Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Allegations of apartheid/Workshop

A note to everyone participating here (but some editors in particular—you know who you are):

The Committee does not decide content disputes. The Committee will not decide the content dispute here for you. Not even if you ask nicely. Not even if you insist that we have to. Please, don't clutter up the already convoluted workshop page with pointless requests that we do so.

Kirill 13:37, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

This is a page for working on Arbitration decisions. The Arbitrators, parties to the case, and other editors may draft proposals and post them to this page for review and comments. Proposals may include proposed general principles, findings of fact, remedies, and enforcement provisions—the same format as is used in Arbitration Committee decisions. The bottom of the page may be used for overall analysis of the /Evidence and for general discussion of the case.

Any user may edit this workshop page. Please sign all suggestions and comments. Arbitrators will place proposed items they believe should be part of the final decision on the /Proposed decision page, which only Arbitrators may edit, for voting.

Motions and requests by the parties

Additional parties

1) The following users are added as parties to the case: to be determined

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Support. Most of the regular editors of the pages in questions are not part of the core situation, which is WP:POINT and all-or-nothingism in the AfDs. The list should be expanded to include these people, as it would be extremely unjust to not make them involved in a proceeding that could potentially affect them. --Cerejota 05:59, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Sm8900 has made a WP:CANVASS call to arms, and while very tangential to the core issues, by engaging in this behavior should be included. I second ChrisO's list, but include him, because he is deeply involved. And Jossi, you saying you are not deeply involved is pretty much untrue: you are in fact as central a party as I am.--Cerejota 23:58, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Ideogram's list of parties is quite minimal compared to the extent of this dispute, so I think more people should be added as parties to the case. In particular, users ChrisO (talk · contribs), Jossi (talk · contribs), Lothar of the Hill People (talk · contribs), and Leifern (talk · contribs) seem active on the talk pages and deletion discussions, and the first two on this very workshop. Are there any other users that people feel are significantly involved in the dispute? Note that being added as a party isn't an accusation or indictment of any sort, it merely lists you as a user who has been significantly involved. Picaroon (t) 23:38, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Looking at the evidence of who has been active, I would suggest adding 6SJ7 (talk · contribs), Humus sapiens (talk · contribs), IronDuke (talk · contribs), Tewfik (talk · contribs) and Tickle me (talk · contribs). I would also add the nominators of the various deletions, namely G-Dett (talk · contribs), Cuchullain (talk · contribs), Paris By Night (talk · contribs) and Bleh999 (talk · contribs). Finally, I would add all the creators of the disputed articles - Briangotts (talk · contribs), Chesdovi (talk · contribs), Theo F (talk · contribs) should complete that category. -- ChrisO 00:36, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I do not consider myself part on this dispute. Yes, I commented in a few AfDs, and yes, I researched material for the now defunct Chinese apartheid article (now moved to the Human rights in the People's Republic of China, but that does not make me party. I am one of hundreds of editors that have engaged in discussions about the subject, or edited one of the related articles. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:57, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

If for no other reason, ChrisO should be added as the person who closed the AfD for Allegations of American apartheid, and deleted the article, after involving himself in this overall dispute. 6SJ7 03:32, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

ChrisO is clearly deeply involved, as he was in the last arbcom case. It's amazing that neither he or user:G-Dett is listed in this case. <<-armon->> 03:44, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Clerk note: The Clerk will await instructions from Arbitrators before adding additional parties to the case. However, in addition to the official parties, anyone who commented at the acceptance stage (comments now located on the case talkpage) was notifed when the case was opened. Anyone listing an editor in this section who has not previously commented on the case, and therefore may not be aware of it, should provide a courtesy notification to that editor. Newyorkbrad 01:05, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

For the record, given the perception of some that I am "heavily involved" or that I forfeited my duties as an admin, I would not object to be added as a party. I want my name cleared of that nonsense. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:11, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

The idea that listing someone as a party has some particular official standing is a bit false. Ultimately, the arbitrators will look at the evidence and if they make decision proposals involving editors who have not been previously informed of their potential involvement, they will be informed and given a chance to respond. Wrangling over designation as a "party" has, in past cases, generally added more heat than light to the Arbitrators' understanding of the case. I suggest that participants in this case should add evidence of disruptive behavior as they see fit. If they add evidence against someone who has not previously been informed of the case, it would be common courtesy to notify them so they had a chance to respond. Thatcher131 14:15, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Anonymous comments

3) Do not allow any comments on this page from anonymous users. (Semi-protection ?)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. I believe that the anonymous contribs here are from known users (involved ?If not, every person coming to that page is used to WP system, and hence must have an account), and that hiding behind an IP address will not help to solve our problems. Good willingness (honesty ?) is the only way to sort this out. NicDumZ ~ 20:57, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Weak Oppose. We have a procedure for dealing with this that should remain independent of ArbCom. However, if ArbCom wants to rule on this, no problem.--Cerejota 23:42, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Hiding behind IP addresses? It's not like I can look up "NicDumZ" in the phone book either you know. -- 67.98.206.2 21:09, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes. But when I read ChrisO's or Jayjg's comments, I know what were their actions and sides in the debates. When I read your comment, I don't. (Well I "sort of" know who you are : Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/67.98.206.2, but using one account would be easier and more honest.) (Please move my answer to parties comments if answering here is not allowed. Thanks.) NicDumZ ~ 21:20, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough, but enacting semi-protection isn't going to solve your perceived problem, and only deprive ArbCom of further comments from me. -- 67.98.206.2 21:41, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely not. Does not signing in make your argument automatically invalid? A point is a point is a point; who brings it forward is irrelevant. Sean William @ 21:46, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

NickDumZ, the fact that you assumed that IP addresses are automatically unfamiliar with Wikipedia is in itself an assumption of bad faith. We've got editors with static MAC addresses who have been using the same IP for years, and don't have an account. Sean William @ 21:52, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Well it may be a mistake, but not really bad faith: There are exceptions, agreed, but most of the IP-editing users eventually create an account. IP addresses are not taken into account for AfD votes, that's why I made that proposal... ?! NicDumZ ~ 21:58, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

If there is no policy against comments by IP's (and I am assuming from this conversation that there is not), it wouldn't be reasonable to create one just for this case. However, I do think the rest of us have a right to know if we are dealing with someone who has been involved with these same articles in the past, under a "real" user name. When I read some of the comments by the pair of IP's who have posted on this page (but have been identified as being the same individual), I get a very strong feeling that the writer is not new to this controversy. I realize that even if the ArbCom made this request, there would probably be no way to enforce it if the person has hidden his/her tracks well enough... but since we are all acting in good faith here, we don't have to be concerned about things like enforcement, right? 6SJ7 22:10, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

We can act in good faith and assume good faith as well. If there are editors that for any reason prefer to comment anonymously, so be it. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:12, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Oppose per Sean William. Arbitration workshops are not a vote, so who cares who brings up an argument? The argument or proposal is the thing that counts, not the person who submits it. The arbitrators will eventually decide, not the anons posting on this page. Melsaran 12:44, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Template

4)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed temporary injunctions

Moratorium

1) A moratorium is requested on the creation of further "allegations of apartheid" articles, for the duration of this arbitration, to avoid the dispute spreading any further than it already has.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Certainly a voluntary undertaking on the part of all parties would be seen as a gesture of good faith. Mackensen (talk) 19:59, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Object. We are here to discuss behavioral issues, not content issues. Any limits put by ArbCom on the community's ability to freely edit goes against the spirit of wikipedia itself, and furthermore, would be unmanageable. I am providing a countre-proposal Thanks!--Cerejota 04:29, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

John Nagle, if you want context to my edit summary, please quote the accompanying talk page chatter. This was not done in a vaccum, and luckly most of the people seem to have have AGF and seen a certain humor in it. And it actually got people talking in positive directions.--Cerejota 06:10, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Requested. -- ChrisO 18:59, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps. Most users are sensible enough to realize that creation of such articles at this time would be unwise, so I don't think a formal moratorium is needed. Sean William @ 19:10, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

