In case you're not watching Talk:Todd Goldman, I invite you to discuss the issue of reliable sources over at User:Superluser/Reliable Sources for Biographies of Living People. Thanks! superluser_tc 2007 July 10, 05:24 (UTC)

Re. your threat to remove my map of Greater Israel. From WP:NOR: Pictures have enjoyed a broad exception from this policy. If you feel you must go on with this threat, I will meet you at the images for deletion page. Emmanuelm (talk) 17:26, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if it sounded like a threat. Maps definitely aren't an exception from WP:NOR though. MeteorMaker (talk) 17:53, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop removing references to Judea and Samaria from articles. It is considered vandalism. Be sure to review WP:NPOV and provide sufficient reasons for your edits in the edit summary, which in your case is decidedly non-descriptive. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 22:49, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, in most cases I'm just reverting changes that have gone unnoticed. Re the validity of the term "Judea and Samaria", you might want to join the discussion on this page. MeteorMaker (talk) 23:04, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Without going into the discussion (it looks like I've missed out on most of it, although I read parts right now), it appears that you simply misunderstand what the purpose of using Judea and Samaria is on Wikipedia. Here are some points to clarify:

1) Judea (often called Judean Mountains) is the region now mostly on the south of the West Bank. A subset of the Judean Mountains are the Jerusalem Mountains. There is no dispute about this point. Therefore, it does not violate NPOV or anything else to state that a certain locality is within the geographical area called Judea (which means that it's on the southern part of the West Bank). Same goes for Samaria (northern part).

2) Politically, Judea and Samaria is usually referred to as the West Bank outside of Israel, although the relevant Israeli use is not political, but administrative. As long as Israel uses the term 'Judea and Samaria Area' for administrative and statistical purposes, especially for Israeli localities within the area, you cannot discount this term as 'outdated' or whatever. It also does not violate NPOV because, again, it's an administrative term and no claim is made that this is the correct name of the location (see linked article). It is also indeed factual that Israeli localities in the West Bank are within the Judea and Samaria administrative district.

3) The West Bank isn't actually the same as Judea and Samaria, because it includes East Jerusalem, which the administrative district of Judea and Samaria does not (see image).

-- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 09:04, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1) The term "Judean mountains" may possibly be less disputed, but the article clearly said "the Judea area", which is indeed a nonrecognized toponym outside Israel, and that is what I corrected.

2), 3) "Judea and Samaria", the administrative regions, already have their own article. The names of administrative zones an occupation power chooses to impart on a territory are irrelevant on Wikipedia and don't override established place names anyway. I don't recall seeing all mentions of Basra suddenly change into "sector B" when Iraq came under occupation for instance. "Sudetenland" didn't become a universally recognized term either in 1938.

Would it be OK with you to move this section to the relevant article btw? MeteorMaker (talk) 12:21, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, I live outside of Israel and I refer to these locations as Judea and Samaria. David Betesh (talk)

You probably agree that every tiny minority shouldn't have the privilege to override existing terminology with their idiosyncratic terms on Wikipedia. :) There is a discussion over at Judea that you might be interested in. MeteorMaker (talk) 16:19, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have made a further change, and I think that you would agree with it and that it best represents the truth from the neutral and far point of view.David Betesh (talk)

Fine with me. MeteorMaker (talk) 19:20, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

great. David Betesh

Please remain WP:CIV in discussions even/especially when in disagreement with others.

• "In case your disagreement is based on factual reasons and not just pure emotion, it would be interesting" MeteorMaker, 13:51, 17 April 2008
• "That is a pretty ludicrous statement. ... I must conclude that you have failed." MeteorMaker, 10:20, 20 April 2008

The cited notes represent an increasing problem and I request that you take a breather when you feel an itch to get personal. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 10:30, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is good advice for us all. Wikipedia:Cool :)

Please re-read the lines that caused you to come here and create this section. You will find that they are not nearly as offensive as your truncated versions may appear. The full context also gives a different picture: in the first case, you had just before responded to a well-sourced refutal of your claims with a suggestion I'm emotion-driven. In the second, you had just before made a remark that not only completely misrepresented what I had said previously, it also accused me of "rejecting every source given on account that it's author is somehow connected with Jews", which amounts to an accusation of anti-Semitism.

The non-truncated version of your first quote, which includes an additional (borderline) accusation of anti-Semitism:

Jaakobou: Seeing that you have strong feelings on this matter and others disagree, I'd suggest that you first provide some evidence to support your theory. I'm not sure what type of evidence would work since I find it to be a "Jews and anyone in contact with Israel don't have a say on naming conventions" theory, so I feel you should at least make an effort to persuade with something other than rejection of 'International/World Bank' sources.

MeteorMaker: In case your disagreement is based on factual reasons and not just pure emotion, it would be interesting to hear your objective explanation how the Israel Central Bureau of Statistics, the Bank of Israel Research Dept, the "Coordinator of Government Operations in Judea-Samaria and the Gaza District", one former consultant for the Israeli government, and (then-)PM Yitzhak Shamir are not affiliated with the Israeli government in any way.

The non-truncated version of your second quote:

Jaakobou: Please work with others rather than reject every source given (above) on account that it's author is somehow connected with Jews.

MeteorMaker: Your sources are sort of self-rejecting, if you indeed set out to prove that the term "Judea" is widely used by anybody else than Israelis - and 9 out of 10 turn out to have been written by Israelis. I advise you to not misrepresent my views and try to cast them in an anti-Semitic light btw, that does not reflect well on your credibility and appears uncivil. Now that you have confirmed that the term is used mostly in Israel, could you elaborate on why you advocate replacing a well-established English toponym with it?

Jaakobou: I feel this discussion has lost it's value; Certainly there is a problem if you feel that you've been accused of anti-Semitism as that was not my intention. I and a few other editors disagree with you regarding the interpretation of sources. To clarify, it is my opinion that anything published under "international" or "world", makes the point that it's an 'international' document, regardless if an Israeli or a pro-Israeli (Jew or not) was part of it's writing process.

MeteorMaker: That is a pretty ludicrous statement. Direct quotes by anybody in an "international" document become the accepted "international" view at the instant they're published? Or are you suggesting that verbatim quotes by, say, Yitzhak Shamir (one of your examples) should be censored when printed in a publication by the World Bank? I accept your apology for accusing me of "rejecting every source on account that it's author is somehow connected with Jews". Don't confuse "Jews" and "Israelis" again. Should you overcome the feeling that "this discussion has lost its value", you are welcome back to try to support your claim that "Judea" is a valid term outside Israel. Until then, I must conclude that you have failed.

Certainly there is a problem if you feel that you've been verbally abused as that was not my intention. I have stricken out the indicated parts as you requested. MeteorMaker (talk) 11:38, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think you may have made some error saying you reverted an edit of mine from 4 May.[1] I couldn't recall making the edit you suggested I've made, and indeed, I can't find making any edits on that date: Jezreel Valley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).
With respect, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 20:24, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That has been corrected. My deep apologies for any inconvenience, I should have double-checked. MeteorMaker (talk) 20:28, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I'm misreading you, but This edit summary feels somewhat combative and judgmental in my opinion (See WP:POOR). I'm only interested in a mention of Mt. Gilboa and the Samaria hills in the geographic layout of the location. Certainly, this is not an out of reach perspective and we can discuss a way to incorporate my desire into the article.

I'm not a geography expert, but I believe certain portions of the Samaria highlands area are within' Israeli territory so I wasn't sure on placing a "XXX , in the West Bank" and I'm fairly certain Mt. Gilboa is not considered in the west bank, but I'm open to be corrected on that one.

In general, I'm open to suggestions that satisfy my interest on this one.

With respect, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 05:09, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The northern slope of Mt Gilboa is in Israel according to the coordinates given, while the peak seems to be on the Palestinian side of the border[2]. Depending on the definition, a minor part of the "Samarian highlands" may be in Israel proper, but no amount of discussing will change the fact that the overwhelming part is in the West Bank. If I sounded somewhat combative and judgmental pointing that out, I apologize. MeteorMaker (talk) 06:24, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't trying to make the argument that the Samaria highlands are not in the West Bank, I simply wasn't sure on how to phrase the text and assumed you'll possibly correct it rather than revert. Anyways, I'm open to suggestions on this. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 06:50, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did correct it rather than revert and incorporated the factually accurate part of your change, though the line may need another revision now that we have established that Mt Gilboa lies on the border, with the peak inside Palestinian territory. MeteorMaker (talk) 07:47, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi MeteorMaker.

Regarding you pushing my article to the talk page. Well it was my first attempt at a major updating of a Wikipedia article. I observed that the original article was so out of date that it needed major reforms. I tried to update this page with information that was more up to date. I notice you have kept some of my points but have restored most of the passages I tried to update. I observe that you say I am pushing "a minority POV re the location of Thapsacus" and that you have merged my points "minus the unsourced claims". Well let's compare these two statements alongside a passage your restored. Take the first paragraph under Location, bit by bit.

Where does this material come from? It's not referenced. Who said it was 100 miles north-east of Tadmor? Name one ancient source that can verify this statement. Who said it is the modern town of Deir? (I suppose they mean modern Dayr az Zawr). Anyone with geographic sense would immediately see the impossibility of it being anywhere near ancient Thapsacus. Name one modern historian who would even support such a claim. And who "now assumed" it to be at Suriyah? Where is the reference?

What does some town near Shechem have to do with a town on the Euphrates? Why is this article even quoting a 1897 source which is saying something totally unrelated to the Euphrates' Thapsacus? And who says it is unlikely? Is not this the author of the article giving his own unverified comment.

At last a reference to a location, even if only a tertiary source. And guess what, they get it right. But does this satisfy the author of the article? No, his bias will not allow him to accept this. So he adds his own un-referenced opinion, totally going against the plain reading of Pliny 5.21 (a reference you removed) who says of Carchemish, under its later name of Europus, "Europus formerly Thapsacus".

Well a second reference and surprise it gets it almost correct (when it says "near Carchemish"). But why is this source being quoted at all? It has nothing to do with the location of Thapsacus. It only mentions it, in passing, as a place through which Alexander marched on his way to Gaugamela.

So, on your criticism.

Am I "pushing a minority POV re the location of Thapsacus"? Maybe I am when compared to the 100+ year old sources the article likes to quote, but not amongst modern scholars who have the benefit of a 100 years of new archaeological discoveries. Again look at the references in the above paragraph that you restored - even these say or hint at Carchemish. I am not the one who is pushing a minority view. It is clearly the author of the article who is pushing his POV.

Do I make "unsourced claims"? Are you are trying to compare me with the numerous unsourced claims in your restored paragraph? Have another look at the mass of references I gave. All the ancient sources were quoted and citied. Most of the modern citations were from academic journals in the field of ancient history.

Joe Baker (talk) 11:55, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Joe, congratulations on an ambitious rewrite, and far be it from me to try to stifle your enthusiam. As you know, everything on Wikipedia needs to conform to Wkikpedia verifiability rules. Rather than disgrace your text with a bunch of ugly ^{[citation needed]} tags, I just parked the unsourced parts on the talk page pending presentation of verifiable sources, notably of the claims made in the lead. There are also some conclusions in the last paragraph of the Location section that give the impression of being original research, hence the quarantine until you can find reliable sources.

I should add that your rewrite was used as ammunition in defense of an earlier (and pretty fringe-science) version of the map that is now included in the article, and I admit I may have become a little less lenient than usual as a consequence. Your rewrite of the References section was in many ways an improvement, though it should be noted that it did not add new information to the existing section, deleted some useful information, and contained the unsourced claim "1 Kings 4:21 names it as the extreme (northern) border city of the kingdom of Solomon. The passage is an early Persian period insert and essentially makes the extent of Solomon's kingdom coincide with the then contemporary Persian province of Ebir-nari." (there is a ref, but it doesn't say that).

You are correct that the article had several flaws, and my partial revert should not be seen as endorsement of them. Now for your objections:

• "Its exact location is unknown but is said to be 100 miles north-east of Tadmor. [...]" Where does this material come from? It's not referenced. Who said it was 100 miles north-east of Tadmor?

It's from Easton's Bible Dictionary: "Thapsacus, a great and wealthy town on the western bank of the Euphrates," about 100 miles north-east of Tadmor." The original version of the article had a footnote reference that apparently got lost later on when the article grew. It should be restored, since Easton is the source in several places in the article.

• Who said it is the modern town of Deir? [...] And who "now assumed" it to be at Suriyah? Where is the reference?

Correct, it did lack some sources originally, and that should be remedied. I checked all original claims before I performed the partial revert and found them legit (in the Wikipedia sense of having been made by several reliable sources), but didn't think of adding the refs to the article. Here is one source of the Deir claim anyway (there are better ones, but I don't have time for a deep search right now): [3] and two of the Suriyah: [4], [5]. As a bonus, one for Dibsi Faraj [6] and one for nearby Meskene. [7]

• "Another possible location described by Conder in Easton's Bible Dictionary of 1897, however, identifies this place with Khurbet Tafsah, some 6 miles west of Shechem; this however is unlikely." What does some town near Shechem have to do with a town on the Euphrates? Why is this article even quoting a 1897 source which is saying something totally unrelated to the Euphrates' Thapsacus? And who says it is unlikely? Is not this the author of the article giving his own unverified comment.

I left it in because it's properly cited and conforms to Wikipedia standards, but a place near Shechem (in the modern West Bank) does seem unlikely, as one editor (somewhat OR-like) has pointed out. I'm not an expert though, so I can't judge how much merit the hypothesis has that identifies "the great river" of the Bible with Jordan. Perhaps there should be a separate section on the identification Tiphsah - Thapsacus, since this hypothesis clearly concerns Tiphsah rather than Thapsacus.

• "There is further suggestion that the town may be associated with Carchemish [1] however this may be unlikely as the towns referenced as Europus and Amphipolis are separate and there is no other indication that the cities could be the same as Thapsacus." [The author] adds his own un-referenced opinion, totally going against the plain reading of Pliny 5.21 (a reference you removed) who says of Carchemish, under its later name of Europus, "Europus formerly Thapsacus".

That is not a plain reading of Pliny, as you note the actual text says "Europus formerly Thapsacus, now Amphipolis". You point to a hypothesis that a word got lost in the middle, but I haven't seen any indication that that view is more accepted in is mainstream science than the original one, so there are no grounds to remove all mention of it.

• "Another reference does suggest that the town was near "Jarablos", another name for Carchemish. [2]"Well a second reference and surprise it gets it almost correct (when it says "near Carchemish"). But why is this source being quoted at all? It has nothing to do with the location of Thapsacus.

The sentence "Alexander crossed the Euphrates at Thapsacus (near Jarâblos)" [8] seems to have a lot to do with the location of Thapsacus, since we know where Jarâblos was. A few miles from what you have determined to be the "correct" location, admittedly.

• Am I "pushing a minority POV re the location of Thapsacus"? Maybe I am when compared to the 100+ year old sources the article likes to quote, but not amongst modern scholars who have the benefit of a 100 years of new archaeological discoveries. Again look at the references in the above paragraph that you restored - even these say or hint at Carchemish. I am not the one who is pushing a minority view. It is clearly the author of the article who is pushing his POV.

I base my "Minority" assertion on nothing more sophisticated than a cursory web search, so I may be wrong and the current mainstream history view may indeed be that Thapsacus = Carchemish, and all other hypotheses may consequently have been discarded. Such a statement would have to be supported with rather good sources, naturally. Unless you can provide that, other editors may decide your article gives undue weight to one hypothesis among many.

Incidentally, the Graslin and Lemaire hypothesis, on which you base most of your argument that Thapsacus = Carchemish, struck me as pretty flimsy - it merely conjectures that Carchemish may have been Tapsuhu because Carchemish used a unit of weight that was called the "Carchemish standard" and Tapsuhu one called the "Tapsuhu measure", plus an Aramaic name was found in a text that was redacted in Tapsuhu, and that Tapsuhu may have been Thapsacus because Tapsuhu and Thapsacus sound similar. It then states as bald fact that the biblical Tiphsah = Thapsacus, which to my knowledge is far from proven. It does acknowledge that the exact location of Thapsacus was and is unknown though. Still, it's a proper cite, so I left it in.

If it's OK with you, I would like to move this conversation to the Thapsacus talk page. MeteorMaker (talk) 19:09, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi MeteorMaker. Yes, okay on placing these on the Thapsacus talk page. And I still have problems with the present article, especially those sources which are some 100 to 100+ years old. The Easton references should all be removed. They are so old that they do not even know the location of Carchemish or of its 1000+ year history prior to its Biblical appearance. It claims Menachem actually capture Thapsacus on the Euphrates - It may have been an educated guess back then, but try and find anyone today who would agree with their old interpretation.

And why bring in a reference to the 1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica (even more so why make it the sole entry in a section headed "Modern References")? It refers to Peters' 1889 identification with Dibsai. Can't you get a more update reference?. As for the other identifications you list above - most are based on generic biblical references who are renowned for using old sources (and never updating these sources). But the Dibsai one is good. Why? Because it's from an academic journal in the field of ancient history. In fact it was one of the references I deliberately used (note 8 - and all the information in that note was from the article) - but you removed it. Only the first page is available on the web. Go to a university library and read the whole article - they reject the identification of Dibsai with Thapsacus.

Also get rid of note 10. It leads to a defunct site and if you try and search there for Thapsacus, it's only hit is this page. Joe Baker (talk) 10:48, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the delay, I've been away. You make many good points, and I'm confident the article will be much improved with your input. I agree it may potentially be a problem that the bulk of the present article is taken from century-old sources, but I have not seen much evidence that the hypotheses presented have been conclusively superseded by never ones. Your main source, Graslin and Lemaire, acknowledge that (as of 2004), "la location de Thapsacus reste discutée", ie no particular hypothesis is yet settled on. They (and you) make a case for Carchemish, but that is not what a Wikipedia article ideally should be - all hypotheses should be given space, as long as they cannot be shown to be permanently discarded by modern science. Sources such as your note 8 of course help, if it indeed disproves one of the hypotheses (Dibsai) conclusively.

