in the latter sense. It was this latter sense that was relevant to a discussion of the weight and authority of sources for an article on the second intifada, which is why Jay's likening of Haaretz to the Cedar Rapids Gazette was so strange. Every ordinary and plausible interpretation of his comparison he ruled out as a "strawman," but he refused to say what his actual meaning was, and then the drinking game and the beery-belchy hectoring began...--G-Dett (talk) 14:22, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My own guess (not a WP: reliable source) is that among Israeli leaders and intellectuals, not Ha'aretz, but the NYTimes is the most influential newspaper. Everyone there with any education at all reads English, and few Israelis have much respect for their domestically produced products. (In any case, the designation "most influential" is so elitist that it is disgusting.) Malcolm Schosha (talk) 17:02, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

From my reading, G-Dett called Jayjg an oaf, and got blocked. Jayjg was playing a drinking game at the time, but seems to have gotten off mostly free. Just a Sunday night at Wikipedia... Mackan79 (talk) 08:03, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

About the long and short of it.:)--G-Dett (talk) 14:22, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

... what does your name mean? I see you using "G-d" for the deity: is it something to do with that? Obviously, not an important question, feel free to delete with scathing edit summary at your leisure. IronDuke 01:27, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

College nickname, having to do with what was perceived to be an odd combination of religious orthodoxy, personal humility, and intellectual arrogance. I thought it was funny. It's not meant to offend. It should probably have a terminal 'e'.--G-Dett (talk) 01:57, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't think anyone would be offended by it. Still not sure I get how "ett" = personal humility and intellectual arrogance... but thanks for answering. Don't think any of my college nicknames are printable. Cheers. IronDuke 02:04, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Duke!!!!

Humble enough to take a (feminine) diminutive. Arrogant enough to attach that diminutive to the deity. Humble enough to be religiously orthodox. Arrogant enough to be religiously orthodox.

G-Dess would be too classical, therefore too blooded, too sexual. The suffix '-ette' captures the right tinny, knickknacky miniatureness. Sorry about the missing 'e', but what can be done.

All conjecture, since it wasn't my coinage.

Now tell me about the humility in "IronDuke." Is it that iron is soft compared to steel?--G-Dett (talk) 02:41, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I can forgive the missing "e", but I'll try. Q: When did I give the impression I was humble? Is it too late to take it back, if I did? IronDuke 04:37, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

--MPerel has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Cheers, and Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Thank you my dear!--G-Dett (talk) 01:57, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have made what I believe to be is a fair, accurate, well sourced description of both sides of the controversy here Rashid Khalidi#Controversy regarding relationships with militant organizations. I would appreciate your input here Talk:Rashid Khalidi#New section on militant organizations. Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 20:51, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your note. Didn't see it yesterday. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:00, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dear G-Dett. I'd like to ask you for your opinion on the current dispute over Palestine at Hummus. I think you might find it interesting and have something of value to add given your analytical mind and similarities between it and what's going on at Israeli settlement regarding the use of Samaria. I am not asking you to participate in the discussion directly (though you are of course free to do so, if you so desire - though why anyone would want to be involved in such an inane discussion beats me). What I'm asking from you specifically is for a reality check, for me personally, which you could deliver to me on my talk page. When there was that problem over at Palestinian people over the use of the word nation, attested to in reliable sources, you helped me to understand why people (also attested to in reliable sources) was not so bad a compromise. I'm looking for that kind of help now, if compromise is indeed the right thing to do.

To be honest, this whole thing at Hummus has me quite depressed actually. I'm seriously considering leaving Wikipedia altogether over the whole thing. (Ridiculous, I know.) But I feel as though a worldwide perspective is sorely lacking here. WP:NPOV to a lot of people seems to function like a bat used to hit minorities over the head and silence them into submission. The search for netural terms or neutral terminology equals "neutering" the text to those offended by POVs they don't share. There is little tolerance at all for Eastern vs. Western perspectives, etc, etc. Anyway, I thought I would give you a full disclosure so that you are aware of where I am at right now. However, it's not designed to discourage you from being brutally honest in your response. If I never come back, it won't be your response to blame, believe me. It will be simply that I've come to believe that it's impossible to write anything of value here when basic policies are bent to accomodate some people's "sensitivities" to the exclusion of others.