That implies that there would be some sort of penalty for creating more such articles while the arbitration is running. However, I don't think it would do any harm for the ArbCom to draw a temporary line in the meantime. -- ChrisO 19:18, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Not needed. If more "Allegations of XXX apartheid" articles show up, it is only because of the inherent source of the dispute. Let it fester. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:20, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Bear in mind that the charge is that these "Allegations of XXX apartheid" articles were systematically created as POV forks/POINT violations in response to failures to delete Allegations of Israeli apartheid, the article which I assume you mean is "the inherent source of the dispute." This assumes that the creation of such articles is a logical response to AoIa's continued existence. "Letting it fester" isn't advisable in the circumstances. -- ChrisO 19:32, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I do not think that we can afford to put our heads in the sand. There is a reason for this fracas. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:34, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes. One side believes that WP:IAR includes ignoring WP:POINT and creating deliberately POV articles to in the end effect the greater good of deleting a single POV article; while the other side thinks creating deliberately POV articles is inherently harmful per se to the encyclopedia and should be a disallowed strategy. WAS 4.250 19:54, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Support but as Mackensen says this really ought to happen by itself. MartinDK 21:15, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Support, but should include AfDs and DRVs as well. 72.131.60.56 23:11, 12 August 2007 (UTC) That was me, somehow I wasn't logged in. Kwsn(Ni!) 02:30, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Question/comment: Does that mean that there will also be a moratorium on merges of the involved articles into other articles? I believe there are moves currently underway on both the France and Saudi Arabia articles in this regard. Nothing wrong with discussions, I am just talking about the actual merges. If there is going to be a moratorium, let it apply to everyone. 6SJ7 03:50, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Why should the proposed moratorium extend to merges? Merges are going in the right direction. The creation of more articles is going in the wrong direction. The two do not equate. Picaroon (t) 04:00, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

In this case, the behavioral issue is the creation of multiple "Allegations" articles to make a point; therefore, labeling this a "content issue", as Cerejota does above, is inaccurate. I don't think anything formal is necessary, but going out and creating more "Allegations of apartheid" articles while this case is ongoing would look quite a bit like bad faith. MastCell ^Talk 18:58, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

There's currently a move war going on with respect to the articles involved. Suggest a temporary injunction rolling back moves and renames to the beginning of this arbitration, and holding the article names and redirects in that state pending the outcome of the arbitration. I'm concerned that there may be an attempt to create "facts on the ground" during the arbitration process, as happened during the 2006 arbitration. --John Nagle 21:35, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I think you may be mis-characterizing what is happening. There is a civil and constructive debate at that article's talk page (Talk:Allegations_of_Israeli_apartheid) and progress is being made. No move war at all... ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:04, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I think his characterization is quite clear. The point of this section is a proposal that and any other page should be left as is for now. You and a tiny handful of people re-hashing alternate names is counter-productive to this and is certainly not reflective of anything approaching consensus or "progress". Tarc 22:12, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

You are mistaken again, the request for a moratorium is for the creation of further "allegations of apartheid" articles, and does not preclude continuing a debate about the existing articles, agreeing on moves, editing, merging discussions, etc. See Picaroon's comments above. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:35, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Looks like you need to re-read it then, as that comment was about merging, not moving. Moving articles, especially the one at the epicenter of all of this, and one that has had some seriously contentious move wars in the past, would be a show of extremely bad faith in the face of all this. Tarc 13:19, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

There were four moves of Allegations of Israeli apartheid on August 13th:

• 20:41, 13 August 2007 BrandonYusufToropov (Talk | contribs) m (moved Apartheid debate in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict to Allegations of Israeli apartheid over redirect: Some admin please step in here -- non-consensus moves at INSTANT consensus for new title is under discussion)
• 20:39, 13 August 2007 Sefringle m (moved Allegations of Israeli apartheid to Apartheid debate in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict over redirect)
• 20:38, 13 August 2007 BrandonYusufToropov m (moved Apartheid debate in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict to Allegations of Israeli apartheid over redirect: per talk page)
• 20:27, 13 August 2007 Cerejota m (moved Allegations of Israeli apartheid to Apartheid debate in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict: Lets push things forward!!! BOLD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! This is Madness? THIS IS SPARTAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!)

Yes, those are the real edit comments. A temporary injunction against renaming and moving would be appropriate. --John Nagle 16:05, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Just in case anyone besides me got confused by seeing a reverse-chronological-order sequence outside of the setting of an edit history, I just want to point out that the above listed events are in reverse chronological order. And lest anyone draw an incorrect inference from the move of this article, I also want to point out the person initiating the move, Cerejota, is not one of the people who has favored deleting the article or merging it into some other article, in fact he has consistently opposed these proposals. 6SJ7 18:02, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I have to correct a serious factual inaccuracy above. This is not, in fact, SPARTAAAAAAAAAAAA - this is WIKIPEDIAAAAAAAAAAAA. Hope that helps. ;-) -- ChrisO 07:59, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Agree that we should strongly urge parties to agree to stop baiting each other, i.e. proponents of "apartheid articles" will stop creating them and opponents will focus their efforts here and wait for results of arbitration. Anyone who does not agree should be cautioned that their continued squabbling in the face of an arbitration demonstrates an unwillingness to resolve things through proper procedures. However, as much as I find them frivolous and distasteful I oppose a project-wide ban on creation of new apartheid articles because there could well be a situation where allegations that make comparisons between discrimination somewhere and South African Apartheid are real and notable, and not just some POV pushing by editors here. I simply can't categorically rule that out.Wikidemo 06:13, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, guess what. Early this morning (or last evening, U.S. time) the article Allegations of French apartheid was merged out of existence, based on a highly dubious close of a merge request in which 9 people participated, and contrary to the results of the AfD in which more than 60 people participated. See [1] and my comments below the closed discussion. There was clearly no consensus for this merge if the comments were read correctly, and if comments on Talk:Allegations of French apartheid were taken into account, there may well have been a majority opposed to the merge of this one article by itself. So much for a "gesture of good faith." 6SJ7 18:07, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

It would appear that that merge proposal began approximately one week before this arbcom case was accepted, and ran its course til just last night. Unfortunate timing, but it seems to fall outside of the present case and proposal, although you certainly could have stepped in and requested a suspension. Tarc 19:43, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Speedy consideration of possible WP:POINT

2) ArbCom will immediately accept any "Allegations of XXX" page that is created during this RfAr as part of the proceedings. It will also accept any new parties that might emerge as having behavioral issues during further editing of the involved pages, even if previously not involved. It will allow the community to continue to seek consensus as to the actual contents of the pages, and mergers, AfDs, and other such procedures will be allowed as part of the community process.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Requested. This is intended to replace Injunction motion 1--Cerejota 04:35, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

1) this intended to replace the motion above 2) I ask specifically that editing be allowed and encouraged to continue. I will strike the other parts per your comment--Cerejota 02:10, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

If new articles are created that fact should be noted on the evidence page for the Arbitrators to consider, as should behavior by editors not previously named that is related to this dispute. The Arbitrators are not limited by the initial request so there is no reason for a formal motion to expand the scope of the case. Thatcher131 14:19, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Users engaging in canvassing are strongly censured

3) Sm8900 (talk · contribs) has cross-posted a highly partisan "call to arms" at WikiProject Israel, the noticeboard for Israel-related topics, and WikiProject Jewish History, in clear violation of both WP:CANVASS and WP:BATTLE. I request that he be strongly censured, that an injunction against any further canvassing by all parties be issued, enforceable as needed, and that this conduct be taken into account in these proceedings.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Support. This goes hand-in-hand with WP:POINT and specially WP:BATTLE. I am also joining the user to the list of proposed parties. This is an egregious violation of good faith, and pretty much the spirit and the word of WP:NPOV. I do not edit wikipedia to fight partisan battles, but to build an encyclopedia. This "call to arms" stands against everything we should stand for. --Cerejota 23:51, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree censure is too light. ArbCom should act swiftly, remove the notices and put the user on parole, without delay.--Cerejota 03:51, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

• • User:Sm8900 edits WP for less than a year and has never been blocked. From his contributions and discussions I've seen, I saw that he tried to build consensus and generally was a voice of moderation in that corner of WP. Yes, canvassing is wrong, but please take into consideration that members' views on these projects vary wildly. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 10:40, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

• • • I am all for not biting. In fact, as you can sit in the edit history of WP:BITE, I advocate letting people go the first time they violate policy, as a matter of principle. But it is not the action of canvassing, some much of the sentiment and intent of the canvass that worry me. I am sure, off-wiki, a lot of people in both sides are emailing back and forth etc. Canvassing is inevitable. However, to use wikipedia as a battleground to inflame partisan divisions and impose political debates and language?