Easton does (albeit tentatively) place Carcemish in the spot where we know today it was, so I don't think the argument that it's "too old" and therefore necessarily wrong holds much water. He identifies the "other" biblical Tiphsah (the one Menahem captured, in the present-day West Bank) with Thapsacus, but he also gives space to an opposing hypothesis, one that you held up as proof of the original WP article's inaccuracy. Much confusion could be avoided by creating a separate section on the identification Thapsacus = Tiphsah, as I have suggested. MeteorMaker (talk) 10:45, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You appear to have followed User:Amoruso to four different articles solely for the purpose of reverting him. This kind of behavior is a violation of WP:STALK; please desist. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:01, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have not reverted him where reverting wasn't called for. Take a look at the actual edits and you'll probably agree with me. As you know, we also happen to have quite a few watchlist pages in common. :) MeteorMaker (talk) 01:14, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

These were articles that he had edited today, included ones you had never edited before, and your first action was to revert him. Please don't take others for idiots, and please don't stalk him any further. Thanks. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:31, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When one user (who has been banned for two months) returns and makes a large number of controversial and NPOV-violating edits, it's every responsible Wikipedian's duty to subject his edits to basic scrutiny. I don't see anybody else restoring his edits either (with the exception of the King David Hotel Bombing article, which admittedly was a borderline case). I'm sorry if you got the impression that means I am taking you and Amoruso for idiots.MeteorMaker (talk) 06:42, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have a 3RR violation on Deir Yasin Massacre. If you revert again, I will report it. The Category:Israeli Atrocities is up for deletion as it is. Sposer (talk) 13:34, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do not have a 3RR violation on Deir Yasin Massacre or anywhere else. Thanks for notifying me of the cat deletion nomination though. MeteorMaker (talk) 13:38, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Btw, Sposer, I'm curious: were you the one who made the threat that necessitated the temporary takedown of the article? If so, roughly what was the nature of the threat, which I suppose was directed at me? MeteorMaker (talk) 13:44, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea what the threat was. I would never do that.Sposer (talk) 15:35, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Meteormaker, you were caught in a lie by user:Jayjg - which is it, did you watch the same page or did you stalk? I need this information if I report you. You will banned for your personal attacks and stalking in the future. You are in violation of WP:STALK. If "following another user around" is accompanied by tendentiousness, personal attacks, or other disruptive behavior, it may become a very serious matter. Amoruso (talk) 23:35, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Where do you see a lie, stalking, tendentious editing, disruptive behavior or personal attacks on my part, Amoruso? With your accusations and threats, you seem to be in violation of WP:AGF.MeteorMaker (talk) 05:53, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In your behavior we see it, as proven by user:Jayjg above and your admission. I complied with WP:AGF until you were caught in the lie now. Amoruso (talk) 13:00, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could you point to a tangible example of the things you accuse me of, Amoruso? Else, kindly refrain from making personal attacks. MeteorMaker (talk) 15:21, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Like Jayjg explained above, you were found in violation of WP:STALK. You said you were watching those pages, then came up with another excuse - that you monitored me. Amoruso (talk) 15:23, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not correct, I suggest you read it again. It's no secret that I reverted a couple of your edits because they were in clear violation of WP:NPOV and/or lacked sources. Additionally, you made substantial changes without trying to build consensus first. Any editor has a right (or even a duty) to revert under such circumstances. Having well demonstrated your penchant for that kind of edits in the time before your two-month ban, you should not be surprised that other Wikipedians monitor you when you return. That does not constitute a breach of WP:STALK, which clearly states that the reverts must be "with the intent of causing annoyance or distress to another contributor" It should also be noted that most of the reverts are still standing.

Hope that cleared it up for you. Most editors do not take accusations of lying lightly, so I advise you to be less libelous in the future. MeteorMaker (talk) 15:43, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just for the record, the criteria used by User:Jayjg against Meteormaker, were they applied to User:Amoruso's recent editorial irruptions on pages I edit and have on my watchlist, could be equally construed as violations of WP:STALK. On one page where Amoruso has edited singly against an old edit of mine, canvassing occurred and resulted in a page locked in his favour. On my page User:Amoruso, while expending much energy on warning me against violating WP:AGF, WP:CIVIL, has successively diagnosed me as an egotist, someone with an inferiority complex, someone with a superiority complex, and a possible paranoid. So if this nice little operation to fix Meteormaker proceeds further up the wiki judicial system, I invite all above to examine User:Amoruso's full record with all editors over the last two days. It is pertinent to any accusations laid against Meteormaker, and I will be quite happy to assist with further details. Nothing, contrary to wild assertions on the Arbitration Notification page, has been proven, and one would do well to stop this strategic whingeing, use of allies, potential waste of time for administrators. Big blokes aren't supposed to whine, especially about piddling matters.Nishidani (talk) 21:04, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the issue is confused. What Nishidani saying here is irrelevant to WP:STALK of course because he's just upset over a content dispute. I don't know how that is related. Nishidani has been very uncivil to me for some reason for the past few days I have to say. Me and other users have had issues with the lead in an article after a recent edit by Nishidani. Please don't confuse matters. Meteormaker was simply caught in a lie. He said that he stalked me because we had the same pages watched. user:Jayjg explained to him that some of edits were on pages he never edited before - clear proof of stalking, and then Meteormaker said that he was monitoring me - i.e. changed his story.. that's all there's to it. I actually forgive him. Amoruso (talk) 21:23, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Amuroso does seem to be a bit of a stalker himself. Further evidence, from his contribs log:

• 03:33, 3 July 2008 (hist) (diff) Ariel (city)‎ (→External links: Cities in the West Bank) (top)
• 03:30, 3 July 2008 (hist) (diff) Tel Rumeida‎ (already hebron.) (top)
• 03:29, 3 July 2008 (hist) (diff) Beitar Illit‎ (→References: Cities in the West Bank) (top)
• 03:28, 3 July 2008 (hist) (diff) Joseph's Tomb‎ (→External links: Nablus, Geography of the West Bank]....) (top)
• 03:27, 3 July 2008 (hist) (diff) Judea and Samaria‎ (Geography of the West Bank) (top)
• 03:26, 3 July 2008 (hist) (diff) Kiryat Arba‎ (→References: Hebron more specific) (top)
• 03:26, 3 July 2008 (hist) (diff) Ma'ale Adumim‎ (→External links: Cities in the West Bank) (top)
• 03:25, 3 July 2008 (hist) (diff) Mevo'ot Yericho‎ (→External links: already in jericho - more specific)
• 03:24, 3 July 2008 (hist) (diff) Rachel's Tomb‎ (already in a sub-cat) (top)
• 23:37, 2 July 2008 (hist) (diff) User talk:MeteorMaker‎ (→WP:STALK)

All these changes are reverts of changes I've made:

• 21:46, 2 July 2008 (hist) (diff) Tel Rumeida‎ (Cat added.)
• 21:45, 2 July 2008 (hist) (diff) Rachel's Tomb‎ (Cat added.)
• 21:42, 2 July 2008 (hist) (diff) Mevo'ot Yericho‎ (Cat added.)
• 21:40, 2 July 2008 (hist) (diff) Ma'ale Adumim‎ (Cat added.)
• 21:40, 2 July 2008 (hist) (diff) m Kiryat Arba‎ (Cat added.)
• 21:20, 2 July 2008 (hist) (diff) Judea and Samaria‎ (Cat added.)
• 21:20, 2 July 2008 (hist) (diff) m Joseph's Tomb‎ (Cat added.)
• 21:13, 2 July 2008 (hist) (diff) Beitar Illit‎ (Cat added.)
• 21:08, 2 July 2008 (hist) (diff) Ariel (city)‎ (cat added.)

To his civility issues, his history of making baseless accusations, and his contempt for Wiki rules that rendered him a two-month ban, we can apparently add at least a slight amount of hypocrisy. MeteorMaker (talk) 11:23, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

These were not stalks. I edited in the past on many/most of these articles, and of course a CAT wrongly filled is basically one edit, one link. The two month ban was about a suspicion of sockpuppeting never proven definitely. It is also immaterial to your current behavior. Amoruso (talk) 23:01, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[9][10]. Two counts of following to previously unedited articles, exactly the same as my alleged "stalk". I'm confident you will be less quick to throw accusations around in the future. MeteorMaker (talk) 23:40, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong. Following a link on a cat like I explained is different than following a link on a person (aka stalking). You're just embarrassed that you were caught lying to an administrator. But like I said I forgave you, just don't do it again. Amoruso (talk) 23:52, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your initial belligerence ("I report you. You will banned!") seems to have waned a bit, which is good. You're still making baseless accusations, which is a violation of certain WP rules you no doubt have heard of, but since you keep repeating you "forgive" me, I hope we have seen the last of them now. MeteorMaker (talk) 00:08, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You should refrain from arguing after officially being warned by an administrator. That's the only true thing that happened here. You stalked, you lied, the incident was indeed reported, and you were warned by an administrator.Amoruso (talk) 00:17, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be arguing that I should run and whine about your "stalking" to the admins too. Even for a superhuman admin, the less than 20 minutes between your filing your complaint and his reaction does not allow for a particularly thorough investigation, so my guess is that Jayjg just took your word for it. As we have seen, the most vital criterion for stalking ("the intent of causing annoyance or distress to another contributor") was not fulfilled, nor was the "following around improperly" (for another reason than fixing errors or violations of Wikipedia policy, of which there tends to be more than a fair share in the edits you make). Your persistent accusations of lying, in addition to the allegations of stalking, does not reflect well on your reputation. MeteorMaker (talk) 00:56, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your excuses (already rejected by Jayjg above) are noted. Just don't stalk (and subsequently lie) again. Amoruso (talk) 02:44, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If I had the inclination, I could report you for your constant violations of WP:CIVIL, WP:ETIQ, WP:HARASS and WP:AGF and your documented history of making false claims (like these on the admin noticeboard:)

"This user, who for some reason doesn't have a user page, has been stalking me persistently. He reverts me on all pages, trying to provoke RV wars. and that's the only thing he does in wikipedia apparently. See his "contributions" - all stalking me - I've asked him to stop but he seemed to ignore it."[11].

The admins (like most other people) have better things to do however. If I were you, I'd keep my fantasies to myself, and everybody would be much happier. MeteorMaker (talk) 07:39, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As long as you refrain from stalking again, I'm sure user:Jayjg won't ban you for this one time. Cheers, Amoruso (talk) 13:31, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't engage in stalking or any other uncivil behavior. Unlike you [12], I have never been banned, and the chances you will ever see that are slim or nonexistent. Further provocations or other breaches of WP:CIVIL on your part will be reported. MeteorMaker (talk) 13:46, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You've been warned by an administrator and you're playing as if you did nothing wrong. That means I may have to report it again. Amoruso (talk) 14:09, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You've been banned for two months and you're playing as if you did nothing wrong. I'm confident the potential consequences at this point of making further false allegations are clear to you. MeteorMaker (talk) 14:48, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unlike you, I've been blocked for a suspicion. You've been warned. If you ceased your stalking, then the discussion is over. Amoruso (talk) 14:51, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You've been bannedblocked numerous times [13], for several kinds of violations. Your civility issues are legendary here [14], and are compounded by your belligerence and provocative behavior. This section will serve as further evidence against you if it comes to reporting. MeteorMaker (talk) 15:08, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't deny being blocked for 3RR in the past. I don't know why you're so defensive. I just wanted to be sure you understood the warning by the adminstrator and that you'll stop stalking. Amoruso (talk) 15:14, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I don't stalk or engage in disruptive behavior. You have been blocked for disruptive/agitatory editing, 3RR (twice), incivility, and very abusive sockpuppetry. You have narrowly escaped blocking on several other occasions. Your next reply will be ignored and possibly deleted, if it's just another variation on the same theme. MeteorMaker (talk) 15:31, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dear MeteorMaker,

Please take care of Promised Land as well!

IMHO this article should be main article for Land of Israel.

Thanks --Submitter to Truth (talk) 19:07, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your further comments here would be appreciated. Thanks, TheMightyQuill (talk) 15:30, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Concerning inclusion in Category:Jewish terrorism please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration#Category:Palestinian terrorists and Category:Israeli terrorists. --Timeshifter (talk) 15:05, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Because we had an edit conflict, and I outdented too. CasualObserver'48 (talk) 14:15, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the notice. Lots of material now. Can't possible be dismissed with the standard broken record "OR" accusation. MeteorMaker (talk) 14:38, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be pleasantly surprised, but will not hold my breath. We gotta wait for the rest of the camera crew, and hopefully some with NPOV too. CasualObserver'48 (talk) 15:07, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, MeteorMaker.

I've examined the history of the now protected Samaria, and the (vast) discussion on the talk page regarding your controversial edits to the article. I'm afraid I have to agree with the consensus on the page that you are being disruptive by your repeated attempts to force your terminology onto the article.

I have no opinion on the correctness of your position, but the fact remains that it is overwhelmingly rejected by the other editors and that, since Wikipedia relies on consensus to reach neutrality, editors who regularly go against consensus are disrupting the process. You may wish to avail yourself of the various avenues of dispute resolution, including possible mediation, in order to bring your proposed edits to a wider audience for reconsideration.

Please consider this a warning that under the ArbCom decision Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles, any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. The sanctions imposed may include 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.

In particular, further attempts edit that article, or any other article in the area of conflict, against consensus will lead to sanctions being imposed on you. — Coren ^(talk) 05:50, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute resolution is long overdue. I don't have much time this week though, so that will have to wait.

In Talk:Samaria, I only see a consensus of User:Jayjg however. The other two editors that were against bringing this WP article in line with the other online encyclopedias seem to have accepted the fact that their position simply doesn't match with reality, User:Canadian Monkey explicitly so [15], albeit perhaps inadvertently. It should also be noted that the third of those editors is openly partisan [16].

Claiming consensus for a position that has been shown to clash with WP guidelines [17] and completely lacks reliable sources is the archetypical system gaming, particularly if it's in order to suppress an exceptionally well-sourced fact [18] [19] for purely ideological reasons. I strongly feel that the facts and nothing else should be discussed, like in academia, and that a two-person advantage in numbers shouldn't be a license to create wikiality. MeteorMaker (talk) 08:01, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please understand that the prohibition against edit warring is entirely independent on how right or wrong the various positions are; it's about disputes ending up in articles and making them unstable. — Coren ^(talk) 15:38, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I get the uncomfortable feeling that MeteorMaker has both the logic of his claim (Samaria barely used outside Israel) and WP:Policy on his side (use English names, NPOV etc). Clearly, I've not examined more than a portion of the TalkPage discussions, but I can see Jayjg re-introducing material/clips that are claimed (rather persuasively) to have been refuted. Under these circumstances, uninvolved admins should be examining, explaining and defending policy - or judging the quality of the discources (ie identifying disruptive conduct), not adjudicating on content disputes which (we're constantly told) admins cannot do.

My suggestion to MeteorMaker is to build a table of the examples offered, with justifications and refutations in separate columns. Either Ian Lustuck is an Israeli or he's not, either he prefers the use of Samaria or use of the West Bank, etc. Without a very careful examination of the issues I can't be sure what's going on - I and others would have a much clearer picture if the evidence was laid out carefully.

PR^talk 11:58, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea. The implementation will have to wait a while though, I don't have much time ATM. MeteorMaker (talk) 16:46, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's sad - you've been accused of disruptive editing (and that could even be true). But what I think I'm seeing is your powerful case being obstructed by people who are wiki-lawyering in order to damage articles. PR^talk 19:30, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please review WP:NOR and WP:NPA. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:36, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done [20]. Thanks for the suggestion, PR. MeteorMaker (talk) 22:25, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The page talks about Palestinian state, not Palestinian Country/area/region. There are problems with bot on others wiki. Please correct the definition as i did.--Lord Hidelan (talk) 20:02, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I took it for vandalism. A clarifying note would have helped. Will revert. MeteorMaker (talk) 20:04, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, i see ;-) You can find a clear list here (i hope): Proposte per uno Stato di Palestina —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lord Hidelan (talk • contribs) 20:07, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Israeli settlement. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. NoCal100 (talk) 22:39, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not engaged in an edit war at Israeli Settlements or anywhere else. Thank you for your kind note anyhow. I have reverted three entirely different edits on that page and each time the reason has been clearly stated:

• Sources shown to be irrelevant to argument or contradicting it altogether. See talk [21]. [22]
• Too confusing. Take it to talk and maybe we can bend it to shape. [23]
• Wikipedia (or derivatives of it) do not qualify as WP:RS. [24]

