Subject: RfM From: SlimVirgin Date: Thu, 6 Jul 2006 03:46:15 GMT To: KimvdLinde

Hi Kim,

I saw your comment on the RfM about admins. Which admins have been
using their admin tools in this dispute? The only one I'm aware of is
Homeontherange when he blocked Zeq on May 29 and May 30 over some
issue at [[Israeli apartheid]], but you said admins plural. Have there been
other incidents?

Sarah

Subject: Re: RfM From: Kim van der Linde Date: Thu, 06 Jul 2006 00:17:21 -0400 To: SlimVirgin

Hi Sarah,

I am talking about Humus Sapiens.

He could move the article only because he was an admin, as the already 
existing  "Allegations of Israeli apartheid" page needed to be removed, 
resulting in this default edit summary (Deleted to make way for move.) see 
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=&user=Humus+sapiens&page=Allegations+of+Israeli+apartheid

Furthermore, I find his action regarding Bhouston on the 3RR questionable,
and he should have left it to another editor who is not involved in the wide 
ranging content dispute covering many middleeasteren articles to make the 
block, if at all (I will review the case myself in a letter moment). This just has 
increased the tension, whether right or not.

Kim

-- 
http://www.kimvdlinde.com

Subject: Re: RfM From: Sarah Date: Wed, 5 Jul 2006 23:30:48 -0500 To: "Kim van der Linde"

Thanks, Kim.

I'm not familiar with the BHouston involvement in this. I deliberately
kept away from most parts of the dispute because it seemed so chaotic,
and I'm full of admiration for you for trying to tackle it as a
mediator. I tried to edit Israeli apartheid between June 24 and 27,
but got beaten back and largely gave up. It comes to something when
even grammatical corrections are being reverted. :-)

I wonder whether it even registered with Humus that he was using an
admin tool. I suspect not. Anyway, I hope we can draw a line in the
sand regarding what's gone on so far and just try to find a sensible
compromise without casting blame on either side. I know it'll be hard
because I think there's been a lot of bad feeling, but the only way to
make progress is to concentrate on the content.

Thanks for your additions to the RfM page and for notifying the extra
people. I wasn't sure who to include, so I just included people named
on the RfAr and people who had moved the page at any point.  Homey is
annoyed because I included Zeq, but I couldn't see any reason to
exclude him, and I think it's probably up to the individual whether to
add their names ultimately.

Sarah

Subject: Re: RfM From: Kim van der Linde Date: Thu, 06 Jul 2006 01:07:09 -0400 To: Sarah

> I'm not familiar with the BHouston involvement in this.


He is involved, and generally at the opposite side as Humus etc.

> I deliberately kept away from most parts of the dispute because it
> seemed so chaotic, and I'm full of admiration for you for trying to
> tackle it as a mediator. I tried to edit Israeli apartheid between
> June 24 and 27, but got beaten back and largely gave up. It comes to
> something when even grammatical corrections are being reverted. :-)


I have seen it, but not experienced it as I have not edited the article
much beyond my informal mediator stuff.

> I wonder whether it even registered with Humus that he was using an admin tool. I suspect not.


You and I as admins know darn well that if you want to move a page to a
name that already exists, that you get a second screen in which you are
asked explicitly if you want to delete the existing target page. As
such, he was darn well aware.

> Anyway, I hope we can draw a line in the sand regarding what's gone
> on so far and just try to find a sensible compromise without casting
> blame on either side.


Well, [[WP:AGF]], [[WP:CIVIL]] and [[WP:NPA]] are out of the window
already for a long time as far as I can see, and it will take a lot of
effort to fix this.

> I know it'll be hard because I think there's been a lot of bad
> feeling, but the only way to make progress is to concentrate on the
> content.


Yes, I agree, and that is why the mediation case should be steered away
from the title, that will follow logically from the content when that is
settled. But even before there can be real progress on the content, many 
of the policies need to be clarified for many involved :-( I do not see the 
mediation is going to fly anyway, as the bad blood is just to intense. I 
actually think arbitration is the only way out in this case (and I only see 
that as a very very last resort).

> Thanks for your additions to the RfM page and for notifying the extra
>  people. I wasn't sure who to include, so I just included people
> named on the RfAr and people who had moved the page at any point.
> Homey is annoyed because I included Zeq, but I couldn't see any
> reason to exclude him, and I think it's probably up to the individual
> whether to add their names ultimately.


To be honest, Zeq is not really involved in the current dispute, he
voices his opinion, but has been a lot better in dealing with people
recently than he has before. You could have left Zeq of, because he 
would have added himself anyway, and that would have avoided you 
a dispute with Homey.