At best this was a serious lapse of judgment, so a parole should be sufficient. But ArbCom must send a strong signal of condemnation, lest the lapses spread to other editors. Furthermore, the subject - this ArbCom - being canvassed about, has been widely posted in ALL of the relevant pages by a neutral, uninvolved party, so there was no need to insert a further - inflammatory - notice into the mix. In fact, I wonder how a lightly involved editor found out about the arbcom in the first place, perhaps because newyorkbrad's postings? Couldn't he allow other editors to find out in the same fashion? Why throw more fuel into the fire? Why the need to engage editors that had shown no previous interest in developing consensus on the article itself? Why keep on turning wikipedia into a battlefield?--Cerejota 02:39, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed/requested. Talk about gasoline on the flames... even assuming the best possible faith, this represents a horrible lack of judgement. And at this point I'm having trouble assuming the best possible faith. MastCell ^Talk 17:58, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Seconded. This is absolutely the last thing we need. Arbitrators, please lay down a line here. -- ChrisO 18:40, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment. WP:CANVAS sets out a clear standard for what is considered disruptive canvassing. A legitimate "friendly notice" is a limited posting and is neutrally worded and is nonpartisan and is open. An disruptive canvas is mass-posted or is biased or is partisan or is secret. Sm8900's message was both overtly biased and partisan, therefore can only be considered a disruptive canvas. -- ChrisO 12:18, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Strong support. That is insanely uncalled for, and I think censuring is weak. Kwsn(Ni!) 03:45, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Ouch Those were inappropriate. I'm not sure a temporary injunction is best; it might suffice to have the ArbComm clerk refactor and let ArbComm sanction this in the final decision. GRBerry 04:17, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Support That was insanely stupid and I'm happy to see that the arbitrators appear to be fast-tracking this case. This is the last thing we need right now. MartinDK 05:41, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Could you explain what lack of good faith means in this instance? I have already made clear that i feel the allegations of Israeli apartheid consitutues an egregious instance of distortion, on an issue of deep sensitvity to major cultural and political groups. In this case, making an open notice to other editors is not bad faith. Bad faith, in my opinion would mean orchestrating a campaign of intetionally misleading statements, red herrings, and other things. It would also mean an editor who shows a pattern of icivility and disruptive editing, which my past record clearly does not show.

You have the right to make whatever points you want. however I think it's a little uncalled-for to call for all these sanctions. Sanctions are for people who are malicious or counter-productive. An editor who has always been constructive in his edits and civil in dealings with others, should not suddenly be censured for addressing a matter which is of deep sensitivity and importance to a particular cultural group.

I will accept your expression of whatever points you want to make about the best way to keep this process positive. Even if I disagree with any of those points, that discussion is a legitimate part of this process. --Steve, Sm8900 14:12, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Let's be clear: posting a neutral notice of this case on the Wikiproject:Israel page would be one thing - iffy and likely to raise a few eyebrows, but not grounds for sanction. But you didn't do that. You described the dispute as one between a group of "warped unfair POV-pushers" and "more even-handed editors", and urged project participants to "insert your comments indicating support for those who seek to preserve balance at Wikipedia... by applying the aparetheid analigy to a variety of countries equally, instead of only to Israel." If you don't see how that's counterproductive to resolving this dispute, then I don't know what to say. A lack of good faith, in this instance, means coming here to complain about the adversarial nature of the proceedings while simultaneously attempting to recruit more partisans for your side. I would urge ArbCom to address this issue as part of this case, rather than requesting separate proceedings, under the principle that the conduct of all editors involved in a case is open to scrutiny. MastCell ^Talk 15:56, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I never complained about the adversarial nature of these proceedings. I did express concern about the personal nature of these proceedings, since they do admittedly focus on user conduct, rather than on content disputes.

Also, the views which I expressed on that page are no different than the views I posted here, and which can readily be read in any of a half-dozen places. I assumed that since Wikipedia is by its nature collaborative, postings of information in various settings were allowed. WP:CANVASS does not actually prohibit canvassing, but makes clear it should be kept within certain constraints.

I didn't realize that such intrinsic importance is given to having the debate occur only between those editors who have worked already on the article. I thought the main goal was to make sure it stays between editors of good-faith on both sides. If the former is actually the case, I will try to be aware of that from now on. Also, your point to keep the notice neutral is a fair one, if that is in fact the general procedure. --Steve, Sm8900 16:25, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

The handy table at WP:CANVASS lists 3 characteristics of "disruptive canvassing": Mass posting, biased message, and partisan audience. You don't think that your canvassing met any of those criteria? MastCell ^Talk 16:28, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

No, for one main reason; I was addressing the Jewish editors en masse, as being a genuine community with genuine concerns and a genuine stake in this matter. I realize that might sound disingenuous on my part. But it is really how I felt. The concept of the Jewish editors has a different connotation for you than it does me. To me, it means I am addressing a genuine community with genuine interests and a commitment to this process, and also one which a real diversity of political views, not necessarily agreeing with mine, and often opposed to my views. to me, bringing it to others' attention in the main community forum for a group of highly diligent editors does not signify political partisanship the way it might if say, i posted it in a forum for left-wingers or right-wingers. On the other hand, if others here do feel it does have a negative connotation like that, in the sense they feel that it does constitue a highly partisan setting, then i will try to keep that in mind from now on. Also, if others have also been consciously refraining from such notices, in part due to a general consensus here, then i will try to keep that in mind also. --Steve, Sm8900 16:32, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

You're putting words in my mouth. I agree with you that the participants of Wikiproject:Israel are unlikely to be a monolithic block in terms of their opinions. If the only issue was that you notified participants of those Wikiprojects of the case, I wouldn't object, as I stated above. But that's not the only issue. I described your post as a "highly partisan call-to-arms", and that's exactly what it was, efforts at revisionism notwithstanding. Don't suggest that I think all Jewish editors are biased or have a "negative connotation" when I've made my objections very clear above. MastCell ^Talk 16:41, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I was not trying to put words in your mouth, and I apologize if it sounded like i was. i was not trying to imply anything about your state-of-mind. i simply meant that some reasonable people here might have a real concern that bringing it to the Jewish forum (instead of, say, the History Project forum,) is intrisically a partisan act; I did not mean this indicates that an editor has any negative-based feelings towards Jews. That was my point. i did not sense any negative overtones in your reasonable points and concerns. i simply meant that putting it in that forum did not to me seem like partisanship, because I was just as likely to get some editors to oppose my viewpoint as I was likely to get support. In the end, very few came here at all. However, I was expressing the matter with same urgency and partisanship which i have shown here, in the debate itself, in order to address the fact that some there might not agree. i was not addressing a group which i had the power to orchestrate or to mobilize, merely laying out the same case there as I did here. --Steve, Sm8900 16:44, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok, that makes sense. Sorry for overreacting there. MastCell ^Talk 16:53, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

quite all right. thank you for all your helpful willingness to discuss this matter so fully and constuctively. --Steve, Sm8900 17:00, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Oppose censure. I don't think punitive measures are appropriate here. It appears Steve was only trying to improve the discussion by inviting participants in good faith, what WP:CANVAS identifies as "friendly notices", which isn't a bad thing. Everything doesn't have to be so adversarial. --MPerel 16:02, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I would like to say thanks for the input of everyone who is posting here, as open discussion of this is helpful, so thanks. By the way, i want to make one clarification; I have since edited those notices to be more in accordance with the very real concerns expressed here. So if you view those notices now, you may not be seeing the language which sparked the original concerns. thanks again for all the helpful input. --Steve, Sm8900 16:36, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Moratorium on deletions

4) The current 4th TfD on Template:Allegations of apartheid is ill timed while this ArbCom is ongoing, due to possible chilling effects for one side in the debate while this case is in the voting phase. A moratorium is proposed until this case is closed.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed -- 67.98.206.2 20:56, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

For whatever it's worth, the template has been deleted. (For the record, I didn't comment in the TfD and did not care one way or the other whether it was deleted.) As for the TfD being "ill timed while this ArbCom is ongoing", as a matter of fact a number of other things have also been ill timed while this ArbCom has been ongoing, including the disappearance of at least 2 of the articles in question, both of which had survived AfD's, as well as the gutting of the Allegations of Apartheid article, which had survived more than one AfD. The fact that various persons were able to get away with all of that (for now, at least) is attributable at least in part to the "chilling effect" of which you speak. While you speak of the "chilling effect" as a potential future event, it has already occurred. 6SJ7 05:17, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, it's frustrating. It seemed like a lot of the voters were still fighting the last war which began this ArbCom in the first place. User:Tiamut ended her vote with "Delete, delete, delete," and then days later said she would support making Apartheid into a disambiguation page,[2] which was exactly the purpose the template was serving, but had no interest in changing her vote when I pointed this out. User:G-Dett demanded sources, but after I provided them, ISBN numbers and all, changed course and admitted the template was really problematic because it dared to "contextualize" the allegations of Israeli apartheid article by suggesting the term apartheid had other meanings (besides, I suppose, South Africa and Israel). It's bad enough the Israel-Palestine conflict keeps spilling over into tangentially related XfD's, but it's even worse when one side doesn't bother to show up.