MeteorMaker (talk) 23:13, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter if the were different edits, nor does it matter if you have given a reason for it - a revert is a revert. Please stop, or you are likely to get blocked. NoCal100 (talk) 23:34, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what to do with these people (or rather what to do about what they get up to). They push obscure and/or anachronistic, politicised terminology into articles as if it were mainstream or equivalent to the current mainstream, and then start waving WP rules at you triumphantly as soon as they manage to google a couple of sources which can be interpreted as backing up their worldview, even when 100s more contradict it. Part of me wants to just walk away and save my time and energy over what is after all only an odd word here and there, but then I ask myself - hang on, why should people get away with inserting this minority viewpoint propaganda into what is - for better or worse - perhaps currently one of the world's main information and reference resources? Just a message of support for an occasional fellow-struggler ... --Nickhh (talk) 23:11, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All it takes for wikiality to happen is for a few good men to do nothing. The struggle is tedious and time-consuming, but I must admit I also find it strangely amusing sometimes. As a bonus side effect, the complete lack of substance in their arguments gets mercilessly exposed, causing embarrassment for their entire coterie. MeteorMaker (talk) 09:29, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You could understand it perhaps if it were over a far more complex issue, or one which is open to interpretation or analysis, such as the causes of the Six Day War or whatever. But how can people seriously insist on forcing huge debates and edit wars over whether "Samaria" is the standard, mainstream and current way of referring to the northern West Bank (or part of it)? As I've suggested, it's as mad as English people insisting that Birmingham is a "city in Mercia". If I was really cynical (or even paranoid) I would merely assume that this was some sinister tactic to wear all the sane contributors down so that they lose the will to do anything else here. I looked through every index in nearly every book I have on the Middle East yesterday - written by a wide range of people, including Israelis - and noted that only one even has an entry for "Samaria" (flagging up one use of the word in the entire book), while one other has - again - one entry for the combined phrase "Judea and Samaria", but then simply says "see West Bank", kind of like a WP redirect. Out of 15 books, we have 382 index references to "the West Bank", 1 to "Judea & Samaria" and 1 to "Samaria". Oh well, I'll continue to occasionally dive in when I see the worst of this sort of thing. --Nickhh (talk) 09:04, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Israeli settlement. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. - Canadian Monkey (talk) 17:27, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have not made more than 3 reversions within a 24-hour period. Also, CM, please don't restore material that has been shown to be in breach of WP:NPOV, WP:UNDUE and WP:NCGN without consensus. MeteorMaker (talk) 20:26, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have on several occasions made exactly 3 reversions, and a fourth one just after the 24 hours expire. That is known as gaming the system, and your attention is drawn to the sentence which I have highlighted in the above warning. Canadian Monkey (talk) 21:37, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tag-teaming to restore material that has been unequivocally shown to be a violation of not one but several WP policies plus one guideline is the archetypical system gaming. Please act in accordance with WP:NPOV, WP:UNDUE, WP:SYNTH, WP:SOAP and WP:NCGN, you as well as Jayjg and NoCal100. Thank you. MeteorMaker (talk) 21:59, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MeteorMaker, thanks for starting the RfC at Talk:Samaria. Hopefully with some additional editors commenting, it will be possible to try and find the consensus on how to deal with the dispute at that article. :) One request I do have though, is in how you are presenting your arguments. You seem to be personalizing the dispute a bit, as you keep repeating Jayjg's name over and over, in comments and edit summaries. Could you please try to step away from this practice? Focusing your comments strictly on the article, and not on other editors, may help the dispute to resolve more quickly. Thanks, --Elonka 22:27, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your views. The RfC [25] contains his name only once, as a courtesy and acknowledgment of the research he did do. I agree I may have become carried away in the heat of the battle at other times during this prolonged debate, but I know for a fact that others have felt a bit of frustration in the exchanges with this particular editor too. It should be noted that he's no stranger to the practice either — witness for instance the naming of this section [26]. MeteorMaker (talk) 22:58, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. I have removed the name from the header, and if he continues to personalize the dispute, I shall have a word with him as well. Sound fair? --Elonka 23:11, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely. Thank you! MeteorMaker (talk) 23:14, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're free to insert whatever straw man arguments you want in your "RFC", but don't remove my own comments from the RFC again. Thanks. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:57, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your generous offer, which, due to a non-reliance on strawman tactics, I must decline. I have not removed your quotes either, I merely moved them to another section [27]. If I can give you some advice in return, please don't use identical section headers, particularly not when the section name you copied is from an RfC that has yet to be found by the RfC bot. Thank you. MeteorMaker (talk) 22:07, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MeteorMaker, undoing the actions of another editor in a complex way, by slightly changing your wording each time even though you are aware that this does not address the fundamental issue, also counts as a 3RR violation. I strongly suggest you revert yourself, before you are blocked for this. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:56, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How exactly is it "undoing the actions of another editor" to add information about the sources said editor adds? MeteorMaker (talk) 01:04, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You've removed the phrase also known as "Judea and Samaria" each time, replacing it with slightly different qualifiers, or removing it altogether, in an attempt to get around the 3RR rule. This is fairly obvious, including to you. Please don't wikilawyer further; instead, revert yourself now and work it out on the Talk: page. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:22, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• West Bank (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• MeteorMaker (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Hello. Today you have made substantially the same edit to West Bank four times, restoring a version of the lede from December the ninth. Whilst the edits are not verbatim identical there is little semantic difference. For these edits another editor has reported you to the edit warring noticeboard. You have been previously advised that edit-warring is forbidden.

Additionally, you made this edit with the clear intent to disrupt the article to make a point.

Thus, for violating the three-revert-rule and deliberate disruption, I have blocked you for 24 hours.

If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.

CIreland (talk) 02:50, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about the accidental tag. I was researching vandalism from an IP, and when I had the tag ready to put on their page, I accidentally clicked the wrong tab in my browser and put it on your page instead of theirs. The correct location was here.[28] Sorry for any confusion, --Elonka 19:52, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine with both being links, or both being lists, but don't remove my list of sources and replace it with a link, unless you do the same with your endlessly repeated list of sources too. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:57, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I always post the link to the "Samaria" discussion-of-sources page [29] rather than copy 10K+ over and over, that's why it's there after all. The encyclopedia links [30] were a one-off exception — I had posted the usual link about ten times, and CM kept saying "it doesn't say "Samaria" is an ancient term". I think he finally did read them, since he didn't repeat that absurd claim again.

Just saw you put the whole 12K in there again — which is your fifth identical copy of that same list. Admins have earlier discouraged that practice. I would advise you to settle for a simple link. MeteorMaker (talk) 23:08, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And you've put your list of sources in what, 6 times? More? You've now reverted me 3 times, don't violate WP:3RR. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:48, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have only posted the table of sources once. I had to repost a small subset yesterday, for reasons explained above and here.

I must ask you to revert your refactoring and clearly misleading labelling of that tiny fraction of the sources "MeteorMaker's sources" — you're forcing me to copy and paste the whole enchilada otherwise. In addition to being misleading, the label "MeteorMaker's sources" is also factually incorrect, since the sources were contributed by numerous editors, including yourself. MeteorMaker (talk) 00:02, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, as I've been reviewing your contribs, MeteorMaker (talk · contribs), I've been a bit concerned by how you've been rather focused on this "Samaria" issue, and have done little else for weeks. It hasn't always been like this, so could I perhaps give you a gentle nudge to work on other things as well? We definitely have a lot that needs doing on the project. :) Even just clicking on Random article a few times, I usually find something that I want to fix (or at least tag as needing cleanup) within a few clicks. Perhaps also create a userpage? Having a bit of information about your interests would be helpful, would help increase the trust level with other editors, and would also keep your name from showing up as a redlink! --Elonka 21:35, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do tend to stay focused, and I am happy with that. I have no desire to flaunt my personal life on WP either. Thank you for your kind advice anyway. MeteorMaker (talk) 21:40, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

With your mastery of the subject and the additional evidence from a few other hands as well, for both sides of the argument, it should be worth keeping in mind that these two long threads could well constitute an extremely well-documented NPOV wiki article on I/P terminology, or more specifically on history of 'West Bank/Samaria-Judea' usage, independently of how the decision goes. Something along those lines, to avoid wasting much closely mustered evidence in archived nooks. Best regards for the New Year Nishidani (talk) 13:34, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Nishidani, and happy new year to you too. Now that it's a group effort, we're finally getting somewhere, with contributions from several scrupulous and tireless editors. The evidence is rock-solid now and the resistance to aligning this encyclopedia with its more reputable colleagues has degenerated into the predictable accusations of racism and weak attempts to get the opposition blocked on entirely spurious grounds. The sad part is that as soon as we turn our backs for a moment, all the hard work will be undone, but I agree that if there's a well-documented reference page to point to, our successors will find the research work done for them already. If for no other reasons than that it's an enjoyable read, it's a good candidate for a wiki article, but I must admit I'm a little unsure about the procedure for creating one. Where can I read up? MeteorMaker (talk) 22:37, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thought I'd just pop by again to commend the two of you (and G-Dett) for persevering with this one, despite the inordinate amount of time that had to be spent on it. I'm afraid, as noted above, I just got fed up with the constant demands to "proooove!!" what anyone ranging from the casual newspaper reader to the student of serious literature on the topic knows fully well about what the area in question is called in standard sources, and why. It seems the resistance to the obvious is dwindling (finally) as checkmate approaches, and that articles will broadly stick with "West Bank" now. Oh and as per the below, this kind of accusation does appear to be developing into a bit of a habit (Nishidani I know you've been targeted with "stalking" accusations and subject to weird NPA allegations). As have I, eg here - it's worth looking into what prompted that "complaint", it's quite revealing. As noted, the overall tactic is more about smearing people and system gaming than anything else, and the inaccuracy and even hypocrisy of some of the allegations is almost amusing at times. --Nickhh (talk) 13:02, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikistalking is a big no-no. Consider this a polite warning. Repetition will result in more severe consequences. NoCal100 (talk) 17:05, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Look who's talking. [31] [32] MeteorMaker (talk) 17:13, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:HOUND: "Proper use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) fixing errors or violations of Wikipedia policy or correcting related problems on multiple articles." - which is what you above links show. You, OTOH, have followed me to completely unrelated articles. DOn't say you were not warned. NoCal100 (talk) 17:30, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yawn Nishidani (talk) 17:39, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NoCal, I admit that it was you Canadian Monkey who led me to that page a week ago. Cool down. MeteorMaker (talk) 17:41, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And again, look who's talking... not even two minutes between my edit and NoCal's revert this time. Note, his very first edit of that article, so it's not likely it was already on his watchlist. MeteorMaker (talk) 21:51, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And your very first edit to the article was to revert me. To quote you, "Note, his very first edit of that article, so it's not likely it was already on his watchlist." Jayjg ^(talk) 22:08, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm active in a dispute involving the ADL [33] atm, that's how I came across that disambig page. I didn't even look at your edit, much less revert it deliberately. The reason I mentioned it on this page was to expose NoCal's double standards regarding "wikistalking". MeteorMaker (talk) 22:20, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Right. You just happened to come across the article that I had most recently edited, and by chance reverted in the exact same wording I had just removed. Why don't you pull the other one? Jayjg ^(talk) 22:23, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you're not accusing me of lying or, like NoCal, "wikistalking". Btw, you edited that article almost a week ago, it's by no means your most recently edited one.MeteorMaker (talk) 22:41, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I'm accusing you of wikihounding, since that's the current terminology for what you have been doing. And not only am I accusing you of it, I'm telling you to stop doing it. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:16, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So, when you "happen" to revert Jayjg on a page you never edited before, it is because you are 'active in a dispute involving the ADL [34] ", but when I revert you on the same article, being involved in the exact same dispute dispute involving the ADL [35], I am hounding you? Don't you ever get tired of playing these silly games? NoCal100 (talk) 22:36, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could theoretically be a coincidence that you reverted me two minutes after my edit, but you obviously didn't take that possibility into account when you created this section. MeteorMaker (talk) 22:41, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oddly enough, your latest revert of me on that page managed to yet again insert the exact terminology that I had removed a few days before. What a very odd "coincidence"; you revert the page several times, and each time manage to use the exact wording that I had removed. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:16, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not correct, I reverted it exactly one time, after NoCal reverted me (see above). I never checked the wording of the week-old earlier version, nor who made it. If you, like NoCal, are accusing me of "wikihounding", I can show quite a few examples of quod licet Iovi non licet bovis, as you're probably well aware. Though admittedly none as blatant as NoCal's above. MeteorMaker (talk) 23:27, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm actually pretty unhappy with everyone's behavior here, since it's fairly obvious that none of the involved editors are interested in working on the disambig page as a whole. Instead, multiple editors have descended on an innocent ADL disambig page, for one purpose and one purpose only, which is to bicker over a single entry, while ignoring everything else on the page that's desperately in need of cleanup. So in my opinion, all editors are making themselves look equally bad on this one. One small exception though, is that at least Jayjg and NoCal100 were participating a bit at the talkpage. MeteorMaker, you made four controversial edits to the page, with no comments on the related talkpage at all. I hope you will remedy this? --Elonka 23:43, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Every single one was in fact per your exact specification, so how you can say they are "controversial" is frankly a little bit difficult to understand. I quote you: "When there is a dispute about how to describe something on a disambiguation page, the general practice is to simply copy in whatever the first line of the actual article says." The first three edits [36][37][38] faithfully reproduced (if in somewhat condensed form) the first line of the article text before [39] Jayjg ran and edited it to not say "[Jewish] interest group" any more [40], The last of my edits [41] was a verbatim quote from his edited version. Jayjg and NoCal's preferred version ("anti-hate group") does not adhere to that specification and is way less neutral and descriptive. MeteorMaker (talk) 00:05, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PS: Elonka, speaking of remedying things... when are you planning to lift that ban? MeteorMaker (talk) 00:36, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, MeteorMaker, your edits did not "copy in whatever the first line of the actual article says"; rather, you made a series of edits, none of which matched exactly the first line of the article either as it was when you first reverted me, or as it was when the lede was cleaned up a bit. The lede, for example, did not describe it as a "Jewish interest group"; therefore your reversion to that wording did not replicate the lede, nor did my improvements to the lede remove that wording. As for your restrictions, they clearly need to be tightened, since you have developed the rather nasty habit of removing cited material, but leaving in the citations themselves, and then wikilawyering about it. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:29, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here, Jayjg, the first line of the article: "The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) is an interest group founded in 1913 by B'nai B'rith in the United States whose stated aim is "to stop, by appeals to reason and conscience and, if necessary, by appeals to law, the defamation of the Jewish people. Its ultimate purpose is to secure justice and fair treatment to all citizens alike and to put an end forever to unjust and unfair discrimination against and ridicule of any sect or body of citizens."" (Emphasis mine). All three words in "Jewish interest group" are there and I think you agree my condensation is neither improper nor an inaccurate description of the group. Whereas your preferred wording ("Anti-hate group") occurs nowhere in the first sentence of the article, nor in the article itself. That is, not until you ran and edited out both "Jewish" [42] and "interest group" [43], only eight minutes after Elonka made clear how disambig pages should be written. MeteorMaker (talk) 08:21, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

MM, this edit summary was uncivil.[44] When you use inflammatory edit summaries, it tends to just make people defensive, and less likely to want to work with you towards an amicable compromise. So in the future, please try to keep comments and edit summaries in a more neutral tone? This will enable you to be much more effective. Thanks. --Elonka 19:20, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can't strike it, but I admit it can be perceived as uncivil if taken out of context. Read the talk page and you'll understand. There's more than a little merit for calling CM's contstant edits in violation of both the letter and the spirit of WP:V, WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE "disruptive" though. Could you please tell him that he must back up his claims with reliables sources like everybody else? MeteorMaker (talk) 19:32, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Canadian Monkey#Israeli settlement. --Elonka 19:46, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. MeteorMaker (talk) 19:57, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, please be cautious of WP:3RR. You're at three reverts already for the day, so probably best to step back from the "undo" button for awhile. --Elonka 21:52, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Complete control. Signing off for today now, someone else will have to keep the unsourced claims and POV-pushing off the page. MeteorMaker (talk) 21:59, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

MeteorMaker, this edit was a bit much, where you removed information that had a variety of reliable sources.[45] Please don't do this kind of thing again. If you disagree with information that's on the page, but the sources are solid, you may wish to modify the information from those sources, but please don't remove the citations themselves. Thanks, --Elonka 21:36, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The sources are solid, but they are sources that use minority language. The obvious solution is to list sources for 'northern West Bank', and add a few, perhaps those removed, with a note to the effect that 'some sources refer to the withdrawal as from Samaria, the preferred Israeli term'.

So I think a compromise is required here, and that all those 'Samaria' sources cannot be removed, some should, proportionally, be restored. By the way, I've screwed up my addition, not good at that formatting. If you reconsider and add the elided sources back, I hope you can fix anything I've bungled. Cheers Nishidani (talk) 22:49, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Elonka, you know as well as I that those sources were cherry-picked with one rationale only: To bolster the claim that "Samaria" is mainstream terminoolgy outside Israel. Added with the knowledge that cites are more difficult to dislodge than claims, they are a textbook case of wikilawyering. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe WP:UNDUE applies to source selection as well. Since all relevant sources are from one side in the conflict, they also violate WP:NPOV. Additionally, WP:NCGN requires us to use the accepted English name for a place, and "Samaria" is not. Reinserting that policy-busting and thoroughly discredited claim yet one more time can only be seen as disruptive. MeteorMaker (talk) 00:50, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NCGN is targeted more towards article titles, and not internal text. But for cases where it does refer to names in an article, the key element is reliable sources and significant usage. That standard appears to be easily met, to prove that Samaria is a "significant" enough term in English-language sources, to be used. If you feel that the sources are unbalanced, then the best way to handle things, rather than removing citations, is to add more sources which offer alternate views. --Elonka 22:05, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So, when 8,000 sources have been added that use "northern West Bank", will we finally have consensus that "Samaria" is a minority term? The procedure for determining if a term is widely used in English was naturally applied early on in this discussion, and guess what: "Samaria" is utterly blown away by "West Bank". In addition, the survey unequivocally shows that the overwhelming majority of the online instances of "Samaria" (I'm talking in the 99% range here) are of Israeli origin, which in itself makes it problematic under both WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE. To show why the "a cite is all we need" logic is flawed, I could argue that "Wets Bank" should be allowed as an alternative term, citing no less than 283 reliable sources. MeteorMaker (talk) 22:30, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

MeteorMaker, you have been cautioned before about removing citations to reliable sources. Since you have started up again, I am going to make this formal: based on the recent pattern of reverts, and working your way through several Israel-Palestine articles and making Samaria-related reverts, I am therefore instituting a formal ban: You are banned from

• Making Samaria-related reverts to any article in the Israel/Palestine topic area
• Removing reliable citations from any article in the topic area.

This ban is in place for 90 days.

If you feel that Samaria-related information in an article needs to be changed, or that a citation needs to be removed, then please bring it up at the talkpage, and, if there is consensus, let other editors make the actual edit. You are not banned from editing the articles, and you are still welcome to change information to try and find a compromise wording, as long as you are not engaging in reverts. Please let me know if you have any questions, --Elonka 17:04, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This appears to be based on a misconception: I did not remove Jayjg's (cherry-picked) cites, I just moved them to the proper place in the article, the part that actually discusses the usage of the name "Samaria". [46] I humbly request that you lift that ban. MeteorMaker (talk) 17:36, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In the original complain lodged on Elonka's page, about edit-warring, Jayjg himself does not refer to the removal of citations. He provides three links to what he calls 'edit-warring'. Were it true, then who was reverting what he was reverting? It takes at least two to tango. In one instance, at least, Canadian Monkey reverted as much as Meteormaker. I can't see the consistency of singling Meteormaker out, nor the extreme sanction of 90 days. I hope this is reviewed. Nishidani (talk) 21:07, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ironically, it was Jayjg himself who performed the revert I reverted. Contrary to his recollection, there was never an agreement not to remove the term "Samaria" from the article. What he's probably thinking of in his complaint is this restriction, imposed by Elonka on 25 December 2008: "No more Samaria-related reverts in the lead of the article". [47] If I'm eligible for a 90-day ban after reverting a (non-lead but Samaria-related) edit, logically Jayjg should be banned too, since he reverted the exact same text two days earlier. Else, I must say I see double standards at work here. MeteorMaker (talk) 21:28, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I second your request to Elonka to review her judgement. Since you did not as far as I can see, removed citations, (unless aged eyes blur the obvious for me) as she suggested, I'm sure if you notify her, she will review this. Otherwise, seek a third opinion, but only after a day or two. It's a weekend. She may be relaxing offline etc..Nishidani (talk) 21:57, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Heyo Elonka,

While MeteorMaker has been a difficult user to discuss issues with (esp. as sources were condemned "minority" or "partizan" because they were somehow allegedly related to Zionists and/or Israelis regardless of the source origin) - I'm thinking that there is still room to cut down the sanction time span a bit. If problems persist it can always be extended.