Finally, if you don't want to give me any response, I'll fully understand. You are under no obligation to serve as my personal therapist. Thanks though for listening. Take care. Tiamut^talk 18:27, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks G-Dett. You've restored my hope in humankind once again. Tiamut^talk 23:01, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi G-Dett. Thanks for your input. Could you give your opinion on what sort of compromise you think would be best? Cheers, пﮟოьεԻ 57 19:13, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As usual, my sweet G-Dett, your comments are inspiring, insightful, and emminently logical. You have given me a lot to think about. I'm going to hold off commenting right away (I had composed a response and then decided against posting it for now, after seeing this).

You are right to point out that there is nothing that necessarily prevents us from changing the way we report a term. You are also right to point out that the use of "Palestine" (and "Samaria") in articles related to culture should be just fine. (Indeed, it would be weird and arguably provocative for an editor to go around changing "Samaria" to "West Bank" in articles on Jewish culture, citing the need for "neutrality".)

As such, I think it's the principle of fairness that is preventing me from saying, "Oh okay. Region of Palestine is just fine." It's also an issue of accuracy. (We don't know if the author means "region of Palestine". He could be using Palestine to refer to the proto-country that enjoys observer status in the UN. The article covers both definitions so letting it stand-alone seems ideal. But whatever.)

I also think part of the problem is the way Number 57 approached this whole issue. Reverting to change the text to a term he preferred, against consensus, and without engaging in discussion, and then coming to the discussion and casting aspersions against the four editors who strongly disagreed with his position, trying to paint us out to be some kind of troublesome little group with a POV to push (as he does in the ANI section I linked above) - it has really only served to make me more firmly entrenched in my position. Giving in becomes a kind of proof that you had no merit to your argument to begin with. But I am conscious of these processes and am sitting here thinking and always re-evaluating whether my position is the correct one or not. Your post is the first one that really made me question whether it was really as black and white as I thought.

Anyway, as I said, lots of food for thought. I'll be sure to make my comments there soon. In the meantime, I might browse elsewhere. Thanks again for your time and thoughts. Happy editing. Tiamut^talk 22:34, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[23]Notice any similarities? Tiamut^talk 20:29, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I generally take a stricter line on sources and points of view (possibly influenced by Jayjg). As I see it, it doesn't violate WP:NPOV to paraphrase, but only provided one doesn't change the point of view of the source. The thing is, there's sometimes such a thing as a "widely accepted" point of view, but this too should not be imposed upon a source. —Ashley Y 05:52, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jay's position on "points of view" is not consistently strict or lax; it depends entirely on which point of view he's trying to insert or delete. In the spirit of WP:AGF, I'm hoping and assuming you're not influenced by this approach; it's been gravely deleterious for the encyclopedia as well as the community building it. The question here is not how to present "points of view," but rather what terminology to use when writing in Wikipedia's neutral voice. I note that you're impressed by Jay's list of sources that use "Samaria" in connection with West Bank settlements; I assure you that an equal or greater number of sources could be assembled (by an editor equally interested in ridiculous and bad-faith games of ping-pong) that use the term "Palestine" in this same connection. And I promise you that Jay's interpretations of NPOV and NOR will neatly reverse themselves when faced with such sources. Such is the ridiculous game of ping-pong.

For me, the questions on Hummus are simply these: (1) in discussions of Palestinian culture, as opposed to political realities – e.g. literature, cuisine, music, etc. – is it normative to refer to "Palestine"? (2) Is it normative on Wikipedia to refer to cultural formations – again, literature, cuisine, etc. – with reference to cultural entities without regard to whether they are officially recognized states? In my experience, the answer to the first question is yes. Looking to the model of Basque cuisine, Irish cuisine, and Kurdish cuisine, the answer to the second question is also yes.--G-Dett (talk) 04:52, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not convinced that, in a political context, it is "neutral" to say West Bank and "non-neutral" to say Judea and Samaria. The way I see it, there is a widespread politically even-handed point of view that prefers West Bank, and a certain kind of Zionist point of view that prefers Judea and Samaria. But they're still points of view, and should be treated as such and neither should be considered in any sense "neutral". At least in principle, all statements in articles should be supportable by sources, and the points of view of those sources should be represented.