On a kinder note, I thought Lothar's condensing of the Allegations of apartheid article into something concise and readable was a huge improvement. -- 67.98.206.2 08:10, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Response to false accusation by anon "67" There is no contradiction in my voting pattern, as I explained to him on my talk page here: [3], as well as in follow-up comments there. If the Arbcomm is having a "chilling effect" on the actions of some editors, this is only because it has placed the actions of all editors involved under greater scrutiny. I prefer to view it as a "cooling down" phase, which is beneficial in that all editors are engaged in some self-reflection. Tiamat 09:31, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Cooling down period? There has been at least one renaming poll for the Allegations of Israeli apartheid going on every single day since August 14. That's 3 different "formal" RfM's and 2 informal polls, and the person who started the last 2 has not heeded calls to give it a rest for awhile. (The current RfM is heading for the same non-consensus result as those that have gone before.) That doesn't seem like a cooling down period to me. It seems more like some people are trying to use this arbitration to gain an improper advantage in a content dispute, and in some cases (involving other articles in the former "series"), they have succeeded. (So far.) 6SJ7 19:53, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Painfully correct. The frantic move requests at Allegations of Israeli apartheid have reached the point of being disruptive. --John Nagle 01:10, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I would support this. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allegations of Israeli apartheid (7th nomination) was proposed by User:Skaraoke after this proposal andhas since been speedily closed without prejudice by User:Hemlock Martinis citing this arbitration case.--Peter cohen 10:26, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Proposed final decision

Proposed principles

Article titles

1) Wikipedia principle and good practice permits to conclude that material related to Allegations of XXX apartheid should not be used as title for an article. Respecting NPoV, apartheid, if any, should be merged in an article named human rights in XXX as the human situation in XXX described as a whole and with context.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Content issue. Mackensen (talk) 13:31, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Content dispute. --Ideogram 18:41, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

(to alithien)Please move your comment to your section. --Ideogram 18:48, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Object. Content is not for ArbCom to rule over, it is the behavior of the editors while they edit.--Cerejota 04:38, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

proposed. Alithien 18:40, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

As with the above, this is a content issue. The ArbCom typically deals with conduct issues. -- ChrisO 18:42, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

typically means ... :-) If the ArbCom wants to solve to problem it has to condemn the users to solve the matter in sentencing them to proceed to a debate and a vote on these issue among the community once for all. If the ArbCom only condemned a "bad behaviour", than it should just stop being an ArbCom. Alithien 18:50, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Object. This case is about the conduct of the users involved, not about the content of the involved articles. That's not for arbcom to determine. Use WP:RFC or WP:M instead. Melsaran 19:57, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

So if this passes then the articles get moved to XXX apartheid? I fail to see this as helpful. WAS 4.250 20:00, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Object. This proposal advocates a flawed solution in response to a real problem; moreover, it's not within the ArbComm's purview. CJCurrie 00:56, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

The proposal doesn't even parse("...material...should not be used as title..."??), but it seems it may be to permanently prohibit the creation of articles named Allegations of XXX apartheid and order the "merger" of current ones into articles named human rights in XXX. But, e.g., Allegations of Israeli apartheid isn't about Human Rights in Israel [quoting self:The phenomenon addressed by this article is that the word "apartheid" is applied to Israel ("Apartheid Israel") or to its actions and policies ("Apartheid wall", "Israeli apartheid", "guilty of the crime of apartheid", etc.) as if apartheid had a well-defined meaning outside its ZA roots but without any consistency in applying the term to similar (or more similar to historical ZA situations.], so the proposal makes no sense even if you tolerate the poor formulation. Andyvphil 00:26, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I think on the contrary it is clear. More basically : a topic can only be treated a neutral way if the title itself is neutral.

I think apartheid is link to human rights. Alithien 07:29, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Support This is the kernel of the dispute, is it not? I would venture to guess that if there were no articles about allegations of apartheid, we wouldn't be here. Moreover, if the community determines that "allegations of XXX apartheid" articles are acceptable and wanted, isn't that an invitation to give us more of what we find acceptable and want? These allegations articles, all of them, ought to be deleted and salted and then everyone here can go on and edit articles or perform their admin tasks rather than generate the friction that has brought us here. Carlossuarez46 00:49, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Object. Content dispute. MartinDK 06:20, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

We can hide behind rules without making the effort to understand each other. But, we are contructive contributors trying to write an encyclopedia and to solve problems linked to this purpose. Alithien 07:29, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Support - the term "apartheid" refers to one place and one time period (South Africa between 1948 and 1993). Calling anything else an apartheid is a political epithet that does not belong in an encyclopedia. It is as unencyclopedic as calling a country, person, or ideology a form of Nazism even when it clearly doesn't refer to Germany between 1933-1945. --GHcool 07:03, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Oppose Apartheid is a crime against humanity. -- 146.115.58.152 08:57, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Oppose on procedural grounds; this is a content issue, therefore outside the remit of the ArbCom. The proposal is not unreasonable but can and should be left to the community to decide, using normal dispute resolution procedures if necessary. -- ChrisO 07:51, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

(to ideogram) There is never dispute on content if NPoV is respected. NPoV means that is you don't agree with what other says, you nevertheless agrees that it is what they say. So, in an article that would agree to receive all arguments (pro and contra, without an oriented title that prevents NPoV), no dispute should arise but only an usual wikipedian work consisting in gathering all information related to all PoV's. Alithien 18:45, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

(to ideogram) Please refrain your agressivity ??? We try to find a solution, not to win a debate. That is maybe why you are involved in this case and I am not. Think about it :-( Alithien 07:32, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

(to cerejota) We are not lawyers (content) but we are constructive contributors trying to solve a problem that prevent everybody from working on these articles. Sanctioning this one or this other one for a behaviour will not solve anything but will only make pov-pushers from the other side feel stronger. Alithien 07:32, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Oppose Content dispute and if well evidenced (through reliable sources) as an allegation with a range of notable supporters not strongly associated with one camp, but not determined by an international court or similar as a fact, then allegations is the right sort of name for an article on the subject.--Peter cohen 10:31, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Naming

2) Wikipedia principles and good practice permits to conclude that articles named XXX apartheid should only deal with the use of an expression (a precise sequence of words) and should refer to external articles to describe the human right situation in these countries (eg. Human rights in XXX).

Comment by Arbitrators:

Up to the community. What does the Manual of Style say? Mackensen (talk) 03:59, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Isn't this a repeat? --Ideogram 18:43, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Content dispute. --Ideogram 18:49, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Object. Content is not for ArbCom to rule over, it is the behavior of the editors while they edit.--Cerejota 04:38, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

proposed. Alithien 18:42, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

support. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:53, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

The ArbCom doesn't usually do content issues, as far as I know. Your principle may well be valid but it's not relevant to the purpose of this arbitration, which is to deal with the conduct issues in this affair. -- ChrisO 18:55, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

The ArbCom would need to look at the reasons for this dispute, and the source of it is related to article naming, amongst other issues. Addressing these issues may be unavoidable, Chris. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:02, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Arbcom doesn't rule over content. Period. Melsaran 19:58, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

If that is to be the content, then the article should be named XXX apartheid (term). WAS 4.250 20:03, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I fully agree. Alithien 07:37, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

So, Crime of apartheid (term)? Just some "slang" made up by the United Nations? -- 146.115.58.152 23:05, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

For wikipedia : yes. Alithien 07:37, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Object. This proposal advocates a flawed solution in response to a real problem; moreover, it's not within the ArbComm's purview. CJCurrie 00:58, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Why is it flawed ? Alithien 07:37, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Support per jossi and Alithien. Arbcom will have to make a call on these issues. <<-armon->> 02:01, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Oppose. Use of "XXX Apartheid" is as inflamatory and POV as "allegations of". Carlossuarez46 00:52, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

No. It think you didn't understand. "XXX apartheid" is not POVed. It is only POVed if the material under this title deals with Human rights in XXX. If under "XXX apartheid" you find : "XXX apartheid" is an expression used by people who consider that some human rights are not respected in XXX. The topic is developped in "Humans rights in XXX". See eg fr:terrorisme sioniste. Alithien 07:37, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

