Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:02, 13 March 2009

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

WP:RfArb regarding West Bank vs. Judea and Samaria

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

Cheers, pedrito - talk - 25.02.2009 09:32

OK. I've slipped out of semi-retirement to drop a couple of paragraphs in. I suspect it'll be shunted off to another forum by the look of it as things stand now, but at least the flag has been raised as it were. Maybe we can still get something in place on naming conventions which will stick (and which should probably cover other related issues, eg "settlement" vs "city", "occupuied" vs "disputed" etc). Hopefully we - and this "encyclopedia" - will get more out of that process than yet more aggravation and obfuscation, which then ends up with a false compromise where every term, however obscure, POV or flat-out inaccurate is given equivalence and prominence. Here's hoping ... --Nickhh (talk) 17:04, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/West Bank - Judea and Samaria

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, Misplaced Pages: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, Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/West Bank - Judea and Samaria/Workshop.

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

Thanks for the note, not sure yet if I will add anything to my original comments, I've spent enough time bogged down in this one and getting hacked off occasionally as it is. Hopefully though this will help lead to a way forward that will deal with the edit warring - from all sides - and aggravation that is being caused; and at the same time maintain a (genuinely) neutral pov and the standard terminology, while noting, where appropriate and in the right place, the existence of secondary terms. --Nickhh (talk) 19:29, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi Nickhh,

sorry for putting off replying to this until now. I intended to buy a round of wiki-beer when this dispute was over and done with, which indeed seemed within reach in early January, but the weeks went by. Now, I have a good feeling about this ArbCom case — the source evaluation part is an open-and-shut case, and as to the behavior issue, our opponents are almost all too eager to provide lucid illustrations, in real time. Wonder what Jayjg is up to, and just how willing his mighty friends are to shelter him this time. It's beginning to heat up for him. MeteorMaker (talk) 23:49, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

PS: More editors than I were shocked when you went redlinked all of a sudden. It was a great relief to see you back.

Cheers. My intention is still to keep a distance from I-P and other contentious articles, since as we all know trying to make even minor corrections so that they read properly and accurately, as an objective and neutral record of the facts and the international consensus, is enough to get you into 20,000 word talk page debates, edit wars and accusations of stalking, being part of a "pro-Palestinian crowd" etc. In real life as well as here I'm kind of placid and patient most of the time, and willing to argue through points ad nauseam, in a perhaps naive bid to show others how wrong they are getting something - but only up to a point, and I think I briefly reached my limit recently. However I'm willing to try and help see this one through to some kind of conclusion, and then go back to occasionally tidying up the worst of any bad writing, bad content or flat out random editorialising that I spot in pages here (across any topic that happens to interest me). I have to say I'm slightly wary of the risk of turning this into a "get Jayjg" exercise, but at the same time I hope it will at least highlight the stonewalling, selective quoting of our lovely guidelines and system-gaming that goes on in a bid to defend the indefensible, however trivial and relatively minor the point in question might seem, while at the same time resolving the underlying issue. --Nickhh (talk) 14:57, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, gentlemen, you're optimists. Nothing there so far documents what most of us would acknowledge as the truth, that Jayjg wages wars of attrition on a number of these pages, against the bulk of evidence, by wikilawyering. That is obvious to any reader of the relevant threads. But threads are rarely read. Diffs are examined for violations of WP:Civil, WP:AGF, etc. Though he never seems to assume good faith (i.e., assume that when several editors oppose you with substantial work on documentation, there may be a bushel of light under their arses), you cannot document it. Like it or not, he will not be touched by this, and indeed is sufficiently (and justifiably) confident simply to ignore the case, which will perhaps end in a few warnings to MM, G-Dett. Personally, I don't care to 'get' Jayjg. I just wish someone with a creative temperament could come forth with some ruling that would enable us to edit I/P pages without this collective catenaccio stonewalling, led of course by Jayjg. But that is improbable. In the meantime, we have lost very good, book-reading editors, User:Eleland, User:Ashley kennedy3, User:Tiamut, while some of them have been elected to administration. That's the lie of the land.Don't be discouraged by the negative result.Nishidani (talk) 15:55, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Note

Heyo Nickhh,
I've noticed you've posted some notes at the /Workshop page but, I'm thinking that you need to either present the signature at each section or just leave the section unsigned as it's title clearly states these to be your proposals.
Happy Purim, Jaakobou 09:06, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

You may for once be right about something .. (these kind of things are never that clear) --Nickhh (talk) 17:02, 13 March 2009 (UTC)