I think one has to be careful with the concept of "neutral voice". The phrase is not found in WP:NPOV, for instance. I think it can usefully mean representing sources fairly. I don't think there's such a thing as "neutral terminology" without reference to sources, only neutral representation of sources.

You should probably just go and add the sources that say "West Bank"... —Ashley Y 07:59, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not talking about truth, neutrality, etc. from a philosophical point of view. I'm talking about the conventions of a certain kind of writing, in this case an encyclopedia. By "neutral voice" I don't mean truly neutral. I just mean the voice Wikipedia uses when it's not quoting someone directly. That's all. Perhaps I can clear away this misunderstanding by referring to this as the "default" voice of Wikipedia.

"Points of view" are presented when points of view are the explicit subject matter. We don't have some elaborate proportional-representation scheme for terminology. In other words, we could write something along the lines Ariel Sharon is regarded as a Zionist hero by some, and a war criminal by others. That's representing points of view. But when writing in the default voice of Wikipedia, we don't refer to him as a "war criminal" in one sentence, a "Zionist hero" in another, according to the terminology used by this or that source. Or to take the present case, we could say that –

the West Bank is sometimes referred to as "Judea and Samaria" by those endorsing Israeli claims to the territory. Conversely, it is designated – along with Gaza and sometimes East Jerusalem – "Palestine" by those endorsing Palestinian claims.

Provided, of course, that we have a source for this nice summary of the nomenclature dispute and the points of view involved. What we don't do is just throw in "Palestine" here, "Judea and Samaria" there:

In a series of op-eds written at the height of the 2nd intifada, Thomas Friedman called for the end of settlement construction in Palestine. Meanwhile, his colleague William Safire argued that Jewish communities in Judea and Samaria were not the root cause of the conflict.

Is this your idea of encyclopedic prose? Default terminology is one thing, the presentation of points of view quite another. With respect, I think you're confusing one with the other.

Default terminology in political matters, moreover, is not necessarily the same as default terminology in cultural matters.--G-Dett (talk) 18:14, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, your second example is exactly my idea of encyclopaedic prose. It's completely clear who's saying what and what their point of view is. It's helpful to the reader. And furthermore I believe it's mandated by the injunction in WP:NPOV to represent sources fairly. Substituting "Palestine" for "Judea and Samaria" misrepresents the source. If Safire says "Judea and Samaria", then that's what he means: he actually intends to express that point of view. We shouldn't rewrite it just because we have our own point of view, even if we refer to that point of view as "default terminology".

There can be no default terminology for a place. We can only determine what to call it from reliable sources. —Ashley Y 03:39, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The literary term for your – idiosyncratic, I think – approach to writing from sources is free indirect discourse. It was a traditional if only occasionally used technique in novels of the eighteenth and nineteenth century, was used more extensively by Flaubert, and reached its apotheosis in Joyce's novels. Wyndham Lewis seized upon the following sentence in Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man as evidence that Joyce was at his core a sort of hack:

Every morning, therefore, Uncle Charles repaired to his outhouse but not before he had greased and brushed scrupulously his back hair and brushed and put on his tall hat.

According to Lewis, only novelists "of the humblest order" use the word repair in this pretentious way. The literary critic Hugh Kenner said no no, there's where you're wrong, Mr. Lewis, because here "'repaired' wears invisible quotation marks." In other words, it's an Uncle Charles sort of word, and the pretentiousness is his: "Uncle Charles has notions of semantic elegance, akin to his ritual brushing of his hat." Kenner went on to dub this sort of diffuse, granular use of free indirect discourse the "Uncle Charles principle":

This is apparently something new in fiction, the normally neutral narrative vocabulary pervaded by a little cloud of idioms which a character might use if he were managing the narrative. In Joyce's various extensions of this device we have one clue to the manifold devices of Ulysses...