That can be handled in the endless "Criticism of XXX" articles, where you can put the criticisms and motivations, rather than just parrot the words used otherwise you'll have an endless stream of articles depending on the words used: XXX Apartheid, XXX Racism, XXX Ethnic cleansing, XXX Human rights abuses, XXX Evil, XXX Axis of Evil, etc. Carlossuarez46 19:38, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Object. Content issue. MartinDK 06:19, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

We are not lawyers (content) but we are constructive contributors trying to solve a problem that prevent everybody from working on these articles. Sanctionning this one or this other one for a behaviour will not solve anything but will only make pov-pushers from the other side feel stronger. Alithien 07:32, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

On the contrary. Sanctioning the worst offenders, on either "side", and having a very low tolerance for disruption on these articles, no matter the source, will make the content issues easier to hash out. Anyhow, both this and the preceding proposal are 100% content issues and outside the scope of ArbCom, so it's not worth expending a lot more keystrokes on them. MastCell ^Talk 15:23, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Oppose - there's no such thing as an apartheid anywhere else in the world or in history than South Africa, 1948-1993. --GHcool 07:06, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Oppose on procedural grounds; this is a content issue, therefore outside the remit of the ArbCom. The proposal is not unreasonable but can and should be left to the community to decide, using normal dispute resolution procedures if necessary. -- ChrisO 07:50, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Words to avoid and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (titles) are silent on the word "apartheid". I am not aware of any other guideline with community consensus that is relevant. Discussion is underway at WT:WTA, but no consensus is yet apparent. GRBerry 16:15, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

(to ideogram)No. The material must be in an neutral-titled article with all material pro and contra. The expression, when clearly used, should only be refered as existing but the articles developed under another title. That means that pov-titles can exist BUT information (or material) only developed in neutral-titled articles where all pov can be developed. Alithien 18:47, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

(to ideogram)Reminder of basic wikipedian principles. Alithien 18:52, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Find consensus in digestible bites

3) Content decisions should be article by article as much as possible. While dealing with larger issues is sometimes necessary, dealing with smaller things item by item and article by article is many times more productive. It is especially inappropriate to create a larger content issue where there was not one or to block others from trying to reach an agreement on a specific article because of concerns about one or more other articles.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Oppose. This is not a significant issue here. We have dealt with systemic issues at WP:APARTHEID (as per previous ArbCom) and with specific content on each article's page. ArbCom should only rule on behavior, and I find this proposal WP:CREEPy. --Cerejota 04:52, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

I added this. Others please feel free to reword. I would hope both sides could reach a consensus on how to word this. WAS 4.250 22:07, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

You might want to mention WP:BURO and/or WP:CREEP. -- 146.115.58.152 22:22, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate a point

4) Disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate a point is considered editing in bad faith. This may include creating articles in response to community decisions on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion.

Comment by Arbitrators:

I don't think the second sentence is a good idea. Creating articles in response to community decisions at AfD might be exactly the right thing to do in some contexts. Doing so might be WP:POINTy in some situations. Not all. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 16:35, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Strong support. This is the heart of the matter. --Cerejota 04:49, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

As per Jpgordon's comment, what about this second sentence: "This may include creating articles in response to community decisions on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion that are not directed by the closing commentary or a result of community discussion". I agree not all post-AfD creation is bad, however, in this case they where WP:POINTy, the language doesn't have to be over-specific, but we must address this key problem that poisoned the well from productive editing. --Cerejota 00:13, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Jpgordon says: "It depends on the degree. Some "false advocacy" consists of reductio ad absurdum in the course of discussions, and is not inherantly disruptive. I'd rather not simply ban such arguments." The problem is that we are not dealing with an argument in a talk page, but the actual creation of content. What is alleged pointy per se wasn't the arguments (they are simply evidence of intent) but the actual creation of a dozen or so pages.

Mind you, I defended the pages, and still try to with what remains, because I do agree the topic of allegations of apartheid in many countries has some reasons to exist (although I liked the "Apartheid outside south africa" model better than the "allegations of apartheid"). So I am a bit sympathetic to putting limits on the creation of articles that can be sourced. However, one thing is to allow the natural flow of content to emerge, and another is to create cruft in order to make a point.

I think your vote is not clear in this respect. I ask you to clarify: do you think people should have the ability to create these types of forks or not, even under narrow circumstances? If we take, as I do, the point on "keeping systemic NPOV" as valid, do you endorse this or not? It is not clear.

This is of huge importance to me because in spite of my support for some principles, I am not entirely sure the editors involved violated the principles. If they are allowed to seek systemic NPOV, they should be allowed to seek it. If they are not, then they clearly violated WP:POINT. --Cerejota 02:55, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed. Since this seems to be the central point of the dispute, I've taken the wording more or less directly from WP:POINT; note the third bullet point under WP:POINT#Examples, which deals with exactly this sort of situation. It'll obviously be up to the ArbCom to determine whether this has happened in this case, but the basic principle is well-established and uncontroversial. -- ChrisO 22:38, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Support. CJCurrie 00:59, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely support. Tarc 01:21, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Support. No matter how creative the arguments in favor of creating these articles are it cannot be ignored that these articles were obviously created to flood Wikipedia with Allegations of apartheid articles to prove a point and use the all or nothing argument to have the Israeli article deleted despite 6 attempts at doing so properly had failed. This is, mildly speaking, not much different from trying to game the system. MartinDK 08:09, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I don’t see how this is a good idea. It’s another way of saying, “Yes, someone may have produced an excellent article that has been ratified by the community, but there’s a possibility that the person who made it may have had ulterior motives, thus it should be deleted.” This makes no sense—it’s like deliberately reverting a typo correction because a banned user made it, and places process squarely above content. IronDuke 00:19, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

The relevant language about creating articles in WP:NOT#BATTLEGROUND has been part of policy since January or March 2005. See the evidence. GRBerry 02:07, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Question to Jpgordon Could you elaborate on what situations those might be? Your comment may cause more confusion than clarification. MartinDK 07:32, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

strong oppose. This is not the heart of the matter. This is the subject that generated the behaviour and not the contributor who would have a good or bad behaviour. Alithien 07:39, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment. I've changed the wording of the proposal slightly, from "includes" to "may include" to allow for the situations that Jpgordon envisages. For instance, one could legitimately create new articles as the result of an AfD decision to split an existing article. -- ChrisO 07:42, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

(at Cerejota)You are wrong. This is not the heart of the matter. The heart of the matter is the problem generated by this topics rather than the behaviour of the people who discuss these matters. It is a battleground where the first who makes a mistakes is pushed in front of the ArbCom to be sanctionned and it is used as a weapon to push their own pov. That is the reason why the ArbCom should deal with this matter more deeply as usual.

NB: and we are not lawers but constructive contributors trying to write an encyclopedia... Alithien 07:23, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

The way the proposal is phrased is unfair. I am not in favor of distrupting Wikipedia to prove a point, however, I am in favor of making Wikipedia a place where there are articles about allegations of apartheid for more than just one country when it is applicable. --GHcool 07:10, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Agree completely with GHcool. --Steve, Sm8900 15:39, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Novel viewpoints

5) Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy contemplates including only significant published viewpoints regarding a subject. It does not extend to novel viewpoints developed by Wikipedia editors which have not been independently published in other venues.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Agreed. Mackensen (talk) 13:34, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Support. WP:SYNTH has been a casualty all along, but so has a complete misreading of WP:SYNTH to pursue deletionist stances --Cerejota 04:48, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed. An established principle from past arbitrations which is highly relevant to the charges of original research that have been made in the course of this dispute. -- ChrisO 22:40, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

support (even if this will not solve the matter alone). Alithien 07:41, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Support, obviously. --GHcool 07:11, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Article naming requirements

6) Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy requires article names to have neutral titles. The systematic creation of articles with contentious titles does not comply with the policy's requirements.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Agreed. Alithien, if the community can't call a spade a spade that's its own lookout. Mackensen (talk) 13:35, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Support. --Cerejota 04:40, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed. As per WP:NPOV#Article naming. -- ChrisO 22:45, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Support but it must be underlined that *allegations of XXX apartheid* is basically not neutral. Alithien 07:43, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Sure. The names of articles, as well as their content, are governed by WP:NPOV. ArbCom will not decide whether a specific title violates NPOV, as far as I know, so may as well drop that line. MastCell ^Talk 15:26, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Support - per above. --GHcool 07:12, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Responsibilities of administrators

7) One aspect of the responsibilities of an administrator is to attempt to prevent disruption to the Wikipedia site and its users.