I will probably notify some additional people in a latter stage, this list is 
not complete yet.

Kim
-- 
http://www.kimvdlinde.com

Subject: Re: RfM From: Sarah Date: Thu, 6 Jul 2006 00:20:08 -0500 To: "Kim van der Linde"

On 7/6/06, Kim van der Linde  wrote:

> > I wonder whether it even registered with Humus that he was using an
> > admin tool. I suspect not.
>
> You and I as admins know darn well that if you want to move a page to a
> name that already exists, that you get a second screen in which you are
> asked explicitly if you want to delete the existing target page. As
> such, he was darn well aware.


I still think it may not have fully registered. When I think of page
moves, I don't think of admin tools, even though you're right that
sometimes we do have to use admin tools to move.

>
> > Anyway, I hope we can draw a line in the sand regarding what's gone
> > on so far and just try to find a sensible compromise without casting
> > blame on either side.
>
> Well, [[WP:AGF]], [[WP:CIVIL]] and [[WP:NPA]] are out of the window
> already for a long time as far as I can see, and it will take a lot of
> effort to fix this.


Yes, but I think most of the people on the list are capable of being
civil and acting in good faith. Maybe a minority aren't, but they can
hopefully be persuaded by a civil atmosphere to behave in the same
way.

>
> > I know it'll be hard because I think there's been a lot of bad
> > feeling, but the only way to make progress is to concentrate on the
> > content.
>
> Yes, I agree, and that is why the mediation case should be steered away
> from the title, that will follow logically from the content when that is
> settled. But even before there can be real progress on the content, many
> of the policies need to be clarified for many involved :-(


Which policies exactly are the biggest problems (content policies, not
behavior), and which parts of the content policies? (Only if it's not
too much trouble for you to explain; if it is, just ignore, because I
suspect you're sick and tired of explaining these things.)

> I do not see
> the mediation is going to fly anyway, as the bad blood is just to
> intense. I actually think arbitration is the only way out in this case
> (and I only see that as a very very last resort).


Can you say who the main bad-blood players are on both sides?

>
> > Thanks for your additions to the RfM page and for notifying the extra
> >  people. I wasn't sure who to include, so I just included people
> > named on the RfAr and people who had moved the page at any point.
> > Homey is annoyed because I included Zeq, but I couldn't see any
> > reason to exclude him, and I think it's probably up to the individual
> > whether to add their names ultimately.
>
> To be honest, Zeq is not really involved in the current dispute, he
> voices his opinion, but has been a lot better in dealing with people
> recently than he has before. You could have left Zeq of, because he
> would have added himself anyway, and that would have avoided you a
> dispute with Homey.


Yes, you're right. I should have done that.

>
> I will probably notify some additional people in a latter stage, this
> list is not complete yet.


Thank you.

Subject: Re: RfM From: Kim van der Linde Date: Thu, 06 Jul 2006 02:09:24 -0400 To:Sarah

> Yes, but I think most of the people on the list are capable of being
> civil and acting in good faith. Maybe a minority aren't, but they can
> hopefully be persuaded by a civil atmosphere to behave in the same
> way.


I think they are capable of it, but they are just not doing it.

> Which policies exactly are the biggest problems (content policies, not
> behavior), and which parts of the content policies? (Only if it's not
> too much trouble for you to explain; if it is, just ignore, because I
> suspect you're sick and tired of explaining these things.)


WP:ISNOT: Soapboxing.

WP:NOR: there is a lot of original interpretation going on. At the very basis, is 
this term only used as an allegation or not. Nobody has provided a source 
that provided a solid analysis fullfilling WP:RS for that.

WP:NPOV: From both sides actually. Basically, highlighting or reducing the 
importance of the term. This includes selective inclusion and removal of sections, 
sentences etc., but also through the usage of specific qualifiers without sourcing that.

WP:RS: Disputes about which links are RS, but also selective usage of links to 
promote their own views and denying the other side to use the same or 
equivalent links (sometimes even of better quality). Lack of symmetry I would call it.

>> I do not see
>> the mediation is going to fly anyway, as the bad blood is just to
>> intense. I actually think arbitration is the only way out in this case
>> (and I only see that as a very very last resort).
>
>
> Can you say who the main bad-blood players are on both sides?


To be honest, I prefer not to go into scapegoating at the moment, and keep it general.