I love that you want to apply the Uncle Charles principle – an experimental device developed by the twentieth century's greatest avant-garde writer – to the rather pedestrian business of writing from sources for an online encyclopedia. But I think that the result, if the principle were rigorously applied, (a) would be highly eccentric, in many cases as challenging for the ordinary reader as Ulysses; and (b) would release a huge cloud of idioms that would run afoul of Wikipedia's naming conventions and in many cases its guideline on words to avoid.--G-Dett (talk) 16:27, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm not against paraphrase, provided one does not change the source's point of view, per WP:NPOV. Thus your threatened eccentricity is largely avoided. I'm not convince naming conventions are an issue either, as WP:NAME directs, "Wikipedia determines the recognizability of a name by seeing what verifiable reliable sources in English call the subject". It's all back to the sources. And note WP:NAME is for article page names only, it doesn't stop people using other names in context.

In fact you are conflating idiom with point of view. We can paraphrase Uncle Charles, because we believe he would not deny that he went to the outhouse. His own speech might have a different word, or be in a different dialect, but we can rewrite it without misrepresenting him.

Your Safire example is rather different. If you were to substitute "Palestine" for "Judea and Samaria", you would misrepresent the source. One can imagine Safire reading it and objecting "no, no, that's not what I said, I said Judea and Samaria, and I meant it". That's forbidden by WP:NPOV. —Ashley Y 08:11, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I'm conflating idiom and point of view. There are certain situations in which idiom is politicized, that's all.

In the hypothetical example, the point of view of Safire's that we're reporting is his argument that West Bank settlements are not a root cause of the conflict. In reporting that view, it's not incumbent upon us to use free indirect discourse in order to preserve his preferred little cloud of idioms. If he somewhere sets forth arguments to support those idiomatic choices, then those arguments would be relevant to Wikipedia's treatment of the terminological dispute about the West Bank (not to its treatment of root causes of the second intifada).

Your notion that NPOV paraphrase in subject areas fraught with terminological controversy requires extensive use of free indirect discourse seems to me misguided, and yes, eccentric. If seriously implemented it would lead to chaos. If there are instances in which you think a given source's idiomatic choices are sine qua non to a fair representation of their argument, then use direct quotation. That's what it's for.--G-Dett (talk) 17:25, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think there's a difference between intended meaning and the idiom used to express it. If we reproduced every source's idiom, the result would indeed be quite ugly.

It's quite different with Safire's example, because "Judea and Samaria" is not mere idiom. It has an implication of Jewish ownership, which, we assume, is a meaning Safire intends to express. It is incumbent upon us not to misrepresent his intended meaning, as WP:NPOV is so insistent upon. The test here is: would Safire consider himself misrepresented?

Now it's possible Safire would be perfectly happy with "West Bank", and if so, WP:NPOV would allow the substitution. But generally for these things we don't necessarily know, so we have to judge for ourselves whether some phrase is mere idiom (and thus subject to our paraphrase), or whether particular meaning was implied (which must be neutrally preserved). —Ashley Y 05:15, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Idiom has implications, often.

The test is not whether Safire would be perfectly happy. The customer is not always right.--G-Dett (talk) 07:34, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It depends on whether those implications are intended or incidental. Of course, it's not always easy to tell. Given the stress WP:NPOV places on fair representation, I just can't read it another way. —Ashley Y 09:00, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi G-Dett. I know that you and Jayjg have got some history, and I try to stay out of debates when it's just two editors going back and forth with each other, as long as they keep things (relatively) civil. However, when you accuse someone of trolling, I'm afraid that goes over the line.[24] This comment was also a bit much.[25] Could you please try to ratchet things back a bit, and re-focus on discussing the article, instead of the editor? Thanks, --Elonka 16:22, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Elonka, Jay was trolling. Did you read the discussion? In his comment that directly preceded mine, he accuses me of "deliberately asserting false information on a discussion page in order to mislead." He does not even attempt to provide evidence for this; it's just a flat-out bogus bad-faith personal attack, as well an attempt to goad me into identifying his trolling, so that I may then be blocked.

His first accusation of dishonesty arrives here, following this accurate and innocuous comment/question from me.

The accusations of "strawman" are incessant from him, but in no circumstances will he ever specify how his positions are being misrepresented. When pressed for an explanation, he simply ratchets up the rhetoric of his accusations and attacks to "deliberate misrepresentations," "attempts to mislead," and so on. It is a classic, obvious, flagrant strategy of disruption.