Comment by Arbitrators:

The question of the social responsibility of adminship remains open, but this is a fair statement. It should not be construed in a limited fashion; any long-term user is expected to uphold the goals of the project–not just avoiding bringing the project into disrepute. Call this a positive expectation as opposed to a negative. Mackensen (talk) 13:39, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Support. There are a number of deeply involved administrators, some of which have not done anything to enforce content policy or have done so selectively.--Cerejota 19:48, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Mackensen, however, ArbCom can, and should clarify the matter for the community. Most of the admins have been vested the privileges of sysoping by the community itself. They should honor this investment and respond to the community. With great power comes great responsibility, and yes, admins/crats/arbcom/board must be held to higher standard not just of behavior but of responsibility. It is extremely disheartening to see the very people who are supposed to protect our work from GFDL pirates, vandals, spammers, and assorted vermin fight each other like n00bz, and use their privileges to advance their interest instead of those of the community as a whole.--Cerejota 04:50, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Steve, Sm8900, I can also hyperbolize: your failure to assume good faith is spectacular.--Cerejota 04:52, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Steve, I dodn't know who you are and I have nothing personal against you. However, your recent behavior, put mildly, has been unproductive.--Cerejota 03:56, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed principle established in Wikipedia:Arbitration policy/Past decisions#Administrators. As the evidence shows, three administrators - Jayjg in particular, but also Humus sapiens and Jossi - have been heavily involved in developing and voting for the retention of multiple "allegations of apartheid" articles (and creating one of them in Jayjg's case). If it is established that these articles were created with the intention of disruption, the corollary is that this principle may have been violated. -- ChrisO 22:59, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I have not created any such articles, and I am not "heavily involved" in such !voting. Please take that back. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:39, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

The evidence shows that you voted in five of the eight "allegations of apartheid" AfDs plus one of the AfDs on Allegations of Israeli apartheid, plus the DRV on Allegations of American apartheid; you were also the primary editor on Allegations of Chinese apartheid. You didn't create any of the articles but you're a major player in most of the rest of them. -- ChrisO 00:52, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

For the record, since I expect they'll make similar complaints, the standing of Jayjg and Humus sapiens is as follows: Jayjg created one article; voted in five of the eight "allegations of apartheid" AfDs plus one of the AfDs on Allegations of Israeli apartheid, plus the DRVs on Allegations of American apartheid and Allegations of Chinese apartheid; and contributed more edits to the articles than any other editor, being the leading editor in three of them. Humus sapiens participated in more AfDs than any of the other "keep" voters (six out of eight) plus one of the AfDs on Allegations of Israeli apartheid; he initiated the DRV on Allegations of American apartheid and participated in the DRV on Allegations of Chinese apartheid. However, he doesn't seem to have played a major role in editing the articles. -- ChrisO 01:07, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I am one of hundreds editors that commented on these AFDs. And yes, I researched material for the Allegations of Chinese apartheid in the last days before its deletion. That I am not disputing. I am disputing your characterization, that I have forfeited my responsibilities as an admin. I am not "a a major player in most of the rest of them". That is not the case and I found your accusation to be baseless and derogatory. Present evidence or take it back. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:02, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

It's not for me to decide whether or not you forfeited your responsibilities. That determination would rely on (a) whether the creation, maintenance and support of the articles was done with the intention of disrupting Wikipedia to make a point, and (b) if it was, to what degree - if any - you're responsible as a maintaner and supporter. That's up to the ArbCom to decide. I merely point out that you have a case to answer. -- ChrisO 01:07, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Sure, Chris, sure. If you make such baseless accusations, you better be prepared to provide evidence. Do not play games with me. Not appreciated, not funny, and quite annoying, really. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:13, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

The evidence of your involvement is at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Allegations of apartheid/Evidence#Evidence presented by ChrisO. FYI, there's an additional mention at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Allegations of apartheid/Evidence#Evidence presented by NicDumZ. As I said, I'm merely stating the evidence - let the ArbCom make whatever inferences it wishes. -- ChrisO 01:20, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. That is only evidence of what I commented on these AFDs, as may other editors did. That has nothing to do with the claim about my responsibilities as an admin. I stand by these comments 100%. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:55, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I understand that, and I'm not accusing you. I've tried to make this clear in my comment below, which is aimed at the other contributors to this discussion. -- ChrisO 01:58, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Jossi, your complicity in all of this is rather clear. Perhaps it isn't as voluminous as jayjg or as flagrantly policy-flaunting as Humus, but looking through the edits it is quite clear that you have played a significant part in the editing, maintenance, and protection of these POV-forking articles. Tarc 01:50, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

That is ludicrous. Yes, I commented on these AfDs alongside a multitude of editors, and I have edited only one of these articles, and mainly researching and providing good material for the article about apartheid-like practices in China. Accuse me of doing some good research work, if at all. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:55, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I'd just like to add that I don't want to see this item turn into a piling-on on Humus, Jayjg and Jossi. It's not intended as an accusation or condemnation of them. I've merely presented the evidence of their involvement in this matter and raised an issue that I believe will need to be considered. The fact that they're involved in the dispute doesn't automatically mean that they are culpable of anything - the question of whether there has been a policy violation in the first place has yet to be arbitrated, let alone the degree of culpability of any editors. -- ChrisO 01:55, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the belated clarification. I stand by each one of the comments and edits I have made in the article related to China, and I am delighted that some progress is being made at the Allegations of Israeli apartheid, (see the talk page, for those of you that have missed what good and civil debate can achieve). ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:00, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

No problem - I'm sorry we had a misunderstanding there. For the record, I'd like to applaud what you've been doing in trying to find a solution for the various surviving articles. I've not involved myself particularly but it seems to be providing some useful grounds for other editors to move forward. -- ChrisO 02:05, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Support but it also needs to be pointed out that use of admin priviliges is not a part of this case. Those who happen to be admins or in Jayjg's case hold several positions of trust have not abused those privileges in this case. MartinDK 08:14, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, what this case is about is still in development. This case is still in the evidence phase, and therefore additional issues and additional consequences are certainly possible. 6SJ7 01:48, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

The proposal isn't about admin privileges, it's about admin responsibilities. -- ChrisO 07:43, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I think all users, not just admins, have a responsibility to try to head off disruption. Of course, the more experienced the editor, the more we should reasonably expect from them in this regard. MastCell ^Talk 15:27, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

this is completely INSANE. Since this dysfunctional process gives us no ability to resolve content disputes, but only allows us to make an issue over user behavior, we are all reduced to fighting one another like juveniles, when what we really need to do is to resolve this massive, profound dispute content, just about the biggest I have ever seen since starting here; directly addressing that might be a good move. But no, this dysfunctional process will go on slowly degenrating further and dragging down everyopne even remotely involved. Cheeers. --Steve, Sm8900 02:50, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Support per above. --GHcool 07:14, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Cerejota, taking into account the entire history of this entire dispute, as well as the context, as well as the scope, (meaning the fact that ArbCom can only rule on individual transgressions by editors, and can do nothing about content disputes); then my response on behalf of myself, Sefringle, Alithien, Jayjg, GHcool, pro-Israel advocates, and freedom-loving peoples everywhere, is:,

No, YOU are!