Dear Nishidani,

This is not entirely related, but I'm sure we both disagree with categorical defenses towards edits/editors who demonstrate anti-Jewish perspectives. As such, it would be nice to have you on board condemning such behavior.

Warm regards, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 23:54, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I always enjoy warm regards from those who use the words ironically. I have made no 'categorical defense' of Meteormaker. He has edited on the same problem I edit, and he has been informed, collegial, comprehensive and above all, 'consistent' in defining these problematical terms over a number of pages. So, when I saw him punished, I checked the record, and found the claims were not precise, and the punishment severe. I merely underwrote a request for review, and trusted in the administrator to do so. I have done this for editors who do not share my own POV. As to 'categorical defenses' the page I am working now has a solid phalanx of new editors supporting the main editor. Their behaviour looks like tagteaming, and not the exercise of independent judgement. Meteormaker, like myself, often finds himself alone on a page where we have a vote stack, a panel of secondary editors regularly endorsing, by reverts and challenges, the primary derxcision made by the main editor whose position they favour. As usual I get 'antiJewish' thrown at me. Were I a precisian, I would get the person who uses this term rapped over the knuckles, for it is both untrue and needlessly incendiary in its offensive iinnuendo. Do I complain? No. I put my nose to the grindstone, even if I think this collective backing inappropriate, and try to reason on the substance of the issue, without haggling over formalisms before administrators.Nishidani (talk) 11:12, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Nishidani,

My apologies that you take insult from my use of the 'warm regards' closing note, I assure you that there is no irony behind it. I comment to you out of good faith in our mutual interest of defending persecuted communities, regardless of how a number of editors have referred to you.

Btw, have you had the chance to watch that documentary I sent you a couple months ago about the Jewish refugees from Arab occupied lands?

Warm regardsWarm pizza, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 12:17, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I dopn'ìt watch documentaries, and to my memory (at least at my age) I can't recall you sending, (as opposed to notifying ?) me of anything to watch? America was developed in good part like persecuted people, the Scots and the Irish among others, who then did to the next group, the Indians, what was done to them. History oftens records how victims turn into victimizers. The Jewish record of being victims is huge, Israel's history as a victimizer relatively short, but intense. In return, I suggest you read any number of books, like Robert Satloff's, Among the Righteous: Lost Stories from the Holocaust's Long Reach into Arab Lands, or Ari Alexander's monograph on the Iraqi Jewish community, or Beilin's on Egypt's Jewish communities. One thing is certain. AntiSemitism was a product of Christianity, and the doctrine that led to systematic pogroms, and finally the holocaust, was generated from the bosom of that faith, just as genocide and the doctrine of racial purity came out of the Old Testament, to infect, both faiths. The Muslims were the farthest removed from the Bible: perhaps that is why historically they have, comparatively, a rather good record for protecting Jews.

The pizza connection is of course more than acceptable! Nishidani (talk) 15:13, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, you're completely wrong. Origins of the Yellow badge, for example, come from Harun al-Rashid (not Europe) and the Jewish people were victimized for centuries by the Arabs before they came up with creating the Hagana (lit. 'defence') to "victimize" the enemy into the single tiny (1:3.5 compared to Ireland) Jewish state that exists today on a fragment of the historical Jewish homeland (which would not have existed otherwise). Anyways, you can check the documentary here. It doesn't really go into the depths of the victimization and property theft but it gives a minor preivew into it. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 16:24, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jaakobou, kindly refrain from using my talkpage for your soapboxing. Thank you. MeteorMaker (talk) 14:25, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, but I was "baited" by our mutual friend who suggested Jewish self-defense was "victimization of" another people. I only clarified Nish's error as a civil reply to his use of your user talkpage to "soapbox" a misperspective about Israeli "short" history and as well as put more context on the erroneous claim about the perceived origins of Anti Jewish behavior. Anyways, I'll assume the comment was referred to us both and won't take our discussion further on this thread. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 18:44, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly hope you don't mean to say that you see me as one of those "editors who demonstrate anti-Jewish perspectives", in that case you would owe me an apology, like the one you gave me here after misrepresenting my position in more or less exactly the same way as you're again doing in this post. Assuming you're implying that it's "anti-Jewish" to state that the terms "Judea" and "Samaria" aren't used much outside Israel, here's a whole bunch of other "anti-Jewish" sources, including Encyclopedia Britannica, Columbia Encyclopedia, the CNN, Menachem Begin, The Zionism and Israel Center and dozens of Jewish scholars. MeteorMaker (talk) 00:23, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please, I do not build up interpretations on your life perspective regardless of the reasons you reject sources by. I directed my comment to Nishidani mostly and even promoted some leniancy towards you in my comment to Elonka. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 03:40, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your plea on my behalf, what made me take offense was your untrue claim that I have "condemned [sources as] "minority" or "partizan" because they were somehow allegedly related to Zionists and/or Israelis regardless of the source origin" and the uncalled for diatribe against "editors who demonstrate anti-Jewish perspectives". I suggest you strike both. MeteorMaker (talk) 14:25, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Memory serves me that sources have been rejected on the account that you perceived them to be Israel connected. I can't retract that statement when I'm certain this was the case. Still, I apologize that this statement feels inaccurate to you and I am open to reconsider my perspective if you wish to review and clarify past comments.

Cheers, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 18:51, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't serve you as well as one might wish then, what I pointed out was that if you want to prove that the term "X" is used outside country "Y", a quote from a citizen of country "Y" using the term "X" isn't the best evidence. You have earlier apologized for that exact same oblique accusation of anti-Semitism, so per WP:AGF I will assume it won't happen a third time. MeteorMaker (talk) 17:27, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

MeteorMaker, hi, thanks for the message. You are correct about the citation thing. I saw the edit summary, and that citations had been removed, but missed the part about you moving the citations to a different part of the article. I am amending my statement accordingly, and apologize for my error. Regardless of the citation issue though, I am still concerned by the recent history that you've been showing of working your way through multiple articles and removing the "Samaria" term. This is provocative behavior, especially when done rapid-fire through multiple articles in a topic area that's already very difficult to keep stable. In some cases, I see that your change has already been reverted. It's good that you did not re-revert, but it's also a concern that these controversial changes were being made, without any attempt at discussion on the related talkpages. What would be best here, is to simply avoid reverting for awhile, especially when it's related to the Samaria term. You are welcome to continue to engage in discussion at talkpages, and follow other steps in dispute resolution. If there's a strong case to remove a Samaria-related term from an article, please let other editors make the actual change. In terms of the ban, I'm open to reducing it, but let's see how things go for a week, and then we can re-examine the situation and see about reducing (or even lifting) the ban. The best thing that you could do at this point, would be to put in some solid article creation and expansion work, to show that you're willing to help in non-controversial areas of the project. Creating a userpage would also be a good step.  :) --Elonka 00:40, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, I don't think mere concern is sufficient reason for any kind of sanction, let alone a 3-month topic ban. Because my time is limited, I tend to focus on one topic at a time, and would have been more than happy to leave this particular issue three months ago, when it became apparent that every single relevant source and applicable WP policy is behind the position that the terms "Judea" and "Samaria" do not belong in a proper reference work. It's because of the disruptive actions of a small coterie of pro-Israeli editors that I and several other editors have been tied up with this non-issue for months, under constant bombardment with accusations of anti-Semitism and other incivilities. I also respectfully disagree with your definition of "controversial changes", if the changes merely consist of substituting a term that everybody agrees is perfectly neutral for one that has well-documented issues with WP:NPOV, as well as WP:NCGN and WP:UNDUE, and is avoided in all other online encyclopedias, official documents, and (non-Israeli) news sources. I can certainly refrain voluntarily from making I/P edits for a week (effectively an inofficial topic ban) but It would be helpful if you specified what exact infraction I have incurred so I can steer clear of it in the future. As you requested, I have now created a user page. MeteorMaker (talk) 11:06, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is indeed a matter of policy consistency. It takes two to tango. Why can several editors consistently revert, or push for 'Samaria'/'Judea' over multiple pages, without administrative oversight, while one who on strong grounds, sees this as ungrounded, be complained of, and suffer sanctions for precisely what his colleagues on the other side do?Nishidani (talk) 11:22, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

MeteorMaker, thanks for your messages, let me try to explain the wiki-philosophy here. My apologies for the length of this post, but I'm going to try and be as thorough as possible, for both you and the other editors who are watching the discussion:

First, let me be clear that I have no opinion on whether or not Samaria or Judea or biblical or any of these terms do or don't appear in any of the articles. Whether we end up with the terms in the articles or out of the articles, I really have no preference. What my goal is, as an administrator, is to enforce policies, and to reduce disruption to the project. In most cases around the encyclopedia, this is fairly straightforward. For example, we'll have one longterm editor inserting information from reliable sources, and we'll have another editor deleting entire paragraphs and replacing them with, "This is wrong." So we revert the latter editor and instruct them about policies and dispute resolution, and if they continue disrupting without backing up their arguments, we block them, and life in the rest of the project goes on.  :)

In some areas though, especially Israel/Palestine, the disputes are much more complex, so administrators have to be a bit more creative. For example, this "Samaria" issue, which has been going on for a long time now. From my ("I don't care") point of view, there's one group of editors who say "Include" and another group of editors who say "Don't include," and this has been going on for awhile. I know that there are claims of Pro-Israel Anti-Israel Pro-Palestine Anti-Palestine yadayada, but again, administrators aren't going to care too much about that. What we do care about, is policies, especially WP:V and WP:UNDUE and WP:DR.

To give a more specific example: When editor A puts something into an article with reliable sources, and editor B removes the information and/or the sources, and absent any other input from other editors, the administrators are (usually) going to support editor A, and editor B is going to be encouraged to follow other steps in dispute resolution. There are exceptions to this, such as when dealing with biographies of living people. With BLPs, the burden of proof swaps around, and it's the responsibility of the editor wanting to include the information (especially if it's negative), to prove that it's well-sourced and appropriate in someone's bio, before it can be allowed to stick.

Getting away from biographies though and back to geography: we have editor A with sources, and editor B who says that the information (and sources) are giving undue weight to a particular concept. What editor B should now do is follow WP:DR: They can try rewriting the article to find a compromise, where editor A's information is included, but editor B can add their own (sourced) information as a counterpoint, or rework the wording of editor A's addition. Or, editor B can start a thread at the article's talkpage, and either find a compromise there with editor A, or start inviting other editors in, per an RfC or notices at a WikiProject or noticeboard. If the information which was added by editor A is a genuine problem, or a clear violation of WP:UNDUE, other editors will see it for what it is, the consensus will be clear, and the information and/or sources can come out of the article. If the consensus is not clear, try inviting more editors, or try mediation.

If things remain deadlocked, the tiebreaker may still be made by the sources. Not by quantity of sources, but by the existence of the sources, and the opinions of editors on how to interpret those sources. If there are 10 reliable sources saying "blue", and 30 reliable sources saying "red", and one group of editors says, "The article should say 'blue'", and another group of editors says, "You guys are insane, the article should obviously say 'red'", then the administrators are going to look at the situation, and if there's no clear consensus, the decision is probably going to be, "The article should say both blue and red, in proper proportion to how the topic is presented in reliable sources". So applying this to Samaria, it means (as I'm interpreting the discussions thus far), that the term can be used in the articles, as long as it is properly attributed and placed in the proper proportion. At Israeli settlement, this seemed to boil down to a compromise of, "Samaria can be mentioned in the article, but shouldn't be in the lead."

As for why you were banned and others weren't, please don't take this as an indication that no one else will ever be banned. Sometimes multiple bans are issued each day, sometimes one ban at a time, sometimes they're staggered out over a week, it really depends. I have to be careful what I say because I don't want to inflame the situation, but it's reasonable to assume that I (and other administrators) are observing the behavior of several editors in this dispute, and may institute other bans. To see who's at risk, look at WP:ARBPIA, check the names in the "notified" list, and also review the history of the talkpages of other editors in this dispute. If I or another administrator has warned/nudged/cautioned them, it means that editor's behavior is being watched.

Ultimately the Samaria dispute seems to come down to this: One group of editors wants the Samaria term in the article. Another group doesn't. There are sources both ways. There is no clear consensus among the editors as to how things should be handled. RfCs have not brought clarity to the issue. The community of wider editors doesn't care. The public doesn't seem to care too much either (otherwise we'd get a stream of outraged anonymous messages on the talkpage). So if there's no consensus, and no one else seems to care, let it go. It's not worth this much angst, over how to word one sentence on a much longer article. You may also wish to review Wikipedia:Lamest edit wars, for examples of other places around the project where editors spent way too much time quibbling over very minor points. We've got a huge encyclopedia here, with thousands of new articles flowing in every day. There's lots of work that needs to be done. So on this "Samaria" question, we talk it over, we flip a coin, if nothing's clear, we put a pin in it and move on to other debates. Editors that don't seem able to let things go, especially when they're not working on anything else on the project, are probably going to be asked to leave.

Another measuring stick that administrators use, is looking at the editing history of each editor. If there's one editor who has created multiple articles, who is constantly arguing with another editor who's never created a single article, the "writing" editor will often receive better backup from the administrators, to allow them to get back to building the encyclopedia, while the "arguing" editor may simply be removed from the equation. It doesn't mean that their arguments were necessarily bad. But if their arguments were presented, they've made their case, the options have been considered, and the decision went against their arguments (or there's no consensus), the community expectation is that the arguing editor should let things go and move on to other projects. Now don't get me wrong, consensus can change, so it may be worth re-opening the discussion several months down the line. But sometimes we just have to say, "This is the way the articles are going to be written for awhile," and shoo people away from the discussion to encourage them to work on other things.

Does that help explain the wiki-subtleties at all? For your own purposes, if you'd like to have a stronger voice in discussions: Stop worrying about the Samaria question for awhile. Work on other articles, or even better, expand or create other articles. Having a userpage isn't just for personal information about you, but for information about what you've worked on. Look at other editors' userpages, and you'll see that we talk about the articles and topic areas where we work, and we usually proudly banner the articles that we've helped to promote to a state of higher quality. To do this yourself, pick an article that's in so-so shape, and improve it to good article or featured article status. Or if your talents are more in "article review" than "article creation", help out at WP:GAN, and you'll see there's a backlog of articles where reviews have been requested. You could be a decisionmaker on whether or not nominated articles should be promoted. This kind of work would be extremely helpful to the encyclopedia, and would have the added bonus of giving you recognizable accomplishments that you could place on your userpage. Which would give you a much stronger voice in any article discussions where you choose to participate. --Elonka 17:46, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Elonka, thanks for your long reply. Some points:

1) "I have no opinion on whether or not Samaria or Judea or biblical or any of these terms do or don't appear in any of the articles." While I can see the reason why you have to state this, I think the sheer amount of evidence this discussion has produced in favor of the position that the terms are purely historical (outside Israel) cannot possibly be neglected. An agnostic attitude in the absence of facts is fine and commendable; in the face of such overwhelming evidence, it's untenable.

2) "There are sources both ways." That is not correct. There are now 56 sources one way, including encyclopedias, news sources, official documents and academic works. That is what we call grade-A reliable sources around here, and literally thousands more could be added. There are exactly 0 sources the other way. In trying to hide that fact, the propounders of the "Samaria is in current use" hypothesis have tried bending every WP policy, notably WP:SYNTH.

3) "What my goal is, as an administrator, is to enforce policies". As pointed out here, "Samaria" and "Judea" clearly violate WP:NPOV (by being used by only one side in the conflict), WP:UNDUE (by being used by only a tiny minority) and WP:NCGN (by not being the accepted English name for the region, by far). Among the policies the "Samaria" advocates continue to violate are WP:SYNTH (by attempting to draw self-serving conclusions from anecdotal evidence), WP:GAME (by blatant stonewalling, refusal to accept reliable sources, and inserting partisan refs, knowing that refs are more difficult to dislodge than article text), and, most worryingly, WP:CIVIL (by accusing other editors of racism, which I'm certain you agree is entirely unfounded). I must disagree with your view (if I understand it correctly) that a large number of articles created automatically gives an editor a licence to disregard WP policies, and this dispute is entirely about applying WP policies.

As about my topic-ban, I'm confident you will remove it now that we have established that it was based on a misunderstanding and that I have not in fact violated any rules or restrictions. If you wish, I could certainly work outside the I/P field for a while, but my forte is error correction, and I find no other WP area so much in need of it. MeteorMaker (talk) 13:47, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

MeteorMaker, I understand that you feel that you have a strong case on the Samaria question. But I'm not the one that you need to convince. The decision about what goes into an article, is made by the editors who are working on that article. Ideally, when those editors disagree about how the article should be handled, they can find a compromise or consensus version that they are all happy with. On Wikipedia, it's not about making an article "one way or the other", it's about including all relevant viewpoints, if they are significant viewpoints which can be backed up in reliable sources. Also, this is not a case of you arguing with single-purpose accounts, this is a case of you, a relatively new editor with limited experience on Wikipedia, trying to argue with experienced, established, and trusted editors. You keep saying that you're right, they're wrong, and then you go around edit-warring on multiple articles to enforce your viewpoint. This is not acceptable behavior. If you really feel that you have a strong case, it is incumbent upon you to convince other editors of your argument. If things are as clear as you say they are, then other editors will agree, and the articles will be modified to reflect the consensus. If other editors disagree with you, the solution is not to edit war, but to bring better arguments. If other editors continue to disagree with you, you can invite in other uninvolved editors. If no one else seems to care, then please, let it go, because it's probably not as important in the grand scheme of things as you seem to think it is.

As for working on other articles, you don't have to go outside the I-P area if you do not wish to. There's plenty that needs doing within the I-P area. For example, at Wikipedia:WikiProject Israel/Assessment, there are over one thousand unassessed articles. You could help out at Category:Unassessed Israel-related articles, review those articles, and make a determination of whether they should be classified as "stub" class, "start", "B", "A", etc. There are many ways that you could help out with the Wikipedia project, which could fit into your area of expertise, but allow you to step away from this Samaria question for awhile. Remember, there is no deadline here. There's no urgency that requires the Samaria issue to be "fixed" immediately. Please, let it go, and assume good faith that other editors will be able to deal with things for awhile. You are still welcome to participate in Samaria-related discussions in the meantime, to convince editors of your viewpoint. But it is my honest advice that the better course of action for you right now, would be to backburner this, and go work on something else for awhile. --Elonka 18:22, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Formalism is an open invitation to edit-warring, and wars of attrition. Master the rules, edit and use rules to counter opposition, without breaking the formal etiquette, and any article whatsoever can be held in suspension for years. There is a deadline, for some of us, our proximate mortality.