Kim
-- 
http://www.kimvdlinde.com

Subject: Re: RfM From: Sarah Date: Thu, 6 Jul 2006 01:37:50 -0500 To: "Kim van der Linde"

On 7/6/06, Kim van der Linde  wrote:

> > Yes, but I think most of the people on the list are capable of being
> > civil and acting in good faith. Maybe a minority aren't, but they can
> > hopefully be persuaded by a civil atmosphere to behave in the same
> > way.
>
> I think they are capable of it, but they are just not doing it.
>
> > Which policies exactly are the biggest problems (content policies, not
> > behavior), and which parts of the content policies? (Only if it's not
> > too much trouble for you to explain; if it is, just ignore, because I
> > suspect you're sick and tired of explaining these things.)
>
> WP:ISNOT: Soapboxing.
>
> WP:NOR: there is a lot of original interpretation going on. At the very
> basis, is this term only used as an allegation or not. Nobody has
> provided a source that provided a solid analysis fullfilling WP:RS for that.


The approach I take when I'm dealing with these terms is to
concentrate on two things.

1) Is the term the subject of study in academic literature? Are there
books and papers named after it written by academics? Two examples of
titles that some feel refer to something, and others feel are merely
phrases: [[New anti-Semitism]] and [[Islamofascism]]. The former is
written about widely by academics, and there are lots of books and
papers. The latter is not written about by academics at all, and
should therefore be called [[Islamofascism (term)]], and it was for
some time, but sadly when I last checked had movedf back to just the
word. This was a great shame, and we lost at least one good editor
because of it.

2) When good newspapers use the term, do they always or usually put it
in quotations marks? Do they talk about Israeli apartheid, or "Israeli
apartheid"  (or Israeli "apartheid"). If they do, they are distancing
themselves from the term, and so should we.

>
> WP:NPOV: From both sides actually. Basically, highlighting or reducing
> the importance of the term. This includes selective inclusion and
> removal of sections, sentences etc., but also through the usage of
> specific qualifiers without sourcing that.


Yes.

>
> WP:RS: Disputes about which links are RS, but also selective usage of
> links to promote their own views and denying the other side to use the
> same or equivalent links (sometimes even of better quality). Lack of
> symmetry I would call it.


Lack of symmetry is a good way of putting it.  As soon as one side
does it, the other side feels they have to do it too, just to keep up.
Also, it can be done unconsciously.

>
> >> I do not see
> >> the mediation is going to fly anyway, as the bad blood is just to
> >> intense. I actually think arbitration is the only way out in this case
> >> (and I only see that as a very very last resort).
> >
> > Can you say who the main bad-blood players are on both sides?
>
> To be honest, I prefer not to go into scapegoating at the moment, and
> keep it general.
>
Fair enough. I wasn't thinking of scapegoating, but of trying to see
if I could find a way through the morass. I know who I think two or
three of the bad-faith editors are (in my view), but I do still think
that most (and perhaps all) will act decently if a resolution looks
likely.

ChrisO suggested splitting the pages up into an article on the use of
the term Israeli apartheid, and another on the substantive issue of
whether or not there is discrimination, but with a less provocative
title. That might work.

Sarah

Subject: Re: RfM From: Kim van der Linde Date: Thu, 06 Jul 2006 03:09:38 -0400 To: Sarah

>> WP:NOR: there is a lot of original interpretation going on. At the very
>> basis, is this term only used as an allegation or not. Nobody has
>> provided a source that provided a solid analysis fullfilling WP:RS for that.
>
>
>
> The approach I take when I'm dealing with these terms is to
> concentrate on two things.
>
> 1) Is the term the subject of study in academic literature? Are there
> books and papers named after it written by academics? Two examples of
> titles that some feel refer to something, and others feel are merely
> phrases: [[New anti-Semitism]] and [[Islamofascism]]. The former is
> written about widely by academics, and there are lots of books and
> papers. The latter is not written about by academics at all, and
> should therefore be called [[Islamofascism (term)]], and it was for
> some time, but sadly when I last checked had movedf back to just the
> word. This was a great shame, and we lost at least one good editor
> because of it.
>
> 2) When good newspapers use the term, do they always or usually put it
> in quotations marks? Do they talk about Israeli apartheid, or "Israeli
> apartheid"  (or Israeli "apartheid"). If they do, they are distancing
> themselves from the term, and so should we.


I agree with most, except the usage of disambig parentheses. The title 
should be as shortt as possible, the text should clarify. If we start with 
using them ad librium, thousants of pages need to be renamed.