I appreciate what you're trying to do on this page and elsewhere. But Elonka, if you're going to succeed at DR on I/P pages, you have to be willing to confront trolling and abuse even when it comes from admins with years of experience. I know this can be awkward, because in some cases the abusive editor may have more clout in the social structure of Wikipedia than you do; nevertheless, it needs to be done.--G-Dett (talk) 18:11, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that some of Jayjg's comments were not acceptable, and if you check User talk:Jayjg, you'll see that I cautioned him, much as I cautioned you.[26] Getting back to your own comments though: Personal attacks and incivility are not trolling. Content disputes are not trolling. What Trolling is, is a deliberate attempt to disrupt the encyclopedia, and that's not what's going on here. For a good article about what trolling really is, see "The Trolls Among Us", an excellent NY Times article (if you can't access it, let me know and I'll try to find a mirror somewhere). Anyway, please, could you try to get away from discussing the contributors, and back to discussing the content? For example, when talking to him (or anyone) on talkpages, try the mental exercise of writing posts without using the words "you" or "your". Keeping everything in the third person can be an excellent way to de-escalate a dispute. --Elonka 18:20, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the Times link; I'll try what you suggested.--G-Dett (talk) 18:33, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the 2008–2009_Israel–Gaza_conflict article, when does Wiki policy trump "consensus" do you know? Can a few editors steamroll their POV and original synthesis over policy simply because they have greater numbers? Cheers RomaC (talk) 23:21, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

G-Dett, I'm curious how on earth you might think I'm "on Jayjg's side" in your recent AN/I edit. I haven't edited that article for quite a while, when (IIRC) I was in a dispute there with Jayjg. And the last thing I am is "resolutely nationalist".

Actually, I'm sure this was a genuine slip-up on your part, and it gave me some amusement, but nevertheless I'd appreciate your removing my name just in case anyone gets the wrong idea!

Regards (and keep up the good work) --NSH001 (talk) 23:59, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi G-dett,

you probably have a different strategy planned already, but I notice Brewcrewer's recent revert [27] of your attempt to restore a modicum of NPOV to the Judea and Samaria article was with the edit summary "restored original version per lack of consensus to change". However, the original original defined the terms as "lands named and described in the holy texts of Judaism, Christianity and Islam", and was changed with no discussion or consensus. Later, Canadian Monkey edit-warred out "historical" and changed it to "geographical", again clearly without consensus (as several kilobytes of talk page activity shows). The article read "[J+S] are the Biblical names for the area now more commonly referred to as the West Bank" for several years until a casual user (who shall, ehrm, remain unnamed [28]) inadvertently edited out the reference to the Bible. Whatever consensus for that change may have existed at the time clearly isn't there any more. I should technically be able to self-revert without worrying about Elonka's ban, but given the present climate, I'm not so eager to push my luck. MeteorMaker (talk) 10:13, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks MM, yes I know the article's history, and that Brewcrewer's wrong about its "original version." More generally, I'm puzzled as to why he's appealing to a notion of the "original version" in the first place; this is rhetoric usually reserved for new editors and others unfamiliar with the basic principles of the encyclopedia.

I'm not sure I understand your ban, and am planning to email Elonka about it. I think she's trying to be firm and fair here, but I'm concerned she might have been taken in by Jay's systematic misrepresentation of source material. She's working on quite a few things at once, to her credit, but this leaves her in the position of having to take him at his word, and given his track record in this whole Judea-and-Samaria-are-standard-accepted-geographical-terms hoax, this assumption of good faith is totally ill-placed.--G-Dett (talk) 13:00, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have started a Request for Arbitration regarding the use of northern/southern West Bank vs. Judea and Samaria. Since you have been involved in this debate, I have included you in the request.