When you write:'this is a case of you, a relatively new editor with limited experience on Wikipedia, trying to argue with experienced, established, and trusted editors,' are you implying that those who sustain the minority view (according to reliable sources) are, unlike Meteormaker, 'experienced, established, and trusted editors'? One of them is experienced and not trusted for editing to NPOV. Secondly, leaving aside my own eccentricity, what Meteormaker worked on found extensive support from several 'experienced, established and trusted editors'. Meteormaker is certainly not a solitary amateur against several professionals. He is one of several editors, against several others, and the sobriety and determination to stick to sources, dialogue with the others, has been generally exemplary.

I suggest therefore that he take this administrative decision to review, since (a) the person who made it erred in one key element (b) the judgement was extremely harsh. Nishidani (talk) 18:49, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the judgment was extremely lenient. A harsh judgment would have been a complete block of account access. But as it is, the only things that MeteorMaker is restricted from doing, are (1) removing citations to reliable sources; and (2) Edit-warring over the Samaria question. Neither one of which he should have been doing in the first place. He's still allowed to make other edits to the articles, he's still allowed to participate in talkpage discussions. And other editors are still allowed to make Samaria-related edits. So there's no appreciable loss to Wikipedia here, just a reduction of disruption on the Samaria question. --Elonka 19:15, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Elonka, stonewalling is the epitome of WP:GAME violation. If you're truly honest about your ambition to enforce WP policies (and I have no reason at this point to doubt you're not), go ahead and ban, not me, but the editors that refuse to accept one of the most abundantly well-sourced facts in Wikipedia history, and let us rid the article of the issues it has with WP:NPOV, WP:NCGN and WP:UNDUE through the partisan terminology these editors insist Wikipedia, alone among reference works, should use. The fact that some of these editors are "experienced" should in fact count against them if they clearly, like in this case, willingly and knowingly violate fundamental WP policies. I note that to your statement "it's about including all relevant viewpoints", you add the proviso "if they are significant viewpoints which can be backed up in reliable sources", and, as we have seen, not one reliable source for the "Samaria is in current use" position exists. MeteorMaker (talk) 19:47, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You might be interested in expressing your views regarding the lead of the IAK article on the mediation page: Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2009-01/If Americans Knew StN (talk) 18:04, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FYI : [48] Ceedjee (talk) 11:42, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi MeteorMaker,

Just to let you know, I've posted at WP:AE regarding User:NoCal100 and Samaria.

Cheers, pedrito - talk - 18.02.2009 15:28

I have reported you recent violation of the ban placed on you by Elonka at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement. Canadian Monkey (talk) 01:06, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's telling that you don't even specify what that "recent violation" would be. Instead of wasting everybody's time with pointless ArbCom reports, you should try to find support for your position in this dispute. MeteorMaker (talk) 08:04, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just a word of advice. Although you didn't break the letter of Elonka's ban, the spirit of her ban was clearly that you should not edit-war over the Samaria naming issue. I strongly advise you to work with other editors to find a mutually acceptable global solution - don't be tempted to try to impose unilateral solutions. -- ChrisO (talk) 07:34, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is the fourth month now of trying to get Jayjg et al to accept the mountains of evidence for the "Samaria is not in current use outside Israel" position. His side has not been able to find one scrap of evidence for their opposing view, hence the stonewalling, wikilawyering, and wasting of everybody's time with lame attempts to get other editors banned. Your suggestion to create a manual of style sounds good in theory, but given the conditions, I have little hope it can be implemented. I'm willing to be a part of that project anyway if you provide instructions for how to go about starting it. Note that "West Bank" is a perfectly neutral term that both sides in the conflict (plus all neutral sources) use, while "Judea" and "Samaria" have well-documented issues with WP:NPOV as well as other WP policies. [49] MeteorMaker (talk) 07:49, 25 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 09:31

About time. Thank you. MeteorMaker (talk) 12:08, 25 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]

Hi... Someone pointed out to me that you just inserted a link to discussion/commentary/rebuttal inside someone else's section of the arbitration case's evidence page ( [50] ).

That's not considered proper ettiquette... You're supposed to create your own evidence page section and submit your evidence there. Nobody else is supposed to edit in someone else's section of the evidence page.

Please create your own subsection and move your contribution (link for now, anything else you want to show) there. That helps keep everything straight, as to who said / contributed what on those pages.

Thanks... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 07:28, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, will remove it, though I personally would find it immensely helpful if all statement sections had direct links to their discussion sections. As CM's section contains several demonstrably untrue statements about my conduct, it's doubly important that the rebuttals don't get overlooked. MeteorMaker (talk) 08:33, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note MM. You've had a long haul, mostly alone, and copped flack from go to woe on the right path (cf.Robert Frost's The Road Not Taken, refers to most of us, your fellow editors. We thought it too sheer to climb, given the hazards). But now you are on the plateau, in company, before the stern olympian gaze of extremely experienced administrators. They don't need advice, or 'musts'. I suggest as a courtesy to them that you strike that 'must be dealt with'. Just state the facts. As you note 'mudslinging' is ugly, and to avoid being dragged into the sludge, a few dry corrective notes are sufficient. Regards Nishidani (talk) 14:22, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, done. Appreciated. MeteorMaker (talk) 14:29, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just leave it as it is. You've stated the evidence clearly. He hasn't a good record for accuracy in these things, and is somewhat careless in his language. One should not allow oneself to be distracted from the main point, which is not to recriminate, but rather to focus strongly on presentations that show what is problematical in various positions, no matter who entertains them. Depersonalise the dispute, and work towards dispute resolution while we have this golden opportunity to thrash out the issues before experienced eyes. I hope I can live up to the Polonius-type advice I dish out to others! Nishidani (talk) 18:23, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@Jaakobou: Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 14:59, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I will reply to your comment on my talk page and the stuff you left at the ArbCom Workshop page, because the point of the workshop page isn't to escalate into a long discussion.

Apparently none of the 336 unique Google hits for "Svizra" (not 9,000, to know the true amount, click on the last page until you reach the end) from your search are relevant to the use of Switzerland in English, and most of them are in Romansch and not English. Please provide only relevant examples so that I and others don't have to needlessly even skim through hundreds of links. It's a waste of time.

Secondly, this warning would be applicable to the J&S dispute because certain editors claim that Israeli and Jewish sources should automatically be null and void in the dispute, as pointed out by Jayjg.[51][52] This is clearly against Wikipedia policy because it is clear that not all of those authors are Israeli, so you're basically dismissing them based on their (possible) support for Zionism. You even dismissed one clearly reliable author per WP:RS (Miriam Shaviv) because she wrote for The Jerusalem Post in the past. Does that sound okay to you? If so, please review all Wikipedia policies again from A to Z. I realize my "remedy" suggestion might be a problem to you because you'd be the first to be warned, but actually I have seen other editors exemplifying the same behavior (although specific diffs would be hard to find as I don't remember the details, and this is why I left out the names of the specific editors). Just to clarify, the warning would also apply to pro-Israeli editors who dismiss Arab or Muslim authors based on nationality/religion.

Additionally, I'm not sure you are aware of this, but WP:RS does not say anywhere that a reliable source has to have a neutral point of view. Even clearly POV sources can be cited if there is no clear conflict of interest (i.e. we wouldn't cite an Israeli foreign minister on this terminology), and no serious flaws can be found with their academic practices and/or credentials.

About the other comments on ArbCom: Firstly, please don't lecture me on policy; it's insulting, because it should be obvious that I am fully aware of the policies you cite. In fact, I would recommend that you review some of these policies yourself, including WP:NC, which clearly says that it's meant for article names, not what content you should put in articles (as the administrator Elonka has pointed out). Same goes for WP:ENGLISH and WP:NCGN, which are part of WP:NC. They have little relevance to this dispute because we already have articles on the West Bank as well as Judea and Samaria, and no one proposed renaming either of them. Even though I am an administrator, I don't expect you to believe everything I write, because I'm supposedly "involved", but you should listen to other administrators and in general members who have been around longer than you. Please take this as friendly advice and consider my original proposals for the solution to the content dispute (which are by the way significantly more 'moderate' and practical than anything I've seen from either side; not to brag or anything), otherwise I'm afraid we're in for a year more years of edit-warring, RfMs, ArbCom cases, etc. which I honestly don't have time for. Not sure if you've noticed, but while participating in the ArbCom case, I've also been adding pronunciation and pushpin maps to Israeli localities, which can be a full-time job. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 13:50, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just two notes. If MM is singled out, you may as well add my name as well, since I share his approach, and have, when I noticed he was being cornered, assisted with RS throughout the latter part of this debate. The problem is not with 'Jewish sources', The problem is with Israeli and Jewish editors insisting that a handful of sources from writers who are either Israeli or Jewish outweigh some 80 academic sources that assert not only that this is parochial terminology, but ideologically tilted to expansionist policies. Not one of you, to my knowledge, has ever even deigned to address this issue. Many sources say the line you push is ideologically charged, and linked to an annexionist policy of territory over which Israel has no sovereignty, and therefore no legally recognized right to name and assert those names must be accepted by the international community.

Commendable work on the pronunciation, Ynhockey, but I still think you don't appreciate how contaminated language is here. You say you are adding pronunciation and pushpin maps to 'Israeli localities', and the first few are, indeed, in Israel, but Telem, Har Hebron is in the West Bank. It may be populated by Israelis, but does that thereby mean the locality, in non-Israeli territory, becomes an Israeli locality? Nishidani (talk) 14:14, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ynhockey: I'm not sure you have read the talk page of the evidence page, many of your replies give the impression you haven't yet (eg the one about Miriam Shaviv).

"Apparently none of the 336 unique Google hits for "Svizra" are relevant to the use of Switzerland in English"

That is indeed my point (and sorry for having you click through them, my intention with the Google search link was just to illustrate the point): None of Jayjg's sources are relevant to the use of J/S in English either, they are merely examples (and far fewer then 336). What you're suggesting is that any fanatic nationalist POV-pushing editor should be given the tools to force his/her preferred non-standard terminology on Wikipedia.

"this warning would be applicable to the J&S dispute because certain editors claim that Israeli and Jewish sources should automatically be null and void in the dispute"

If that were the case, why are at least one third of the sources on the list Nishidani mentions Jewish (and at least a dozen Israeli?) As long as the sources aren't paraded as examples of non-Israelis, like Jayg et al have tried, there is obviously no point in dismissing them solely because they are Israeli, and I'm confident you can appreciate the difference between legitimate dismissal of invalid examples (whatever the reason for their invalidity) and outright ethnic discrimination. You should really retract that statement, not least beacause nobody has dismissed any sources on the grounds that they are Jewish.

Re WP:NCGN, we seem to interpret it very differently. Let's agree that it states this:

"Within articles, places should generally be referred to by the same name as is used in their article title, or a historic name when discussing a past period. Use of one name for a town in 2000 does not determine what name we should give the same town in 1900 or in 1400, nor the other way around. Many towns, however, should keep the same name; it is a question of fact, of actual English usage, in all cases."

Actual English usage is not "Judea" or "Samaria", actual English usage is "West Bank". Foreign-language sources cannot be used to determine actual English usage (case in point: Jaakobou's attempt to add Hebrew hits for J&S to the total Google hits [53]). If that were the case, WP:NCGN wouldn't stress the importance of using English-language sources when determining the widely accepted name. [54] Do we really disagree about the interpretation of this?

MeteorMaker (talk) 15:30, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nishidani: Firstly, I am not signling out MeteorMaker at all, I just happenned to have solid diffs for him (thanks to the evidence page), and he was the one who asked me to provide a specific example (so I did). My comment, once again, applies to all editors, and I have seen this done by several editors (you among them, by the way). Assuming good faith (i.e. neither of you is acting out of racism), my only guess is that you dismiss Israeli sources because you believe that they will automatically use Israeli terminology in English. You may be correct, but that is not a basis to dismiss a source. For example, the historian Walid Khalidi is likely to criticize Israel on the issue of Palestinian refugees and side with the Palestinians. Do we then dismiss him as a source? Or do we dismiss him because his books are owned, among others, by at least one "fanatic POV-pushing editor"? It is not for you to decide which source is good and which is not as long as there is no problem with the source's academic credentials, and I hope you realize how completely out of place your assertions sound. One exception is citing academics out of their field (i.e. citing a geographer on politics, or a linguist on history). We've already had this discussion twice about other sources, so let's not start it again for now.

The main point of my proposal, from the start, was to make a separation of politics and geography. This is possible, and you are the only one so far who seems to be intent on mixing them as much as possible (even when not necessary). Moreover, why do you make a political battle out of everything? I added nikud to over 2,000 Israeli localities, going by Hebrew alphabetical order, and the first thing you can say is that Telem, Har Hebron is not 'Israeli'? I think this is the problem here—certain editors (not just on your 'side', but also on the pro-Israeli 'side') make a really big deal over something that doesn't matter. This is why, while I personally never use the term West Bank in every day life (in any language), I am fully willing to see all localities there labeled as 'in the West Bank', as long as relevant geographical information is not censored. It might not matter to you personally, but the 3 or 4 locality articles I really worked on for a while (especially Arad, Israel) include detailed geographical information, including mountain range, elevation, geophysical data, etc. This should not be censored because WP:YOUDONTLIKEIT.

MeteorMaker: I respect your opinion and position on this issue, but regarding NCGN, you are just plain wrong. Period. Don't believe me? Ask as many other administrators as you like. The phrase you highlighted talks about, again, the article title. Basically what it says is that if an article is called Japan, you should use the term Japan throughout the article to describe the subject, not Nihon for example. This does not mean that you can't say that it's called Nihon in Japan. Again though, in this dispute, this guideline only applies to the following four articles: West Bank, Judea and Samaria, Judea and Samaria, and is completely irrelevant to other articles.

Onto the other things: You are right, I haven't read the entire discussion you refer to (although I did read the part where you said that Amoruso was indef-banned/blocked, you might want to correct that because he was not). The page is too long and I don't care about one particular source or diff either way. It's the bigger picture that is important, and the bigger picture is simply that certain editors dismiss sources simply because they are Israeli, Jewish or Zionist (and if I needed further proof that this is true, Nishidani above openly admits to doing so). This is inappropriate behavior that must stop, and this I do feel strongly about. I therefore added it to the remedy proposals and the arbs, not you, me or Nishidani, will decide if the proposal will be implemented. However, if particular sources are so important to you, you may wish to do me a courtesy and point me to a purely geographic academic source where the author claims that either Samaria or Judea are invalid geographic terms. It should be very interesting to read, and I have seen nothing of the sort so far. Cheers, Ynhockey ^(Talk) 16:48, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No one is 'dismissing sources' because they are 'Israeli' or 'Jewish'. I have no qualms in pointing out their provenance because, as several quotations I have provided show, it is quite normal for anyone raised within Jewish culture or Israel, to think those terms normal. What, however, it odd is that quite a few people from that milieu fail to understand, with an extraordinary tenacity, that this is their terminology, not the world's, and not certainly terminology favoured by the other party, the Palestinians. We do not 'dismiss a source': we explain why a small minority of sources use terms that are not employed by the world at large. When our interlocutors insist on this, we refer the fact that this small body of evidence exists to the fact that it represents the cultural worldview of a community, one of two to the dispute. Attempting, as some others have done, to see in this a trace of racism, of our excluding a 'Jewish' voice, is of course not only nonsensical, but disreputable. I'm sure you can see this.

What doesn't matter to you, or some others, i.e. naming parts of an occupied land over which Israel has no sovereignty, with Israeli or Hebrew terms, when, as I shall presently show elsewhere, the whole Israeli cartographical tradition is intertwined with the politics of appropriating the landscape to restore to it a reactivated, revived, tradition of intrinsic Jewishness, is of immense irritation to Palestinians. It doesn't matter to you because you see no harm, where another people (there are two parties to this naming dispute) find an arrogant dispossession of their land title, by change of titles to the land. But I will not argue this here. I will simply note that while I can understand your self-assurance as an Israeli that this naming is trivial or innocuous, I can equally understand the profound uneasiness that Palestinians find on having vast strips of land known intimately to them and their forefathers through Arabic nomenclature, seized, bulldozed, renamed and settled. They cling to one elementary reality: that hitherto the world has not acknowledged this appropriative strategy, and still uses neutral language (not theirs). Were wikipedia to take the lead and begin to introduce invasive terms, reflecting Israel's preferred and appropriative nomenclature, that neither the UN, the USA or other states, or the International Court accepts, then it would be seen as siding with one party to the dispute. It does not side with Palestinian nomenclature (Jibral al-Nablus etc., or Filastin), it should not side with Israeli usage. This is a global, non-nationalist encyclopedia, and making special exceptions, of a partisan character, as substantially the pro-Samaria/Judea party advise, would create a dangerous precedent for all nationalist editors throughout wiki. I don't expect one to sympathize with Palestinians. But it is an obvious necessity for a neutral party to understand how, cognitively, your perspective is diametrically opposed to the that of Palestinians, and your equanimity over symbolic hegemony (which Ernest Gellner describes as one of the four forms of state coercion) is often reciprocated with Palestinian outrage. Still I am working on my presentation and will discuss, further, your analysis there.Nishidani (talk) 17:10, 13

"I just happenned to have solid diffs for him (thanks to the evidence page), and he was the one who asked me to provide a specific example (so I did)"

First of all, none of those are examples of anybody dismissing a source because of "race or religion", as you claimed on the Workshop pages, so I still request that you strike that statement. Secondly, I repeat what I stated above: As long as the sources aren't paraded as examples of non-Israelis, like Jayg et al have tried, there is obviously no point in dismissing them solely because they are Israeli, and I'm confident you can appreciate the difference between legitimate dismissal of invalid examples (whatever the reason for their invalidity) and outright ethnic discrimination.

" The phrase you highlighted talks about, again, the article title,"

Excuse me, but it begins with the two words "Within articles".

"This does not mean that you can't say that it's called Nihon in Japan."

I've lost count of the number of times a sentence to the effect of "West Bank is called J&S in Israel" has been deleted by Jayjg on entirely spurious grounds. That was in fact one of the very earliest facets of this dispute. I take it you wouldn't oppose adding such a note to the Judea and Samaria articles?

I haven't read the entire discussion. [...] I don't care"

In other words, you have just taken Jayjg's accusations on faith?

"certain editors dismiss sources simply because they are Israeli, Jewish or Zionist"

If you actually read the sources, I assure you you won't be left with that impression.

"the arbs, not you, me or Nishidani, will decide if the proposal will be implemented."