>> To be honest, I prefer not to go into scapegoating at the moment, and
>> keep it general.
>>
> Fair enough. I wasn't thinking of scapegoating, but of trying to see
> if I could find a way through the morass. I know who I think two or
> three of the bad-faith editors are (in my view), but I do still think
> that most (and perhaps all) will act decently if a resolution looks
> likely.


Who are the 2/3 in your view?

> ChrisO suggested splitting the pages up into an article on the use of
> the term Israeli apartheid, and another on the substantive issue of
> whether or not there is discrimination, but with a less provocative
> title. That might work.


This solution has already a large judgement in itself, and I am not sure 
that it will hold. I think the title thinking is just going to result in many 
small POV articles, dealing with specific subtopics and aspects. I think 
it has to start with content thinking, and willingness to actually respect 
what is out there in the world.

Kim


-- 
http://www.kimvdlinde.com

Subject: Re: RfM From: Sarah Date: Thu, 6 Jul 2006 02:29:05 -0500 To: "Kim van der Linde"

On 7/6/06, Kim van der Linde  wrote:

> >> WP:NOR: there is a lot of original interpretation going on. At the very
> >> basis, is this term only used as an allegation or not. Nobody has
> >> provided a source that provided a solid analysis fullfilling WP:RS for
> >> that.
> >
> >
> > The approach I take when I'm dealing with these terms is to
> > concentrate on two things.
> >
> > 1) Is the term the subject of study in academic literature? Are there
> > books and papers named after it written by academics? Two examples of
> > titles that some feel refer to something, and others feel are merely
> > phrases: [[New anti-Semitism]] and [[Islamofascism]]. The former is
> > written about widely by academics, and there are lots of books and
> > papers. The latter is not written about by academics at all, and
> > should therefore be called [[Islamofascism (term)]], and it was for
> > some time, but sadly when I last checked had movedf back to just the
> > word. This was a great shame, and we lost at least one good editor
> > because of it.
> >
> > 2) When good newspapers use the term, do they always or usually put it
> > in quotations marks? Do they talk about Israeli apartheid, or "Israeli
> > apartheid"  (or Israeli "apartheid"). If they do, they are distancing
> > themselves from the term, and so should we.
>
> I agree with most, except the usage of disambig parentheses. The title
> should be as shortt as possible, the text should clarify. If we start
> with using them ad librium, thousants of pages need to be renamed.
>
> >> To be honest, I prefer not to go into scapegoating at the moment, and
> >> keep it general.
> >>
> > Fair enough. I wasn't thinking of scapegoating, but of trying to see
> > if I could find a way through the morass. I know who I think two or
> > three of the bad-faith editors are (in my view), but I do still think
> > that most (and perhaps all) will act decently if a resolution looks
> > likely.
>
> Who are the 2/3 in your view?


The two who I know thrive on conflict are Xed and Homeontherange. Xed
in particular is very troublesome, though I think he could be a good
editor if he tried, but he seems to be unable to stop being
provocative, and is sometimes a very bad editor, perhaps deliberately.
Zeq can be a nuisance but he means well. There's one other I'm not
sure of yet, and there are others I don't know at all.

>
> > ChrisO suggested splitting the pages up into an article on the use of
> > the term Israeli apartheid, and another on the substantive issue of
> > whether or not there is discrimination, but with a less provocative
> > title. That might work.
>
> This solution has already a large judgement in itself, and I am not sure
> that it will hold. I think the title thinking is just going to result in
> many small POV articles, dealing with specific subtopics and aspects. I
> think it has to start with content thinking, and willingness to actually
> respect what is out there in the world.
>
Yes, but that goes to the heart of the issue. What IS out there in the
world? What we think is acceptable for inclusion boils down to which
sources we use, which in turn boils down to how high our standards
are, and how well we understand the content policies. Those things
vary enormously between editors.

Sarah

Subject: Re: RfM From: Sarah Date: Thu, 6 Jul 2006 02:45:21 -0500 To: "Kim van der Linde"

Actually, I want to qualify what I said about Zeq meaning well. I do
think he means well in terms of content. However, he created an
article about Homey's real-life persona, and then pretended it was a
cooincidence. That was completely unacceptable and, to be honest, he
should have been banned for it.

Sarah

Subject: Re: RfM From: Kim van der Linde Date: Thu, 06 Jul 2006 10:30:41 -0400 To: Sarah

I think we agree on Zeq being a nuisance, only because he can not edit the 
article in the first place. He displays a very strong POV, but in his defense, 
he has improved a lot with regard to addressing more the content and less 
the editors, and I see way less ad hominems etc from him.