Cheers, pedrito - talk - 25.02.2009 09:32

<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VrVf9cLyWm0>. Thought of the Rfar Palestine/West Bank. Actually here the Israeli soldier agrees that he and his Arab interlocutor are in Palestine, but, in a Heller'ish catch, precisely for that reason, Israeli law must be imposed, because Palestine is Israel.Nishidani (talk) 18:10, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/West Bank - Judea and Samaria/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/West Bank - Judea and Samaria/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Tznkai (talk) 04:51, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure you'll spot this when you next pop in anyway, but just for info, it's all your fault apparently. The usual suspects, and others, have already chipped away at some of the worst accusations there here, but I'm sure you'll have your own response. --Nickhh (talk) 15:56, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Got it Nickhh, thanks.--G-Dett (talk) 19:24, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ps: I have occasionally pondered what word best describes some of the talk page behaviour and tactics that go on. I believe with "catenaccio", you may have found it. --Nickhh (talk) 20:48, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I enjoy rudeness, as long as it is witty and intelligent! I was actually delighted by 'verbal chandeliers' since, as someone whose ancestors were likened to apes (being likewise of Irish stock, Eugene O'Neill's theatre is haunted by that painful analogy, as much as Kafka’s is by the put-downs thrown at Jews (Sander Gilman). The image conjured up one of the Marx Brothers 'swinging' on a real one, (uh, no, he wasn’t hung, perhaps well-hung), apishly (meaning one of the Catarrhini, not an exemplar of Apis mellifica). Ruskin, Praeterita! Well, I’ll console myself with the fact that our favourite author, James Joyce, praised him in a ‘Crown of Wild Olive’. Actually, what I admire in your style is that it is immune to the pressures of wiki-editing, that niggling ear one acquires for political correctness, which tiptoes around words as they tumble into consciousness, and snips like a vorpal blade at anything subliminally nuanced that might lend itself to accusation of violating WP:CIVIL, so that one has to choose between towering chandeliers of gracile equivocations, or the castrated bureaucratic short-hand most are comfortable with (I don't know about you but I read the extremely curt, civil, bureaucratic style here practiced by the maestri of obfuscatory stonewalling as minatory as anything in Harold Pinter). I think in terms of the Elelandic commendation with a large number of things I must parse to work in here, but then pirouette tolutiloquently to avoid calling a mattock a fucken spade. I see you're in more shit than Biggles for being forthright, which isn't allowed. Hope this absurdity of dragging you of all people into accusations of bad faith and stalking is seen through, and ignored.Cheers.Nishidani (talk) 18:37, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I made a short, useless comment objecting to 'witch-hunt', clicked to post, then went off to dinner. I came back and found I had an edit conflict, with you having posted first. I read it. This is what I had written (decided it was unnecessary, so didn't proceed to post it after yours)

There is an extensive sociology on witchhunting, from Evans-Pritchard's pioneering work through to Keith Thomas and I.M.Lewis down to our day and it usually analyses it as the exploitation by a power group of public anxieties, with a marginal figure or 'liminal' class singled out as the object of collective enmity and collective violence. Several good content editors, User:Eleland, User:Tiamut, User:Ashley kennedy3 have been driven off, not by him, but by a crony collectivist behaviour that prods away relentlessly to unnerve or disspirit committed I/P editors. There is an attritional quality in this mode of editing wiki, in which many editors who actually read up extensively on an article are confronted by others who read up extensively on the rulebook, and use it to niggle, revert, question, or block quite straightforward or commensical edits. Neither is a power group.

That Jayjg has also been named as disruptive, which of course he is, consistently, on many I/P articles (Israel Shahak, is a good example of a page that can't be written to GA standard because he rides shotgun over it, out of a personal antipathy for the person, and many good editors of no pronounced political bias have given up on it), does not constitute a witch-hunt, since he is not a marginal figure, those who complain of his refusal to edit collegially, with an ear for intelligent input from people who do not share his brief, are not a powerful lobby or group (several of us refuse to activate email in order to erase any suspicion of off-line coordination), and no 'public anxieties' are being manipulated. Nothing will be proved, of course, and the 'threat' is imaginary, for it is not the brief of Arbcom to read slowly and carefully and entire thread (Israeli Settlement) to make up their minds about who's stalling, wikilawyering, engaged in a war of attrition, or refusing to acknowledge the obvious. It would be helpful if he decided what he wants to be, the praetorian guard of a perceived national and political interest here (fine) or an administrator. Behaving in both capacities undermines one's confidence in the functions of administrators who should, particularly where there is a patent conflict of interest between their personal political passions and their function as monitors ensuring quality and neutrality, and equidistance between parties in conflict.