I'm confident they will base their verdict on the evidence and not what they have determined beforehand to be the truth.

"if particular sources are so important to you, you may wish to do me a courtesy and point me to a purely geographic academic source where the author claims that either Samaria or Judea are invalid geographic terms."

Voilà. MeteorMaker (talk) 17:16, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

EDIT: Re Amoruso, this is what I was thinking of. MeteorMaker (talk) 19:55, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can I add here (to avoid clogging up any of the ArbCom pages) that I think these accusations of MM or others wanting sources excluded because they are Zionist, Israeli or Jewish or whatever are getting out of hand. They amount to pretty obvious personal attacks in themselves, and are also poisoning the discussion by not-so-subtly painting one "side" in a bad light. I would add that they also demonstrate that some editors are failing to understand the fairly simple point being made - that sources from country X or political position Y or ethnic/religious group Z using a term cannot be deployed to prove general usage outside of those groups - which is beginning I'm afraid to make me wonder how much they understand the issue as a whole.

As for WP:NCGN, Ynhockey in this thread, and Elonka and Tundrabuggy elsewhere, all seem to be mis-reading or mis-understanding the rules there. As has been pointed out before, yes it is about naming articles - but then it goes on to say "Within articles, places should generally be referred to by the same name as is used in their article title". Now forgive me, but that is pretty explicit, and it doesn't seem that MM is the one who is "plain wrong" about this.--Nickhh (talk) 19:35, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

MeteorMaker, after reviewing parts of the discussion page and the evidence presented (again), I am convinced that there is indeed such a trend, both within the scope of the current case, and outside this scope (the evidence was, as I said before, provided by Jayjg and others). There is therefore no reason for me to strike out any of my comments, and I would appreciate if you stopped trying to pressure me into doing so. Right now I am following the case with interest and awaiting ArbCom's decision, but mostly improving other articles not related to the dispute. In fact, I suggest that you do the same (see Khoikhoi's section under Evidence). -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 20:29, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I never asked (it is not my page) on what grounds you based your inflammatory statement:-

'It's the bigger picture that is important, and the bigger picture is simply that certain editors dismiss sources simply because they are Israeli, Jewish or Zionist (and if I needed further proof that this is true, Nishidani above openly admits to doing so).

It's a serious accusation because operatively it means more or less I have an 'ethnic-based discrimination' as an I/P editor, the current euphemism here for antisemitic. As someone who mainly uses Israeli or 'Jewish' sources to improve I/P articles, because they are as often as not the best sources, I'd like you to clarify precisely what you mean, my role 'in the big picture' etc.Nishidani (talk) 21:46, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ynhockey: I assure you neither Nish nor I have dismissed any sources on the ground they are Jewish. That is a completely absurd accusation and one you will have a hard time trying to back up. Again, far from dismissing the Jewish sources editors have put forward in this discussion, all that actually are sources (ie state anything at all about how the terms J&S are used, rather than just being purported examples of non-Israelis using the terms) have been scrupulously included in the list of sources. If we were the anti-Semites you paint us as, there wouldn't be about 1/3 Jewish sources on that list. I assume you still haven't read anything else of this discussion than your side's accusations, but please familiarize yourself with both sides' arguments and you will find that you have unknowingly become part of a smear campaign. MeteorMaker (talk) 22:42, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I've made any "false claims" about your behavior, and thus will not be amending my statement. Your were restricted from removing citations to reliable sources and from reverting over the Samaria question. You violated both restrictions, and then wikilawyered to claim that (a) removing well sourced information while keeping the citations in the article, which now refer to nothing at all, is not a violation since you kept the "citation" itself; and (b) that reverting "Samaria" is not a revert if no other version w/o Samaria exists. On the latter, even one of your staunchest supporters found it necessary to tell you that at a minimum, you were violating the spirit, if not the letter, of the restriction - which is the very definition of wikilawyering. If Elonka comes along and says she does not think these were violations, I will reconsider, but until then, the evidence speaks for itself. Canadian Monkey (talk) 16:58, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Provide diffs or retract your accusations. You may be unclear over the definitions of both citation and reverting, in which case your false claim is a genuine mistake and thus excusable, however I request that you state so publically. MeteorMaker (talk) 17:18, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a diff, containing what what your supporter had to say - [55]. I am not interested in your wikilawyering. Canadian Monkey (talk) 18:12, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have made four false claims that you have been unable to support with diffs:

• That I have "removed well sourced information while keeping the citations in the article, which now refer to nothing at all"
• That I have "reverted "Samaria"" anywhere
• That I was "violating the spirit, if not the letter, of the restriction"
• That I "violated both Elonka's restrictions".

The fact that you have not found one scrap of evidence for your accusations, combined with the fact that you were laughed out of court with your ill-advised attempt to extend my limited ban and the fact that the ban was lifted soon afterwards might perhaps be an indication to you that you're on a Quixotic crusade here. I can now say with 100% certainty that you have attempted to mislead the ArbCom deliberately, which is generally not a wise thing to do. MeteorMaker (talk) 18:53, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Here's a diff of you removing well sourced information, leavign just the citations in teh article:[56], and here you are, not only admitting you've done so, but wikilawyering that you are allowed to do just that:[57]
• Here's a diff of you removing "Samaria" from the lead of an article, which by the definition of "revert" as "undoing another editor's work" is a revert: [58]
• Here's an administrator, who is a supporter of yours, telling you you've violated the spirit of Elonka's ban: [59]. You can keep on repeating that I "have not found one scrap of evidence", but it is there for the Arbs to read. Canadian Monkey (talk) 23:44, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's pretty clear that you have not read any of those diffs.

• Zionist entity: The citation is not Jayjg's, it was provided by User:Kauffner [60]. Jayjg merely piggybacked a quote from the same source that he liked better [61]. Since Jayjg's quote was irrelevant to the article, and in addition misleading (in the context, it gave the impression that Arabic textbooks use "Zionist entity", which in fact the source does not say), I removed it and left both the citation and the original quote from it intact [62]. No cigar there, so kindly remove that accusation from the ArbCom case.
• I think you're entirely on your own if you interpret "undoing" in "undoing another editor's work" as "changing another editor's work in any way". By that definition, every edit is a revert. You probably realize that your creative reinterpretation of WP policies won't hold up in court, so save yourself the embarrassment and take back the "revert" accusation too.
• You are misinterpreting ChrisO's comment too: He cautions me against using my new freedom to edit Samaria articles, he does not say I've actually done it. Kindly save the Arbs and everybody else time and retract your accusations. Just repeating them and ignoring the very clear information I've given you (or worse, calling it "wikilawyering") will give them a bad impression of you. MeteorMaker (talk) 08:07, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In reply to your question to Jayjg at User talk:Jayjg, I'll give you my own opinion. The first quote ("regions once known as Judea and Samaria" [63]) comes closest, in my opinion, to supporting the statement that "Samaria is not a modern toponym", but does not explicitly support it; one interpretation of it can be taken as implying the idea, but another interpretation is that it's saying that the ancient kingdoms were known by those names, and may be implying that those kingdoms no longer exist as such, but is not (under this possible interpretation) implying that no one uses those names to indicate the land areas. The second quote says "the lands of Judea and Samaria, known today as the West Bank".[64] It is explicitly using the names "Judea" and "Samaria" to identify certain land areas, thus implicitly contradicting the hypothesis by using the terms itself. It states that they are known today as the West Bank, but does not state that they are not also known today as Judea and Samaria, so it is not explicitly supporting the hypothesis. Re the third quote ("historic term [that] is used by the Israeli government, Zionists and Israelis, to refer to the modern region, but it is no longer used by others" [65]): please note that "the Israeli government, Zionists and Israelis" are people. Therefore this quote is stating that people use the term "Samaria" to refer to a certain region. It therefore contradicts the hypothesis. The fourth quote ("In the second century of the Common Era, following the Bar Kokhba revolt, the names "Judaea" and "Samaria" were abolished by the Romans"[66]) seems pretty much irrelevant: I don't think Roman law about what placenames to use is generally followed by English speakers today, and information about what placenames were used back then is probably somewhat out of date by now. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 19:53, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to butt in, but "the lands of Judea and Samaria, known today as the West Bank" does imply that it is no longer known as Judea and Samaria, if it said "also known as the West Bank" then it would imply Judea and Samaria are still in use. The third quote doesn't back up the idea that nobody uses it, but it does back up the idea that it is not used by non-partisans. That goes to the argument of whether Wikipedia, in its neutral narrative voice, use such partisan terms when other terms are widely regarded as "neutral". Nableezy (talk) 19:58, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Coppertwig: Thank you for your opinion. From your words I understand you haven't had sufficient time to peruse the sources or familiarize yourself with all aspects of this discussion (for instance, Stine defines J&S as "Biblical names for the West Bank"[67][68], and nobody has questioned the fact that the terms J&S are used in Israel and by Zionists, on the contrary).

In your opinion (and of course speaking purely hypothetically), is there any conceivable sequence of English words that would properly, without the shadow of a doubt, convey the notion that term X is not in current use outside country Y? MeteorMaker (talk) 20:27, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean a sequence of words that would state the notion, or a sequence of words that would convince me of the notion, or something else? Presumably the sequence you've just given expresses the notion you intend to convey with that sequence: "term X is not in current use outside country Y". I think it's unlikely that anyone would find a sequence of words that would convince me that a certain term is not in use outside a certain country (and examples have been given already of the use of "Samaria" outside Israel). It's difficult to prove that something never happens.

Apparently the terms are used by Israelis. The Israeli POV is a significant minority POV and needs to be represented as such in Wikipedia. Mentioning "Samaria" and "Judea" occasionally, in context, (perhaps as they were mentioned before you edited them out), as well as using "West Bank" more often, seems to me to be a reasonable way of doing so. Since "West Bank" doesn't refer to the same land area as either "Samaria" or "Judea", it seems reasonable to me to use those terms, at least sometimes, when the corresponding land areas are being referred to. For example, it seems to me that "northern Judea" gives more precise and informative geographical information than "central West Bank" [69]; writing "northern southern West Bank" would sound ridiculous. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 21:53, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I feel this discussion would benefit if you read at least a couple of the relevant talk pages. These arguments are by no means new and have been addressed many times over. Let me also make clear that WP:V does not require convincing you or anybody else beyond the shadow of a doubt; for Wikipedia, a set of sources that says "regions once known as Judea and Samaria", "corresponds roughly to the northern portion of the modern West Bank territory", "known today as the West Bank" and so on are indeed sufficient to state "Samaria is a term used for the northern part of what is today the West Bank", and sources that say things like "[Samaria] is used by the Israeli government, Zionists and Israelis, to refer to the modern region, but it is no longer used by others, who prefer [...] "West Bank"" allow us to state "the combined term "Judea and Samaria" is also used in Israel to refer to the modern West Bank". In case you missed it, there's no shortage of such sources [70], whereas your position (as of yet) has none, besides a couple of anecdotal examples. MeteorMaker (talk) 22:22, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Canm I add something? Coppertwig. The lengthy discussions have identified at least four different meanings for Judea and Samaria, (a) the ancient extensions (reconstructions from the Bible, we don't know if those maps which you find in wiki of these areas correspond to a stable historical area or political entity. The Talmudic literature on these areas is very complex) (b) the British Mandate ones (c)The Begin concession that he at least undertook to mean that Judea and Samaria corresponded to the whole of the territory of the captured ex-Jordanian West Bank (d) the administrative areas in modern Israeli usage. Your proposal is almost impossible to translate into clear rules, and raises all sorts of wretched technical erquivocations, aside from ignoring the major issue. Palestinian maps after Oslo show Israel as 'Occupied Territory' and the West bank is designated as 'Palestine', as often Israel is marked out as 'Occupied Palestine'. If 'Judea and Samaria' (Israeli POV) then Israel is 'Palestine'/'The Occupied territories' (Palestinian POV), etc. NPOV requires this, or telling both sides to calm down, and accept the simple, straightforward, universally comprehensible, and neutral term, West Bank, which neither many Israelis nor most Palestinians accept.Nishidani (talk) 22:27, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've accepted the term "West Bank" all along. I think the terms "Samaria", "Judea" and "Palestine" should probably also appear in some articles, perhaps in a similar way (or in similar proporations) that those terms appear in a number of reliable sources. Since "Samaria" is not a synonym for "West Bank" (and I don't think anyone has claimed it is), it doesn't make sense to replace all instances of "Samaria" with "West Bank", and it may not make sense to replace most of them with "northern West Bank" either. Since they aren't synonyms, it wouldn't make sense to do something quite exactly like the Gdansk/Danzig vote, but maybe there is some similar way to classify all usages.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Coppertwig (talk • contribs) 23:08 28 March 2009

Let's be illustrative and concrete. Compare Adora, Har Hebron (a communal Israeli settlement in Judea) which to my ear is absurdly anachronistic, to the opening paragraph of Hebron ('the largest city in the West Bank, located in the south, 30 kilometers south of Jerusalem . . . in the Palestinian territories and the Biblical region of Judea), which I negotiated in a long but gentlemanly tussle with User:Tewfik, who was one tough cookie but a very logical editor. I don't think 'Palestinian Territories' is necessary, but 'Biblical region of Judea' was Tewfik's compromise, and I accepted it. That has been stable for a year and a half. Nishidani (talk) 23:24, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

MeteorMaker, you said, "whereas your position (as of yet) has none": would you please quote what I said that you're calling my "position" and that you apparently disagree with? Since you asked me a question, I asked you what you meant, and I don't think you answered, I'm not able to give you a further answer to your question at this time. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 23:08, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In short: I have operated on the assumption that your position is that J&S are suitable terms to use in WP's neutral voice. What was your question? MeteorMaker (talk) 00:08, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

At the moment at least I may be somewhat undecided, neutral or favouring some sort of compromise position as to how "Samaria" and "Judea" can be used; I wouldn't say that my position right now is necessarily what you just said. The compromise on one article that Nishidani mentions above sounds good to me, and there may be other wordings that would form good compromises in other articles: variety may be good.