Homeontherange is a major problem, I think everybody will agree on that.

Xed is a relative small player in this dispute, not a major problem maker.

Kim

-- 
http://www.kimvdlinde.com

Subject: Re: RfM From: Sarah Date: Thu, 6 Jul 2006 22:21:32 -0500 To: "Kim van der Linde"

Kim, the medcom has suggested we split the list of parties into the
major and minor players. I'm not able to do that because I don't know
who they were.

Who would you say the major players were -- not just in Israeli
apartheid, but in the dispute overall?

Sarah

Subject: Re: RfM From: Kim van der Linde Date: Thu, 06 Jul 2006 23:25:32 -0400 To: Sarah

Hummm, does this also imply that major player have more voice in deciding 
things versus minor players? Or is this only to decide who have to rspond to 
the request for mediation?

Kim

Subject: Re: RfM From: Sarah Date: Thu, 6 Jul 2006 22:41:17 -0500 To: "Kim van der Linde"

No, it won't give anyone a bigger voice than anyone else. That's not
how mediation works. The mediator will constantly be seeking middle
ground and policy adherance. The ones trying to have a big voice will
find themselves given short shrift.

Can you say who the main  players were?  I can find out for myself by
going through the edit histories but it will take me hours.

Sarah

Subject: Re: RfM From: Kim van der Linde Date: Fri, 07 Jul 2006 00:09:08 -0400 To: Sarah

I made two lists, as requested.

Kim

Subject: Re: RfM From: Sarah Date: Thu, 6 Jul 2006 23:15:28 -0500 To: "Kim van der Linde"

Please do the list on the talk page instead until we reach agreement.
I've put out several requests for the information.

Subject: Re: RfM From: Sarah Date: Fri, 7 Jul 2006 14:23:54 -0500 To: "Kim van der Linde"

Kim, I've just noticed that you said you don't want to take part in
the mediation. What happened? I thought you were all in favor of it?

Subject: Re: RfM From: Kim van der Linde Date: Fri, 07 Jul 2006 15:56:00 -0400 To: Sarah

We discussed this already yesterday evening: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_mediation#Issues_to_be_mediated 
and I would recommend that you read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/Guide 
which states: If you are a party to the mediation other than the party 
that initiated it, and you agree to mediate, add any issues that have 
not been included to the section marked "Additional issues to mediate."

Cheers,

Kim

Subject: Re: RfM From: Sarah Date: Fri, 7 Jul 2006 15:03:01 -0500 To: "Kim van der Linde"

You've misunderstood what that section is for. It is simply to give
the mediator an idea of what's involved. The issues to be mediated
will be decided when the mediation begins, not beforehand.

You keep saying it's content, but without specifying. So now that
section says it's content and titles. I don't see what the problem is.
What is missing?

Are you saying you will try to prevent others from taking part in a
mediation that you will anyway not be part of, simply because you
didn't get your own way over some unimportant wording?

Forgive me, but that is the kind of attitude that caused this mess in
the first place.

Please take a deep breath and try to be part of the solution here, not
the problem. Please be flexible. We need to get this moving fast,
while everyone is in the mood for it. Several people have made
concrete suggestions for how to tackle the substantive issues. Most of
the major players have signed up for it. There is a push to move
forward and ditch the old attitudes. I think it can be sorted out.
Please be a part of it.

Sarah

Subject: Re: RfM From: Kim van der Linde Date: Fri, 07 Jul 2006 18:30:29 -0400 To: Sarah

You made your point of view very clear to me. Thanks.

Kim

Subject: Re: RfM From: Sarah Date: Fri, 7 Jul 2006 17:38:05 -0500 To: "Kim van der Linde"

Kim, please don't play games. What is the problem exactly, as you see
it?  You keep saying that the dispute is about content. Of course it
is. Most, if not all, article disputes are about content. But you
don't give any more detail than that. It's also about titles, and
about which articles should exist, and which should be sections, and
so on. And it's about the personalities, and people having a different
understanding of the policies. The mediator, if we ever get one, will
hear everyone's opinion.

In fact, most of the dispute is about intransigence, about people not
willing to bend. As someone who tried to be a mediator, I'm finding it
hard to believe that you would try to sabotage mediation, which is the
only chance we have of resolving things.

We don't need your agreement, because you say you were there as a
mediator and not as an editor, but it would be good to have you on
board, because you have a good grasp of the issues and you made
constructive suggestions.

So please tell me exactly what the problem is, so that I can try to fix it.

Sarah