Such a metaphor (witch-hunt), therefore, is hyperbolic, and smacks of playing the 'victim' card when the person complained of is secure in his position, and careful in his technical cleaving to the letter, if not the spirit, of wiki laws. He doesn't get frustrated, edits with an authoritative ex cathedra persona, and does not violate patently the policy norms in the way several of us have in the past, when we tire of the nonsensical hairsplitting his example here provides almost as a model to follow, one which stops us from actually editing these articles to GA quality, a virtual impossibility in the I/P area. This counts for nothing before Arbcom, since I am old, can't work up diffs with speed, and can only give a personal impression/conviction. But I'll state it nonetheless. Nishidani (talk) 20:56, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Heyo G-Dett,

All due respect to the long standing grievances that seem to exist between you and jayjg, calling out another editor for so-called extensive lying in a conversation with a third person seems out of order. The most ovbious thing it does not do, is de-escalate situations which is something I would assume people would like to achieve from the use of this forum. Assuming good faith is a fundamental principle on Wikipedia, one that is extended even to political rivals.

Warm regards, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 09:12, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh Pul-eeze, are you really unaware of the incredulity that statement will be met with from most editors?

G-Dett, you have my highest admiration for your eloquence, steadfastness and unfaltering calm (from a popcorn-munching observer to these very entertaining theatrics). 206.19.46.200 (talk) 10:55, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey G-Dett. I haven't popped in to formally say hi, but I've been reading your contribs, and as am impressed as usual by your insight, eloquence, and analysis. I thought I'd passed this on [29]. Huldra posted it on my page just now, and I think you might find it interesting. Notice that while the BBC takes the time to define Gaza Strip and East Jerusalem, it uses West Bank throughout without defining it once. Notice too, the words Judea and Samaria are not even used once. Anyway, while it might not be useful at the moment, it's certainly a good reference to have around when discussing some of these concepts. BBC's guide to reporting is about as mainstream neutral as it gets (at least by Western standards). Take care of yourself my dear. Tiamut^talk 16:08, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please give your input at the WP Palestine talk page. Cheers! --Al Ameer son (talk) 04:22, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I will remove your evidence section entirely in 24 hours if you do not reformat it into a reasonable word count.--Tznkai (talk) 17:54, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It occurs to me that my original clerk note may not have been clear enough - but your evidence expanded to over 3000 words, and I insist that you bring it into a reasonable amount. Please respond promptly.--Tznkai (talk) 18:05, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I had figured you didn't want the evidence arbitrarily cut off, and would want to resubmit so you have all of your salient points.--Tznkai (talk) 18:17, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Its better than refusing to do it at all. For what its worth, if it feels I'm picking on you, I don't mean to, I'm just working from the bottom of the page up.--Tznkai (talk) 18:24, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please give me an update on your efforts to modify your evidence section?--Tznkai (talk) 19:50, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alright. We actually have the sketches of a proposed decision now, so I'm rather going to have to insist you submit corrected evidence.--Tznkai (talk) 14:37, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So… I had an idea (or rather, cribbed an idea from Nishidani). What if, instead of topic-banning some of the most useful, articulate, and involved editors in the IP area (on both sides) for a year, you all got together and worked on Judea, Samaria, and Judea and Samaria with the goal of promoting them into GA status in two months’ time? That way (and given the relatively public nature of the arb case), there would hopefully be wide-ranging and neutral community input – sort of an RfC on steroids. If you all did not succeed, it would be back to the arb case (which would be placed on hiatus pending the outcome). The arbs (some of them anyway) seem to be saying you all can’t work together. I don’t think that’s true, and I also think that to the extent it is true, the possibility of avoiding more unpleasantness in this arb case might lead to extra flexibility and reasonableness. In the interest of full disclosure: I don’t particularly care at all how the ultimate content issue falls out -- Judea, Samaria, West Bank, Elbonia, whatever: I’d just like to avoid a mass-banning that would have a seriously deleterious effect on IP articles. What say? (If you wish to reply, you may do so here) IronDuke 02:21, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That should be obvious. Nishidani seems to believe (or at least seemed to at the time that I posted the evidence) that there is some kind of hidden conspiracy in my maps to introduce an 'expansionist' POV to Wikipedia through various subtleties on maps. By 'conspiracy theory' I mean a theory that a secret and malicious plot is taking place (i.e. not necessarily a conspiracy literally, which must involve many people). I was actually going to modify the evidence per Nishidani's recent apology, but was convinced not to after some of his other recent actions (more on that as it develops). -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 08:19, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi G-Dett! I used the term as a stronger word for assuming bad faith. Assuming bad faith is a violation of policy, but it's not something that users are generally sanctioned for, and usually after a few arguments editors make up and return to assuming good faith, so no harm done. I admit that, while I always honestly try to assume good faith, sometimes it just doesn't work that way, and it happens that I let an unwelcome comment slip against a fellow editor—again, as long as it works out in the end, the community doesn't suffer. In Nishidani's case it is quite different, and I wanted to stress the following things:

1. Nishidani's assumptions of bad faith are not occasional, in fact they are systematic; he assumes bad faith first, and asks questions later.
2. Nishidani's assumptions of bad faith are not simply 'assumptions of bad faith'. They range from finding the most irrelevant flaws and blowing up the issue into some kind of evil plot by one or more editors, to possible blood libel.
3. Nishidani leaves long and irrelevant comments full of unnecessary commentary practically everywhere, often implicitly making wild accusations against other editors, which might be unintentional but no less insulting (see recent history of Ashley kennedy3's talk page).

I strongly believe that this behavior should stop, even if most of it is not intentional (which I fully believe to be possible); I believe that the I-P field and Wikipedia as a whole will benefit if either Nishidani agrees to self-regulate and engage in more productive editing (see Khoikhoi's evidence for a mirror of my opinion on the matter), or is sanctioned. I would not have wasted a moment of the Arbs' time reading my evidence if I didn't think it was at least as important as the average piece of evidence posted on the page. Simply 'assumptions of bad faith' doesn't really reflect how important I think this is. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 17:48, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Noted. I am particularly interested in the hint that I embrace a conspiracy theory, coded language for the idea I subscribe to the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, and the associated idea that I am engaged in a blood libel in writing these words:-

Illustration, in just the first, which AK renamed Violence against Israelis in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict 2000, check September. Israeli soldiers being shot at, 2 of them, and a few Palestinian casualties on the temple Mount. In that late September week, in 5 days, 47 Palestinians were killed and roughly 1,850 shot and wounded. You'd never guess it. Sergeant Biri's murder gets a mention, but nothing about the slaughter as the IDF ran amok. Nishidani (talk) 20:17, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

which were a simple paraphrase of a well-known fact registered on the Al Aqsa Intifada page, which in its second paragraph records:-

In the first five days after the visit, Israeli police and security forces killed 47 Palestinians and wounded 1885,^[1] while five Israelis were killed by Palestinians.^[2][3]

For his having protested at the serious negligence on the page where such extremely well-known data are lacking, you reported AK, and a dedicated and deeply read editor is now under suspension for a year. For my having mentioned this fact, and my having remonstrated at length on his page with Ashley, a friend, to try to get him to avoid the minefield thrown under his work here by maestri of the wiki rulebook, you now appear to suggest I am a classic anti-Semite, and a possible purveyor of blood libels, simply because I remember what I read, and you don't. Were I to play these games, I would no doubt jam up arbitration with a counter denunciation. I don't, and if your libellous insinuations do stick, I won't protest. I'm am much persuaded that AK's resolute dignity under fire has much to commend it, and if people, experienced administrators, really fall for this kind of gaming and hypnotic innuendo-repetition, then it is best to leave the joint. I'll follow how this update on my 'misbehaviour' plays out with some curiosity, to see if indeed, right at the top cool minds and sane oversight prevails, or not.Nishidani (talk) 18:38, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And there is absolutely no way you could call that diff 'possible blood libel'. This place is hopeless. Nableezy (talk) 18:53, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's commonplace in here. Antisemitic charges on wiki are the default argument when you have no argument. What is disconcerting is that a new administrator, delegated by a community to be neutral, has now adopted the jargon. Deeply disappointing.Nishidani (talk) 19:01, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]