What my question was may not be important. My question was "Do you mean a sequence of words that would state the notion, or a sequence of words that would convince me of the notion, or something else?" I was asking for clarification as to the meaning of your question to me in the comment preceding the one where I asked that question. You would need to clarify only if you're still looking for an answer to your original question. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 15:27, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Armed with the new knowledge that nobody has ever denied the fact that "Samaria" is used in Israel and by Zionists, would you evaluate the quote from Zionism and Israel - Encyclopedic Dictionary differently? ("[Samaria is] a historic term [that] is used by the Israeli government, Zionists and Israelis, to refer to the modern region, but it is no longer used by others".) You said that by acknowledging that the term is used in Israel, it "contradicts the hypothesis", which I take as an indication of incomplete understanding of the core issues in this dispute. MeteorMaker (talk) 05:25, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find where I said "contradicts the hypothesis", so I'm not sure what hypothesis that was, but I'm guessing it was something about Samaria being "not a modern toponym", which sounds to me to contradict the statement that it's used by Israelis; maybe it could be reworded to make its intended meaning clearer. You replied to my request in the arbitration case for people to clearly state their positions by clearly stating your position, which I appreciate very much: but now I can't find it! Would you please tell me where that statement is, or restate it? Thanks. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 16:28, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to oblige: You came here on March 28, started a section you called "Toponym", and stated that a quote you had found "contradicted the hypothesis" [71], without further explanation what that "hypothesis" might be. My question: Armed with the new knowledge that nobody has ever denied the fact that "Samaria" is used in Israel and by Zionists, would you evaluate the quote from Zionism and Israel - Encyclopedic Dictionary differently? (The quote: "[Samaria is] a historic term [that] is used by the Israeli government, Zionists and Israelis, to refer to the modern region, but it is no longer used by others".)MeteorMaker (talk) 21:26, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind: I found it. It's here. Clearly, that position is not contradicted by a statement that the terms are used in Israel. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 18:36, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, that made no sense at all. Could you point to a specific diff? MeteorMaker (talk) 21:28, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. You said on the workshop page, "In this case, we are arguing about whether J&S are used as terms for the modern West Bank outside Israel or not." Would you clarify that, please; what exactly do you mean by "used ... outside Israel"? What about being used by an Israeli who is outside Israel at the time, or being used by a non-Israeli who is in Israel? What about something written by an Israeli in Israel but published outside Israel, and what about something written by a non-Israeli outside Israel but published within Israel? Thanks in advance. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 00:08, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By "an Israeli", I mean a person who has Israeli citizenship. Israeli emigrants tend to retain the terminology they grew up with (and I don't fault them for that), so for the purpose of this discussion, they count as Israelis too. In addition to this group, there is the much smaller group "people who subscribe to the Zionist ideology", which also favors the disputed terms. This has been explained a number of times over the last months, it's recommended that you read at least a few of the relevant talk pages if you intend to make informed comments on the dispute itself. MeteorMaker (talk) 21:41, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've also replied to you on my talk page. I'm sorry: I had forgotten I had posted the above question here, thought I must not have gotten around to posting it and have posted essentially the same question on the workshop page. However, your above answer doesn't really clarify to me what you mean by "outside Israel". Maybe it would help if you were to start by saying "When I say 'outside Israel', I mean ..." Otherwise, I don't see how Zionists and emigrants fit in. Even better might be to restate your position and use a longer formulation including mention of emigrants and Zionists, instead of the term "outside Israel", which apparently might mean something very different to you than it does to me. Maybe the statement needs to be formulated in the jargon of linguistics: I don't know, "dialect", "idiolect", samples representative of typical usage (in speech? in print?), etc. To me, "outside Israel" seems to be referring to a physical location, so every time a word is used by a person who is not in Israel at the time I would consider that a use "outside Israel". ☺Coppertwig (talk) 17:09, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let's put it another way: Of the relevant (ie non-historical) Google hits for Samaria, roughly 90% are from undisputedly Israeli sources. Of the remaining 10%, about half are from Zionist sites and/or individuals who are members of Zionist organizations. In case you have missed the point, all this is irrelevant however, because a few isolated examples of outside-Israel use do not trump the massive evidence that the terms are almost exclusively used in Israel. MeteorMaker (talk) 18:55, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One of Jay's assertions, to pick a random one, was that an editorial by the Israeli ambassador to Australia published in an Australian paper is not an Israeli source. Is it possible to even take that seriously? Can you honestly say you agree that such a source is not an 'Israeli source'? Nableezy (talk) 18:58, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide a diff of Jayjg stating that such an editorial is not an Israeli source. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 14:23, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"The United Kingdom, United States, Australia, etc. are not 'in Israel', and publishers in those countries are not 'Israeli sources'."[72] That's Jay's final statement in a thread about the editorial by the Israeli ambassador to Australia, Naftali Tamir, published in The Australian.--G-Dett (talk) 15:11, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And the source was no. 42 on his list of non-Israeli sources here. Nableezy (talk) 15:20, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See also this: “As for things published in Australian papers, they're Australian".--G-Dett (talk) 17:10, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He stated that a publisher was not an Israeli source. That seems a very reasonable statement to me. He did not state, in that diff, that an editorial was not an Israeli source. Please be careful not to mischaracterize what other editors have said. I expect to discuss related issues further on the talk page of the workshop page, later. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 14:12, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Coppertwig, I appreciate and even grudgingly admire the strenuous lengths you'll go to in order to assume good faith, but here that noble impulse twists into something like its opposite.--G-Dett (talk) 18:20, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your precision with words, but that is not what he said. He used the fact that it was published in an Australian paper to say it was not an Israeli source. The 'things published in Australia' is the editorial by the Israeli ambassador, and 'they're Australian' is saying that the editorial is Australian because it was published in Australia. There is no mischaracterization, except on the part of Jay now claiming he was not demanding exact quotes from the sources. The line "As for things published in Australian papers, they're Australian" that G-Dett provided absolutely says that the editorial is an Australian source. To say otherwise now is an obfuscation of what was said. Nableezy (talk) 14:26, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And if you say that the 'things published in Australia' is only a generic formulation, it was in direct response to MM's question 'How do you reason when you say the words of the Israeli ambassador to Australia somehow become Australian by being published in a local newspaper?' Nableezy (talk) 14:28, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Coppertwig: To my remark "an interview with an Israeli government official isn't exactly the best support one can find for the hypothesis that "Samaria" is widely used outside Israel", Jayjg replied "The United Kingdom, United States, Australia, etc. are not "in Israel", and publishers in those countries are not "Israeli sources"."[73] Can you honestly read this as an acknowledgement that the editorial itself is an Israeli source, and as an sincere attempt to discuss the validity of the quote from the editorial as evidence of outside-Israel use? MeteorMaker (talk) 14:36, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jayjg's focussing on the place of publication rather than the nationality of the author is evidence supporting the hypothesis that he misunderstood your phrase "outside Israel" as referring to a physical location: a very natural way to read the phrase, in my opinion. The phrase "Israeli source" is ambiguous: it's not clear whether it refers to something published in Israel, or to something written by an Israeli, or to the author themself as a person, or what; therefore I would have difficulty answering your question. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 13:09, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, MeteorMaker. Re my first post in this thread: that post is in reply to a question you asked Jayjg. I have the impression you didn't understand it, because later in this thread you said "You came here on March 28, started a section you called "Toponym", and stated that a quote you had found "contradicted the hypothesis" [74], without further explanation what that "hypothesis" might be." [75] Because you said "a quote you had found", I have the impression that you didn't understand that the quotes I was talking about in my post at the beginning of this thread are the quotes that you mentioned in your question to Jayjg. The "hypothesis" is something you were asking about in your question: it is "Samaria is not a modern toponym". In reply to your further question (where you asked "Armed with the new knowledge that nobody has ever denied the fact that "Samaria" is used in Israel and by Zionists, would you evaluate the quote from Zionism and Israel - Encyclopedic Dictionary differently?" my answer is no, I would not interpret it differently; I would interpret it just as I did, as contradicting the hypothesis, because if the source is stating that Israelis are using the term, then the source is contradicting the hypothesis that it is not a modern toponym. My interpretation would not change, because I was interpreting what that particular quote said, not what might be said or assumed elsewhere. To me, a statement that something is not a modern toponym is roughly equivalent to a statement that nobody uses it any more. If Israelis are using it, then it's not true that nobody is using it, so it's not true that it's not a modern toponym, in my opinion. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 20:32, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Coppertwig: What and whose is the "hypothesis" you are talking about? EDIT: Apologies, just saw that you have already given answers in the section above. MeteorMaker (talk) 20:40, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As I just said, what I called "the hypothesis" is "Samaria is not a modern toponym". I got it from your question to Jayjg which I was replying to, and where you mentioned it. You called it a "concept". I don't know where you got it from. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 21:16, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I posted the shorthand version of "Samaria is not considered a modern toponym except in Israel" because I was (and is) confident Jayjg knows what I mean. I didn't consider the possibility that newcomers to this debate might want to butt in and reply in his place. Now that we have cleared up that misunderstanding between us two, do you wish to amend your reply? MeteorMaker (talk) 21:36, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In reply to this comment: I find it unhelpful to be told that I don't understand something without at the same time being provided with additional information. Explanations or referral to specific diffs are helpful. Please note that what appears to you to be lack of understanding on my part may actually be a difference of opinion. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 21:21, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe you used the phrase "I have the impression that you didn't understand my answer" in the post right above mine, without diffs or explanations? Anyway, here are the diffs you request: [76][77]. MeteorMaker (talk) 21:36, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In reply to a question you asked on Jayjg's talk page as to why I think there are misunderstandings: See the diffs I give in my reply on Jayjg's talk page, and see also the diffs in my comment on the workshop page. I welcome any questions you may have about these diffs or about why I think they indicate that there are or were misunderstandings.

I'm sorry if you were offended when I said I had the impression that you hadn't understood my answer. I didn't mean any offense. Lots of people misunderstand things, for lots of reasons. I assumed it was largely because the answer was on a different page from the question, making it harder to follow the connection between the two. I think you mean this comment of mine, in which I said "Based on one of your subsequent replies, I have the impression that you didn't understand my answer". When I said that, I gave this diff a sentence later, which links to a reply on this page, in which I quoted and gave a diff to the "one of your subsequent replies" that I was referring to, (i.e. this diff), and in which I also gave an explanation, beginning "Because you said ... ", which is intended to both explain why I thought you had misunderstood, and also to clear up that misunderstanding. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 22:08, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good we cleared that one up: I didn't mean any offence either, and gave a link to the relevant section where the replies I was talking about were, and the reasons for my impression that your understanding of the issues was incomplete are stated there. Now, to repeat my question: Armed with the new knowledge that nobody has ever denied the fact that "Samaria" is used in Israel and by Zionists, would you evaluate the quote from Zionism and Israel - Encyclopedic Dictionary differently? ("[Samaria is] a historic term [that] is used by the Israeli government, Zionists and Israelis, to refer to the modern region, but it is no longer used by others".) MeteorMaker (talk) 22:15, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I should clarify: When you earlier evaluated the above quote, you replied:

"Please note that "the Israeli government, Zionists and Israelis" are people. Therefore this quote is stating that people use the term "Samaria" to refer to a certain region. It therefore contradicts the hypothesis [that Samaria is not a modern toponym]".

My question is: Now that you know that the "hypothesis" was "Samaria is not considered a modern toponym except in Israel", would you still say that the quote from Zionism and Israel - Encyclopedic Dictionary contradicts it? MeteorMaker (talk) 06:49, 16 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 02:22, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly, I think the solution entails nothing more advanced than plain old adherence to the relevant policies. Thanks for your innovative suggestion anyway. MeteorMaker (talk) 14:49, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In reply to your comment on Jayjg's talk page: It seems to me that the following misunderstandings occurred in the discussions leading up to the arbcom case. This is according to my impressions of what happened, and I'm open to input from the participants about anything I might not have right about their own parts in this.

When you used the phrase "outside Israel" ("What you need is a quote that actually states that "Samaria" is widely used outside Israel." [78]), Jayjg apparently misunderstood this to mean physically located in a different country, which apparently you didn't mean.[79] This led (as I see it) to a series of comments and accusations back and forth, with a continuation of the same misunderstanding at every step, leading ultimately to your accusing Jayjg of lying and to your accusing Jayjg of accusing you of "distasteful ethnic discrimination". ("By any definition of the word, Jayjg lied when he repeatedly accused me of "distasteful ethnic discrimination".") [80] (I hope you don't mind, MeteorMaker, but since I'm repeating this here, I feel a need to repeat, for the benefit of anyone who might read this, that your use of quotation marks there is not intended to indicate an exact sequence of words. [81])

When you used the phrase "same area". ("..., please indicate where in the sentence it is also stated that Samaria and the West Bank are different-epoch names for the same area." [82]), Jayjg apparently misunderstood this to mean the same piece of land, which apparently you didn't mean (last paragraph of this diff: [83]) This led (as I see it) to a series of comments back and forth, leading ultimately to G-Dett accusing Jayjg of declaring victory on the basis of a "red herring" [84]

Jayjg said some things that G-Dett interpreted [85] as a demand for "exactly that verbal formulation". As I say in my evidence, Jayjg later confirmed that he had not been insisting that the source had to use the exact same words. [86] G-Dett later refactored, striking out "exactly" [87] and later explained: apparently G-Dett's statement in evidence is not intended to assert that Jayjg was demanding a source containing a specific string of words. [88]

There may also have been other misunderstandings.

To help clear up some of the above misunderstandings, I would appreciate it if you would answer these questions:

Here, where you say "outside Israel", what do you mean by that phrase? Please either complete a sentence such as "By 'outside Israel', I mean ... " or else reformulate your statement so that it no longer uses that phrase.

Here, where you say "same area", what do you mean by that phrase?

I hope you don't mind these answers and these questions. I'm trying to help establish clear communication in order to remove sources of irritation and allow the discussion to proceed productively. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 15:31, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree at all that any misunderstandings in the pre-ArbCom case discussion have been detected. The evidence you show is, in my opinion, extremely weak and amounts mostly to mere speculation. Let's examine it:

• "Jayjg apparently misunderstood ["widely used outside Israel"] to mean physically located in a different country". This is not substantiated with anything and seems to be pure conjecture. Neither him nor I ever discussed such a requirement, and it would be quite an odd one.

"This led to your accusing Jayjg of accusing you of "distasteful ethnic discrimination"." Talk about blaming the victim...

• "Jayjg apparently misunderstood [Samaria and the West Bank] to mean the same piece of land". Again, not substantiated with anything; again, pure conjecture, and an exceptionally odd notion that would contradict the entire month-long discussion thus far. Hell, it even started at the Judea article, so it's not like Jayjg could have thought I wasn't aware of its existence.

For further debunking of this bizarre "misunderstanding" hypothesis, go here.

• "Apparently G-Dett's statement in evidence is not intended to assert that Jayjg was demanding a source containing a specific string of words." The hypothesis of a misunderstanding on G-Dett's part that you postulate has been thoroughly demolished by her in several places, for instance here, here, here, here, and here.

"where you say "outside Israel", what do you mean by that phrase?"

In addition to being reasonably obvious, that qualifier has already been explained, here and here. Note that no matter how exhaustive the definition, there will necessarily be a grey zone of sources that don't fit. The point is that that grey zone is 1) so small it can be disregarded 2) already disregarded by the sources, and on WP, it's the sources that count. The sources unanimously say J&S are Israel-specific, and so should Wikipedia. MeteorMaker (talk) 18:46, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I also note that you again seem to have missed the question I keep posting:

Now that you know that the "hypothesis" was "Samaria is not considered a modern toponym except in Israel", would you still say that the quote from Zionism and Israel - Encyclopedic Dictionary contradicts it?

("[Samaria is] a historic term [that] is used by the Israeli government, Zionists and Israelis, to refer to the modern region, but it is no longer used by others".)

MeteorMaker (talk) 20:38, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes as a boredom-breaker, MM, it's salutary to change topic, and just read up on some arbitrary topic to hand, like Channeling.Nishidani (talk) 20:41, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fairly optimistic Jayjg is still alive despite no signs of life for a week, but thanks for the advice anyway. ;) MeteorMaker (talk) 20:52, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I might not go so far as to say that the encyclopedia statement "It is used by the Israeli government , Zionists and Israelis, to refer to the modern region, but it is no longer used by others" directly contradicts the hypothesis "Samaria is not considered a modern toponym except in Israel", but I would say that it does not sufficiently support it and is saying something different, because to me, the phrase "in Israel" means a physical location, and I assume there are many Zionists and Israelis who are not in Israel.

Re the meaning of "outside Israel": thank you for this clarification: "By "used outside Israel", I mean "written by non-Israelis" (ie, the original writer, not the publisher)." [89]. I'm sorry if you're getting tired of these questions, but I really think it will help if these things are clarified. We just need to make sure that when we use terms, we all understand the same definitions. So, in response to your clarification, because you mentioned Zionists within the same comment, I'd appreciate it if you would answer this: Do you consider something written by a non-Israeli Zionist to be "outside Israel"? Also, do you consider something written by a non-Israeli and published in Israel to be "outside Israel"? ☺Coppertwig (talk) 18:47, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good morning Coppertwig. Yes, I consider something written by a non-Israeli Zionist to be outside Israel, but within the (neglectibly small) grey zone I mentioned earlier, and by default aligned with the Israeli POV. I consider your question how I view something written by a non-Israeli and published in Israel completely irrelevant to this dispute, because no such examples have been put forward, and if one were, it's not likely to change the well-supported fact that J&S are Israel-specific.

Two new questions for you:

• Would you say that "Samaria is not considered a modern toponym except in Israel and by Zionists" is supported by the Zionism and Israel - Encyclopedic Dictionary quote?
• In your opinion, roughly how large is the body of outside-Israel Zionist instances of the terms, and how large is it in proportion to 1) the body of Israeli instances and 2) the body of global instances of "West Bank"? Also, I'd appreciate your rough estimate of the size of the body of outside-Israel non-Zionist instances of the terms. MeteorMaker (talk) 09:56, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, MeteorMaker. I did have a good morning: I walked to a bakery with a family member, and saw flowers and sunshine. And twigs. Good whatever-time-of-day-it-is-when-you-read-this to you! By the way, I expect to go on wikibreak soon, until Thursday.

Thank you very much for clarifying your definition of "outside Israel". I'm sorry if it seems to you that I'm focussing on inconsequential things; however, the definition of this phrase seems to me to be at the root of certain very serious accusations that were made, so I do believe it's important to clear this up. In your statement on the Workshop page, "In this case, we are arguing about whether J&S are used as terms for the modern West Bank outside Israel or not." [90] would you consider that a complete description of what you're arguing about, or would it be more precise if it were elaborated to include mention of the "grey zone" or of Zionists? The question about non-Israelis publishing in Israel is not very important: I almost didn't ask it, for the reason you cite.

Now that you've explained what you mean by "outside Israel", I'll know what you mean when you use the phrase, and I assume that by "in Israel" you mean the opposite. However, your definition is so far from what the words seem to me to mean that I don't intend to use them myself with that meaning. Instead, I might use phrases such as "authored by non-Israelis" (to mean what you mean by the phrase) or "located in a place other than Israel" (to mean what I would normally understand it to mean). Therefore, no, I wouldn't say what you're asking me about above; that is, I wouldn't say that ""Samaria is not considered a modern toponym except in Israel and by Zionists" is supported by the Zionism and Israel - Encyclopedic Dictionary quote", mainly because I don't choose to use the term "in Israel" according to your definition, and it wouldn't be true according to how I would normally understand the phrase.

In response to your questions about how large the bodies of evidence are, for now I'll just say I don't know. I've read parts of the discussions, but you, Jayjg and Nishidani have far more familiarity with the material than I do. I'm working on the hypothesis that if you're all using the same definitions of terms, then you'll agree on what the facts are. I probably won't need to study the details of the sources myself unless you disagree. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 21:14, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First, of all, and before I reply, kindly acknowledge that you have read this.

Now, would you say that "Samaria is a historic term that is used by the Israeli government, Zionists and Israelis to refer to the modern West Bank region, but it is no longer used by others" is supported by the Zionism and Israel - Encyclopedic Dictionary quote? MeteorMaker (talk) 22:31, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I edited my evidence, mainly to add links to a refutation and a response by you.

I've read that diff. It contains the phrase "not sincere" in a context which seems to me to indicate that you consider that phrase to apply to some of Jayjg's actions. Per WP:AGF, please consider striking that out.

The above question sounds to me like discussion of article content, in which case I'd prefer that the discussion take place at the talk page of whichever article it concerns, so that I can participate or not depending on interest and available time. If it has some other purpose, such as developing the guidelines or helping figure out what happened in previous discussions, please let me know. Before answering, I'd want to know more about the context in which this might be used in an article, etc. I'm not sure exactly what you mean by "supported by": this can get complicated if there are different sources saying different things. I'm not sure whether you've again used "West Bank" as a shortened form for "Northern West Bank".

I hope to find time to reply further to some of your comments. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 23:54, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly related to the above discussion: I've suggested a version of the first sentence of the Samaria article here. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 00:35, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looks excellent, with one minor proviso [91]. Thanks for your recent support in the ArbCom case btw, I appreciate it.

I stand by my observation that Jayjg's steadfast refusal to acknowledge that a text by an Israeli government official is in fact a text written by an Israeli is not a sincere attempt to discuss the validity of the quote. Excuses along the lines of "oh, so by 'a non-Israeli' you meant somebody who is a not an Israeli? I thought you meant somebody whose writings are published outside Israel" only compound the issue, particularly if they are still not accompanied by an acknowledgement that his example was invalid.

Re my request of you to say whether or not you find the Zionism and Israel - Encyclopedic Dictionary quote above sufficient support for the claim that Samaria is only used by Israelis and Zionists, I'll be frank with you again and say that my main rationale is to make you realize that Jayjg's stubborn refusal to acknowledge it (and scores of other quotes against his position from eminently reliable sources) was disruptive. MeteorMaker (talk) 07:23, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know Jayjg never said what you've put in quotation marks there. (I'm just noting that for the benefit of anyone else who may be reading this.)

I'm not convinced. If anything, the experience makes me even more understanding of why someone might wish to refuse to acknowledge that a statement is supported. It's easy for me to say that a statement is not supported if I see a major reason why not. But to say that a statement is supported, I'd have to check all the nuances. That's why I asked about the context and reason. Disruptive? Maybe he just disagreed with you! The way to get people to agree is to present convincing arguments (while making sure the terms of discourse are understood), not by accusing them of being disruptive for not agreeing. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 16:23, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He most certainly disagreed, long after conclusive evidence against his position was presented, which is why I consider the term "disruptive" appropriate. It doesn't really help his case either if he now, several months later, says "Huh? "Outside Israel" means "outside Israel" - i.e., outside Israel. How could it possibly mean "written by non-Israelis"? Is that what MeteorMaker is now saying "outside Israel" means? "Written by non-Israelis"? If so, why didn't he say that, rather than "outside Israel"?"[92], because it has been shown that he himself made the distinction "Israelis"/"non-Israelis" and clearly understood the former to mean "people born in Israel" rather than "people who have not had their writings published outside Israel" or "people who were physically inside the borders of Israel at the time". Despite himself and other editors having used the term "non-Israelis" dozens of times, he now apparently claims he never heard the term in this context until now.