(at Cerejota)(Just kidding...nothing personal, dude. Sorry that these weird ArbCom rules make it necessary for you and us all to fight each other like cats and dogs, this way. Hang in there. See you.) --Steve, Sm8900 13:24, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

No personal attacks

8) Insulting and intimidating other users harms the community by creating a hostile environment.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Support. This is one of the key things.--Cerejota 04:40, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed, as per Wikipedia:Arbitration policy/Past decisions#Civility/disruption/reasonableness, in response to the indiscriminate accusations of anti-semitism that have been made by some editors. -- ChrisO 23:01, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Support. I would add : inveighing. Alithien 07:46, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

While this is undoubtedly true, it's irretrievably vague as formulated. If the issue is unfounded accusations of anti-Semitism, then a more specific principle would be preferable. MastCell ^Talk 15:58, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Original analysis is original research

9) Even if one can cite reliable sources, analysing those sources constitutes original research unless such analysis is also properly sourced and does not violate WP:SYN

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Support. --Cerejota 04:41, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Ironically, proporser engaged in disruptive WP:POINT in creating a POV fork. The community handled it accordingly.--Cerejota 19:51, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

If by proposer you mean me I have done no such thing. I'm a bit confused here... was that aimed at me? MartinDK 21:20, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I won't reformat because this has to be highlighted. I apologize Martin, I was confused by John Nagle's non-indent. My comment was intended at him.--Cerejota 04:55, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed. Apparently this needs to be stated since one of the key arguments in favor of keeping the articles in question has been that sourcing was proper since WP:OR in their opinion does not prohibit original analysis of properly sourced material. MartinDK 23:02, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

This has been a considerable area of friction. WP:SYN says "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published this argument in relation to the topic of the article. Some editors involved in this dispute interpret this to mean that "A and B, without C, but which might be interpreted by the reader to imply C", is a synthesis. This interpretation is aggressively used by some editors to justify deletions of A and B, usually with the comment "Original research", even when A and B are sourced. Examples on request. --John Nagle 04:55, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Request! -- 146.115.58.152 05:00, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm also requesting diffs here. WP:OR is quite clear on this. The keep side's attempt to argue their way around this and at one point even try to invoke WP:IAR when faced with arguments they couldn't refute has been a major reason why this got so bad. MartinDK 06:02, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

The "timeline" deletion war in Allegations of Israeli apartheid, circa 1-4 May 2007, has some examples:

• Revision as of 22:29, 2 May 2007 Urthogie (→Overview - remove per talk)
• Revision as of 11:37, 3 May 2007 Armon (rv to Leifern. Timeline is OR)
• Revision as of 20:18, 3 May 2007 Humus sapiens (Reverted edits by Nagle to version 128037515 by 6SJ7 (rm OR timeline, per talk))
• Revision as of 20:21, 3 May 2007 Kendrick7 (restore timeline, mostly cause I'm tired of people removing it per talk. Must be a talk page the rest of us are otherwise unaware of?)

There are more examples in that sequence, but that's enough to give a sense of the issue. The timeline was a sequence of relevant, cited events without analysis or commentary. The "original research" objection was to the presentation of any such sequence of events. Wikipedia has other timelines, some controversial, such as Occupation of Iraq timeline. But elsewhere, edit disagreements are over the inclusion of specific items in the timeline, not the timeline itself. --John Nagle 15:54, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Different people had different theories about why the timeline was inappropriate. I thought the OR issue was secondary and that the main issue, whether the timeline was in the main article or as a separate article, was that it was a POV fork. (In the main article, it was sort of a POV fork-in-a-box.) Other people thought that OR was the main problem, although I think the timeline and indeed all of these articles point out major ambiguities in the OR policy when dealing with articles that are purely about opinions, rather than facts. 6SJ7 18:29, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I inserted the comma that should have been there. MartinDK 21:20, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

My primary reason for adding this principle was the Allegations of French apartheid article which made extensive use of this to advance the viewpoint that apartheid was an acceptable and sourced term for the racial problems present in France. In fact, the article was complete OR because the idea that apartheid was the appropriate term to use was deducted from the synthesis of sources and not it self properly sourced. MartinDK 21:43, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

To Cerejota: No hard feelings, I can understand why you would be confused by the non indent. We all make small mistakes. MartinDK 05:37, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a soapbox

10) Wikipedia is not a soapbox or a vehicle for propaganda advocacy or advertising.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Support. In particular removal of content critical of a POV on grounds of non-notability, but the inclusion of content supporting the same POV by non-notables. Also the use of WP:SYNTH to advance POV positions.--Cerejota 02:45, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed. Wikipedia is not a platform for advocating partisan views on either side of a dispute. -- ChrisO 23:06, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Oppose. This is true as a general rule but this has nothing to deal with the current matter. Stating this as a principle here is a bit insulting insulting and inveighing against all the contributors who honnestly felt involved in the matter. Alithien 07:49, 14 August 2007 (UTC) change my mind after ChrisO comment here below. Alithien 08:23, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment. This proposal is in response to the sentiments expressed by Sefringle and echoed by others, who have placed the creation of these articles in the context of a POV dispute between "zionists and supporters of Israel" and "anti-zionists". -- ChrisO 07:56, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Staying cool when the editing gets hot

11) When editing on highly conflicted topics, editors should not allow themselves to be goaded into ill-considered edits and policy violations. Administrators in particular have a responsibility to set an example by staying cool when the editing gets hot.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Support. WP:POOR. --Cerejota 08:58, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed, per Wikipedia:Arbitration policy/Past decisions#Staying cool when the editing gets hot. None of us are perfect, but there's a difference between violating a policy in the heat of the moment and engaging in a sustained series of policy violations, as is alleged in this instance. The existence of a "goad" in the form of a disliked article does not provide grounds for violating policy elsewhere. -- ChrisO 23:09, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Support. Alithien 07:47, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

All or nothing

12) The status of articles on other similar topics has no bearing on a particular article under discussion.

Comment by Arbitrators:

It's not in the deletion policy, but obviously all articles must pass Wikipedia:Attribution on their own merits and not as a type. A broad exception might be articles on US towns, where the availability of census data grants a presumption that attribution has been satisfied. Mackensen (talk) 14:02, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Support. As per evidence provided by ChrisO. This is a key hinge on why ArbCom accepted to have a hearing. --Cerejota 04:42, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

• • Oppose. If certain political epithet such as "apartheid" is used by WP:RS beyond S. Africa, it is only natural that other encyclopedic articles will be created assuming good faith describing and attributing such usage. And given similar usage by scholars, it is POV to slap conditions in one country as "apartheid" while in others as "segregation" or merely "human rights in X". ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 10:43, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed, per WP:ATA#All or nothing. Although WP:ATA is not established as policy, the general principle of treating parallel articles as independent entities is firmly established as standard practice on AfDs. Note that subordinate articles may well be interdependent; for instance, if we decided that Pokémon was not notable, then all the various articles on Pokémon characters would be affected by this decision. But this dispute concerns parallel articles, each of which has its own independent degree of notability, sourcing etc. Arguments that article X is dependent on parallel article Z thus have no support in policy or common practice. -- ChrisO 23:15, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

If this principle is established as standard practice in articles for deletion discussions, as you say, then why were so many people in favor of keeping the "Allegations of Xish apartheid" articles until/unless all such articles were deleted at once? This would indicate to me that this principle is not, in fact, standard practice. Picaroon (t) 23:25, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

It is a commonly accepted principle in deletion debates. The fact that the keep side chose to ignore this was a primary reason for the disruption that is now being discussed. To further use the all or nothing argument to divert attention from the article being discussed and turn the deletion debate into a battle over another article is very much disruption. MartinDK 23:30, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

The trick here was clearly to use the other articles as a lever to secure the deletion of the Israeli apartheid article, which had survived six previous AfDs. In other words, "we'll let you delete this article you don't like if you'll help us delete this article we don't like." This was stated fairly explicitly by the editors involved - see the comments abstracted at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Allegations of apartheid/Evidence#Diametrically-opposed positions and non-policy-based block voting. -- ChrisO 23:33, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

System-wide NPOV violations can and do happen. If there are issues that open-up systemic-wide violations of NPOV, the allornothing essay does not apply. It is the responsibility of editors to protect NPOV, not only in singular articles but across the board. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:45, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

IF you have a system wide violation of NPOV THEN there should be no "nothing" part of the all or nothing, simply a delete all. Your arguments essentially supports the POINT violations. Ie that other articles are written and maintained in and effort to water down the effects of the original. Viridae^Talk 11:57, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Support. This is an essential point to the current controversy. CJCurrie 01:03, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Strong Oppose per jossi's comments above. This is an invalid rhetorical accusation based on the inability of the anything-other-than-Israel-apartheid delete voters to present a cogent rationale to keep the Israeli article while deleting the others. Despite ChrisO's truncated version of my position in the votes, the policy I (and others) were following was WP:CONSENSUS. The articles I voted keep on met the same standards of notability and sourcing as the Israeli article. The other afds were themselves vios of WP:POINT launched by heavily involved editors. <<-armon->> 02:27, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Concensus cannot overrule policy. WP:OR is policy and deletion policy tells us that the closer should not disregard policy in favor of concensus to violate policy. The fact that a group of editors have !voted in favor of violating WP:OR on several AfDs and then tried to halt the entire process by turning those AfDs into debates about the Israeli articles is one of the core issues in this ArbCom case. MartinDK 07:54, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Well then consensus overruled policy in AoIA case and that's the real reason for the ensuing disruption. You can't have it both ways. <<-armon->> 10:05, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

That is for DRV to determine. Those 6 failed attempts to delete the article speak for themselves. We do not solve deletion/content disputes by creating a series of articles to barter with. MartinDK 10:16, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