Is the evidence conclusive? As of yet, I have not heard anybody make the claim it isn't. Those in favor of using "J&S" typically ignore it rather than trying to disprove it (though Jayjg preferred to mechanically repeat the assertion that he had "disproven" it, as if a few examples of non-Israeli usage could trump scores of reliable sources that explicitly say the terms J&S are Israel/Zionist-specific).

You say you need to know the context to my request of you: to tell if you think the RS quote

"Samaria is a historic term that is used by the Israeli government, Zionists and Israelis to refer to the modern West Bank region, but it is no longer used by others" [93]

supports the statement

"Samaria is a historic term that is used by the Israeli government, Zionists and Israelis to refer to the modern West Bank region, but it is no longer used by others."

Highly honored colleague, it's logically impossible to come up with a real-world context where the proposition "X->X" is false. MeteorMaker (talk) 18:43, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kirill has asked some questions here. You are invited to respond. --Tznkai (talk) 22:23, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Heyo MeteorMaker,
I just started an RfC request for our recent terminology dispute.
Warm regards, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 15:49, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize. You're right: that line of evidence wasn't well-supported. I may have been getting two different issues confused in my mind. I've replaced it with a different line which I think is better supported, with a different diff.

I said I was ready to help you, too, when the opportunity arose. Today I seem to have found such an opportunity, so I've done this edit, which I hope helps you.

I'm sorry if I haven't expressed it in the most diplomatic way, but my request that you assume good faith is sincere. I know it can be hard, but please think it over. Things that seem obvious to you don't seem obvious to me. Remember that the same situation will look very different to different people with different POVs. AGF really is a reasonable choice in this situation. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 18:25, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, thank you very much for refactoring. I appreciate it. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 00:21, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't mind one bit if you made those mind-bogglingly wobbly, ever-shifting accusations informally, but I frankly think it borders on the disruptive to put them forward as evidence in an ArbCom case, because it's a waste of everybody's time to read and respond. Half of the total volume of this case is now about your microscopic examination of what Nishidani termed "nano-minutiae", and as he observes, your failure to subject Jayjg to any scrutiny whatsoever reflects badly on your purported neutrality. One of your recent allegations of WP:AGF violations wasn't comprehensible even to yourself, the other two are equally confusing to the rest of us and only serve to confirm the impression of double standards on your part. You shouldn't have created them in the first place, but you can at least keep things from deteriorating further by striking your accusations. MeteorMaker (talk) 10:51, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you convince me that you're assuming that Jayjg is acting in good faith in the contexts I mentioned, then I don't see any reason why I wouldn't remove those statements from my evidence section.

I've been thinking about how to proceed in arbcom cases in general. This is the second one I've participated in, and I think it's the first one where I've posted evidence. I've been thinking that maybe I should discuss each bit of evidence with each person before posting it. I haven't decided about this yet. I don't know what other people's usual practice is. Nevertheless, I've gone ahead and added a link just now [94] since I think it helps clarify what I'm already saying there.

I disagree that there has been a failure on my part "to subject Jayjg to any scrutiny whatsoever"; I have evidence about him in my evidence section, and I asked him a question on his talk page during this. However, since he isn't posting material to the arbcom discussion pages which appears to me to be uncivil, or inaccurate, etc., (because, like a number of the parties, he isn't posting on the discussion pages at all), then there isn't much for me to comment on.

Re "purported neutrality": what purported neutrality? I don't remember having claimed to be neutral. Do you consider yourself neutral? I don't consider myself to be generally on one "side" or the other of this dispute, but I'm also not claiming to be precisely in the centre at all times. I have opinions about article content and about the dispute, and express them. I think I'm closer to neutral in this dispute than most other participants, but maybe that's just my perception. I've discussed this point here and on this section of my user page. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 14:32, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, Coppertwig, I don't have to "convince you" of my innocence. If you want to build a WP:AGF case against me, it's up to you to produce compelling evidence. The link you added to your old, discredited evidence also falls short by a mile, as explained on the evidence talk page.

You've made two small, token accusation points about Jayjg, but failed to see anything larger than one microscopic pseudo-incivility. You've requested information from him only in order to exonerate him (and it's telling that that is the only time he has deigned to respond to such a request in this ArbCom case).

You "don't consider yourself to be generally on one "side" or the other of this dispute", which is kind of the definition of neutrality, so it's not wrong to talk about "your purported neutrality". There is no requirement to "be precisely in the centre at all times" (wherever that "exact center" is) and I have never requested such a balance act of you. If I can give you some advice, please refrain from quibbling over the tiniest differences in word definitions, especially if they're entirely inconsequential. It creates nothing but irritation.

That said, I still have a good impression of you. If I may be frank, and you allow me one small departure from WP:AGF, I'd say your self-imposed mission to get Jayjg off the hook sometimes tends to cloud your otherwise good judgement. Maybe you don't notice it yourself. </AGF_departure> MeteorMaker (talk) 16:14, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, and I appreciate your willingness to discuss these things with me with sincerity and patience. Also, it was very nice of you to say this.

I've added a number of things to my evidence. Re what I added re use of quotation marks, I feel we've already discussed this on the evidence talk page. If you had refactored as I asked (that is, within or immediately after the same sentence, so that readers of the sentence would be reasonably sure to notice it) I probably wouldn't have put it in the evidence. I've added a link to a clarification from Jayjg on a couple of points we had been discussing. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 00:15, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've replied to your message on my talk page. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 23:21, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

However this madness plays out, just a note on the West Bank consensus stuff. The central problem as I see it, if it is accepted that using Israeli geographical terms to define the Palestinian West Bank is inappropriate, remains that of resolving how to reconcile the fact that the Governorates of the Palestinian National Authority cover the whole territory subsumed by Israel as the 'Judea & Samaria' district. Israeli districts are in Palestinian governorates technically, and vice versa, Effectively 70% of the land is under Israeli military and civil authority, so allowing 'each his own' means 70% being described in Israeli-specific terms. Just a thought.

Given the way the immense lumbering juggernaut of bureaucracy is crunching underfoot any nuanced knowledge that has appeared, as politics, partisanship and misguided or monocular obsession with abstract rules (wiki formalism will ever trump substance), and not closely informed area understanding, takes hold, as was forseeable from the outset, the result will probably usurp a clear vision of what is required to make the I/P area workable. It is not understood that defenders of the status quo are quite happy with leaving things in a mess: in the lack of improvement of atmosphere there, the usual non-completion of articles, seesawing up and down with jumbled POVs, fits the bill for many. Completion of articles would mean clarity for the reader, and I don't think most editors in there desire this end. There is a quite clear cynical awareness that individuals (except you know who) do not really count for the functioning of wikipedia, and lose one or two in a sweep up, and you will have others drifting in to create the impression of ongoing work. This is understandable, since the achievers work on their own, in unconflicted areas, and have little or no experience of what it is like working in area subject to political vetoes on virtually everything.

I suppose, in giving up on this place, I should conclude by thanking you for your immense, acute and pertinacious work in trying to establish some conceptual order among the shambles. It hasn't been recognized. And it looks as if it will be blocked. Best regards, MM. Sorry I couldn't be more helpful. Nishidani (talk) 08:43, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you too, friend and deeply respected colleague, and sorry for dragging you into this. The greatest loss to the I/P field, should Kirill get his way, is your vast knowledge and impeccable scholarliness, while, we (all) others just contributed our stamina and belief in stated WP principles. Jayjg had it coming and I'm happy the ArbCom had the integrity to acknowledge a few truths, even if the collateral damage may become excessive. We're the victims of the mother of all compromise edits. Wish there could at least be a finished West Bank naming guidelines document as a monument. MeteorMaker (talk) 08:26, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for tampering with your remarks, but that can't stand. I came willingly, and wasn't dragged in at all. I don't like seeing principled, intelligent work being mugged by a numbers game. Whatever they decide, if the sanction is to produce GA articles, and one can team to do it, as I suggested, count me in as a helper, if you accept that condition and still would like to edit here. I know several that, with a handful of the usual editors, could be done in rapid time, to NPOV, as long as there is no outside interference from the other side. Cheers Nishidani (talk) 14:12, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I guess we could do some write-ups of the local synagogues... ;) But we're looking at several years in the Gulags, even without the interference. And then we'd be back to square one with just one word from, say, Ynhockey. That particular aspect of the arrangement irks me the most. MeteorMaker (talk) 20:19, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is some information there that you might find useful. In any event comments are welcome. harlan (talk) 12:59, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Israeli targeted killings. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution.

Considering that there are now some specific FoF agianst you with regards to edit warring in the ArbCom case, this is particularly unwise. Canadian Monkey (talk) 23:34, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your kind advice and your watchful monitoring of my activities, and your instant running to the ArbCom with the "new evidence". However, three (opponent-approved) reverts (of different things, and with perfectly descriptive edit summaries) do not constitute an edit war. MeteorMaker (talk) 00:47, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll consider adding something to that effect. Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 05:01, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I have hidden the IP address of this edit that I presume you made while logged out. Could you confirm that this was your edit, and let me know whether it was intentionally logged out or not? I can unhide the IP address if you would like... John Vandenberg ^(chat) 06:05, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I didn't catch that but saw the IP had been hidden. Yes, I (and apparently also Nickhh) get logged out constantly for some reason. If there's a technical problem, it may explain the unusually high number of anon comments in the J&S case lately. MeteorMaker (talk) 06:18, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. I'm not aware of any technical issue, and there isnt a higher than usual rate of Oversight requests which would suggest there is a glitch. I've noticed a few on the J&S case, but its not always obvious if it was accidental or not, and it isn't usually possible to work out who it was in order to know who to ask whether it was accidental or not. If it happens again to either of you, let us know asap at oversight-l@wikimedia.org, which is manned by people highly trained in pushing cats into bags. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 10:09, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Those are words that console and, at the same time, depress. I think I've learnt as much from you as anything you might have learnt from me. So it's par. You have a fine legal mind, (one on a par with Jayjg's, with the difference that he used it far too often on hopeless cases, so that discrimination just became blind advocacy). Wiki loses with their repudiation of you. My case may be borderline. I tried very hard to check the evidence page in your regard from a hostile perspective, and yet could find almost nothing that might be interpreted as an infraction. That was a remarkable display of cool, meticulous analysis under conditions of extreme duress. I've absolutely no regrets for re-entering that page on November 8th., when you were just outvoted on questions of principle by an ethnic block, even though I knew it would drag me into opposing another hugely time-consuming piece of useless pettifogging, and windmill tilting. Remember, in the young, this is not a personal loss. It means one's conscience is released from a moral obligation to correct disinformation, the correction of which devours hours, in mediocre labour, ('tis one's time's curse, when the deaf lead the pitch-perfect on', to paraphrase King Lear) that can now be spent in more productive reading and more amenable conversation with girlfriends and colleagues elsewhere. For that, Arbcom's ruling may prove salutary for you. Just one point remains: I think you should ask their permission to settle that document on 'Judea and Samaria'. I won't participate, since my views are identical to yours, only you muster arguments on this technical issue far more succinctly than I can, and in that sense, my participation would just be seen as vote-stacking. My very best wishes, I may drop you a contact note within a year, and thanks indeed for that vast 'expenditure of spirit' in what others made a shameless waste of time you generously gave on a good and proper cause, MM. Nishidani (talk) 09:12, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers as well. As I've said, I'm not too bothered about being kept out of all these spaces, it's more the principle of being shat on for actually just trying to put some fairly simple things right here. Kind of like "I don't want to go to your crappy party, but I'm insulted that I haven't been invited". We all know as well I think that the decision as is isn't going to really help get proper content here or to enforce neutral and objective editing, which surely should be the main priorities, rather than indignation about the odd spot of edit-warring or occasional perceived incivility, which lumps everyone in together. In fact it may even make things worse - I mean look what some bright spark has already piped up with on the Samaria talk page.

I'll happily carry on editing occasionally in other spaces to correct anything I see that's a glaring error or crappy piece of writing. That's how I started here, and was very wary about stepping into I-P or other political pages - however at the same time, when you see WP pages on topics at the top of any Google search, you realise that it does actually matter if pages here are full of errors or nationalist or fringey rubbish. You then think that it can't be that hard to just put them right, especially the most basic and simply points, like "what is X called by most people in the world?" (as opposed to perhaps the causes of the Six Day War, which is genuinely complicated) .. but as we've all discovered, oh yes it is. Not only will other editors who seem to have an ideological agenda wage an interminable battle against you, but you won't even get any backing from the WP bureaucracy. At least on other pages here, if you change something to put it right or to re-phrase it in standard language, you might get some satisfaction from seeing it stay that way. I think I'm resigned to accepting the fact that 70% of pages here are always going to be below-par, and there's not much anyone can do about that, whether they are spending hours on those pages or whether they are banned from them.

Having said that, thanks as well for the hard work you put into proving what most of the world would think was obvious. Whenever I saw a piece of nonsense being spouted on a talk page, or a crappy edit to the actual article, and wanted to dive in to castigate the perpetrator, I frequently backed off, confident that you would come in shortly with plenty of well-documented and well-argued evidence, or that G-Dett or Nishidani would demolish the specious arguments on display, or that Pedrito would drop by to condense it all in two lines of common sense. Not any more I guess. Maybe it will all be for the best, saving us all a lot of bother and eventually leading to better content. Somehow I'm not optimistic on the latter point. --Nickhh (talk) 16:55, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. Canadian Monkey (talk · contribs), G-Dett (talk · contribs), MeteorMaker (talk · contribs), Nickhh (talk · contribs), Nishidani (talk · contribs), NoCal100 (talk · contribs), and Pedrito (talk · contribs) are prohibited from editing any Arab-Israeli conflict-related article/talk page or discussing on the dispute anywhere else on the project. Jayjg (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) is also prohibited from editing in the area of conflict, and he is stripped of his status as a functionary and any and all associated privileged access, including the CheckUser and Oversight tools and the checkuser-l, oversight-l, and functionaries-en mailing lists. Jayjg is also thanked for his years of service.

After six months, these editors may individually ask the Arbitration Committee to lift their editing restrictions after demonstrating commitment to the goals of Wikipedia and ability to work constructively with other editors. However, restrictions may be temporarily suspended for the exclusive purpose of participating in the discussion of draft guidelines for this area.

In the meantime, the community is strongly urged to pursue current discussions to come to a definitive consensus on the preferred current and historical names of the region that is the source of conflict in this case. Note that this must be consistent with current Wikipedia guidelines on reliable sources, a neutral point of view, and naming conventions. This decision will be appended onto this case within two months from the close of the case.

For the Arbitration Committee, hmwithτ 17:33, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss this

Hi. I have removed your comment from WP:AC/N, as that area is for announcements, not discussion. I suggest you make the application at WT:RFAR and send an email to arbcom-l to alert the Committee to the request. [[Sam Korn]] ^(smoddy) 10:47, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		For hours of fruitless effort trying to protect Wikipedia from nationalist bias. Although you have been sanctioned unfairly, your thoughtful arguments and dogged research have given the community a strong background of information to draw on when denouncing future attempts to portray ideology as fact. untwirl(talk) 14:54, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

MeteorMaker. I never would have guessed that English wasn't your first language. [95] Your talk page posts sound very fluent to me. I think you can still do Featured Articles even if English isn't your first language. Feel free to ask me for help: I can check grammar and wording etc., per User:Coppertwig/Notices#Proofreading offer. Alternatively, you can go to WP:FAC and help with many articles that others have already written, checking and correcting details, similarly to what I sometimes do. The way the Arbitration decision is written, I think that would count.
I was going to reply to some of your comments in the discussions we were in on the arbitration pages, but didn't have time. Now those things probably don't matter any more, except that I'd like to say that I don't consider someone a "culprit" just because they've been involved in a misunderstanding; every misunderstanding has two sides, the person sending a message and the one receiving it, so there's no point blaming anybody. If there's anything you'd still like an answer on, let me know. I'm sorry about the way the case worked out. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 23:32, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I put a question here about what is the proper way for you to apply. The noticeboard page you edited has a notice at the top saying that only clerks and arbitrators are supposed to edit it. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 14:54, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Roger,

Regarding my application to take part in the J&S guidelines discussion per this decision, it appears that the deadline has passed. According to FloNight, discussion of the application has taken place but the outcome was not disclosed [96], apparently through clerical error. Could you look into this? The most recent official status request is here. MeteorMaker (talk) 12:51, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't participate in the arbitrator debate on this but there was almost unanimous opposition to your proposal. Consensus is that allowing topic-banned editors to contribute to the guidelines discussion will only make it more difficult for them to disengage.  Roger Davies ^talk 14:34, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

MeteorMaker, I'm sorry you had to wait so long for an answer only to be disappointed. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 18:52, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Am I to assume that the ArbCom didn't actually intend anybody to apply for a permission to participate in the guidelines discussion when it announced that editors may apply for such a permission? That doesn't strike me as entirely logical, but I guess I shouldn't be surprised after the decision to ban five editors who have incorruptibly stood up for WP's stated principles and applied them impeccably, save for letting themselves be dragged into an edit war with nationalist editors that kept removing eminently well-sourced content for ideological reasons. MeteorMaker (talk) 20:02, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There have been a couple of recent decisions that have without doubt damaged the supposed goal of this 'project', creating an encyclopedia. That they have also decided that group of people that have invested the most time and energy on this topic should not be allowed to participate in the guidelines process shouldn't be incredibly surprising. You just have to guess what decision would be most damaging to that goal and assume that one will be agreed upon. Best of luck to you in whatever you do next, Nableezy (talk) 20:49, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

MeteorMaker, I'm sorry that you waited for the reply, had to prompt us, and then were given a negative response. I do understand that this disappointed you. I wish that we had done a better job of communicating with you about the status of the situation. :-( FloNight♥♥♥ 14:23, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you FloNight, I understand you've come under a lot of heat lately and might not have had much time for the menial duties. To your knowledge, have any other J&S decisions, such as this one, been similarly retracted or amended? MeteorMaker (talk) 15:35, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

		Your Opinion is More Important than You Think Barnstar
		Your well-reasoned and well-put arguments on a heated I/P dispute helped things significantly, and to that you deserve our thanks. The Squicks (talk) 06:33, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have filed a request to amend the West Bank - Judea and Samaria arbitration case. See here. nableezy - 20:48, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]