The flaw in that argument is that you're assuming that everyone who voted to delete the non-Israeli articles had a view on the Israeli article. The core group alluded to here did have such a view and saw a linkage; the vast majority of the 300 or so editors who participated in the various AfDs and DRVs did not. As far as I can determine, the great majority of those who voted to keep had no prior involvement in AoIa or its various AfDs. That's probably why the attempt to link AoIa with the others failed so spectacularly. -- ChrisO 08:13, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm assuming nothing of the sort. I'm alluding to the other' "core group", notably absent from the involved parties, who somehow manged to justify AoIA, but were somehow "appalled" at the others. <<-armon->> 10:05, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you could name names and supply diffs to identify this "other core group". --Ideogram 10:23, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Support. The difference between AoIA and many of the others is that the former is verifiable and notable, while some of the others are not, as we saw when the supporters could not justifiy their articles in the face of original research and synthesis assertions. The principal contributors have freely admitted to creating such articles as a point-making exercise, rather than in the spirit of contributing legitimately to the encyclopedia. 12:57, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes it does. If it has been shown that an article on "Florpignostacians in Colorado" has consensus to keep, then, all other things being equal, "Florpignostacians in Wyoming" should be kept too. It may be true that Colorado has a bigger Squorx of Florpignostacia, and this may mean that the Wyoming article should be deleted while the Colorado one is kept. But if there's consensus that the latter should be kept, someone has to demonstrate that the consensus there doesn't apply to Florpignostacians in Wyoming because they are somehow different. Oh, and the motivations behind creating the article are completely irrelevant. -Amarkov moo! 22:59, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Amarkov's point, amusingly made, is very significant. Consistency requires treating identical things identically, different things differently, and having a reasonable basis for deciding whether to handle similar things the same way or differently. Using actual articles as examples, once we reach the deadline, The Terrorist (book) and Terrorist (novel) should be almost identical in outline (both are fiction books), Terrorist (computer game) should be similar to the books because it is also an entertainment media, and Terrorist should be extremely different because it is about the violent act of terrorism. All or nothing arguments that don't attempt to engage the similarities and differences are not helpful, nor are they really about consistency, whatever is said. GRBerry 02:40, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Srong oppose. The reason why "Allegations of XXX apartheid" is neutral or not should be independant of XXX. Else, this is obviously not NPoV. Alithien 07:51, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Oppose' It is too broadly worded, even the cited essay recognizes that likes should be treated alike and failure to do may be due to bias. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS Carlossuarez46 19:44, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Support. Article inclusion should (continue to) be based on the notability of the subject, not the existence of similar articles. Where 'system-wide notability' is applied, this is usually because of a longstanding (and largely uncontroversial) practice within a particular category. -- Steve Hart 17:45, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a battleground

13) Wikipedia is not a battleground. Article should not be created or modified just to prove a point.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Support, as per evidence presented by ChrisO.--Cerejota 04:43, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed. Wording is taken pretty much intact from WP:BATTLE. -- ChrisO 00:39, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Short, sweet, and to the point. I like it. Sean William @ 03:58, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Articles for Deletion is not a vote

14) Articles for Deletion may look like a voting process, but it does not operate like one. The three key policies, which warrant that articles and information be verifiable, avoid being original research, and be written from a neutral point of view are held to be non-negotiable, and cannot be superseded by any other guidelines or by editors' consensus. A closing admin must determine whether any article violates these policies, and where it is very unlikely that an article on the topic can exist without breaching these three policies, these policies must be respected above other opinions.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Agreed. Mackensen (talk) 04:04, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Support, as per evidence presented by ChrisO. ArbCom should create precedent that clarifies this question to the community. Even to this day I am sometimes confused with this. --Cerejota 04:45, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed, in the light of the assertions by "keep" voters that AfD is a vote and that admins should base decisions on consensus (or a lack thereof) and not on policy grounds. The wording above is taken from WP:AFD and WP:DGFA. -- ChrisO 00:43, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Support, though in practice, with subjects this hotly debated, I'm not sure what the point of reiterating this is. I suppose that if this had been applied in the first place, none of these articles, and the ensuing drama, would have occurred. <<-armon->> 02:33, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Endorse, with some caveats. Interpretation of policies and their application is somewhat fluid, in particular about what constitutes original research in the context of this dispute. The issue at hand is the consistency, or lack thereof, of the application of the principles upon which these policies have been developed. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:43, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

In practice, this isn't true. No matter how many times you say that AfD or RfA aren't votes, they still are. We've got too many vote-counting admins closing debates for AfDs not to be votes. Not only that, but when administrators close debates by weighing the arguments, the vote-counters gather at DRV and insult your decision. Sean William @ 03:57, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Point taken, but the fact that admins often do this doesn't mean that they should be doing it. Policy is clear on the subject even if imperfectly enforced. -- ChrisO 07:27, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Agreed but this only illustrates the problem with closing admins counting !votes when they should be enforcing policy. MartinDK 07:55, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Then it's time to take a stand against vote counting rather than letting it continue without objections. --Hemlock Martinis 20:28, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

It is true that is not a vote. The problem is that for critical matters, if this is not considered as such, it will create big problems. Typically, in this case, if an administrator had not followed the result of a vote for deletion, this could have generated in an editwar between some of them... :-( Alithien 18:18, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Support many times at WP:DRV the party seeking undeletion starts with: the vote was X keeps and Y deletes. Let's lay this down as firmly as possible. Carlossuarez46 19:47, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Strongest possible support. This is how XfD is supposed to work, regardless of how often it is suggested otherwise. --Hemlock Martinis 20:28, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Administrators expected to lead by example

15) Administrators are expected to lead by example. To a greater extent than other editors, administrators are expected to observe the principles of Wikiquette and other guidelines and policies, and to behave in a respectful, civil manner in their interactions with others.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Support. This is definitely a principle that should be established. I don't want to sound WP:CREEPy, but this fiction that we are all equal must end, some are more equal than others and with great power comes great responsibility.

Jimbo is not merely an editor, you are not merely the ArbCom, crats aren't simply editors, and admins are not merely editors with sysop tools. Dorothy, this ain't 2001 anymore.

This principle has a far reaching consequence, and any expression on the part of ArbCom will have deep consequences, including if the expression is silence. --Cerejota 06:41, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed: A slight adaptation from Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Jeffrey O. Gustafson/Proposed decision#Administrators expected to lead by example, which looks likely to pass. The conduct at the AfD discussions and DRV's leads me to believe that this principle needs to be explicitly restated in this case. MastCell ^Talk 19:11, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Support but let's expand that to all editors with significant experience here. Most of us should have known better - that includes my own comment on the Allegations of French apartheid AfD. MartinDK 11:09, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I think that makes sense; one would hope that highly experienced editors, admin or not, would lead by example in a situation like this. MastCell ^Talk 16:44, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment: There's something to be said for a blanket rule that no admin can both edit content and use administrative privileges in the same article. Once you've done one, you can't do the other. Maybe the software should enforce that. Slashdot has such a rule; their software won't let you both moderate and comment on the same article, and it works well there. --John Nagle 19:03, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Dealing with articles perceived to be non-neutral

16) If an article or article title is believed to be non-neutral or otherwise inappropriate, a number of mechanisms exist to address such concerns. If those mechanisms fail to yield the desired result, creating a series of highly controversial, loosely related articles to "balance" the offending article is, at best, a form of improper content forking, and at worst disruption of Wikipedia to make a point. It is not a means of upholding WP:NPOV.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Total support. There are a few other cases around in which this is the key problem, arbcom needs to establish this principle.--Cerejota 00:22, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed as the central finding here. It has been expressed by at least one editor that the "Allegations" articles were created to "balance" or "dilute" Allegations of Israeli apartheid, a perceived "attack article", after the failure of efforts to delete the article via AfD. That's a remarkably ill-considered approach, as indicated by the predictable and inevitable drama that ensued. MastCell ^Talk 00:10, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Support. I assume that you are referring above to Sefringle's statement - could you clarify this point? -- ChrisO 00:12, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Sefringle, Moshe, Humus sapiens, Urthogie, Sefringle again, etc. It's one thing for relatively inexperienced editors to create a bunch of inflammatory forks to "balance" an article that offends them; it's another when this approach is excused or tacitly condoned by more experienced editors and admins. MastCell ^Talk 00:40, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

By the way, I should add that I agree with the point that the Israeli article itself is a fork with a non-neutral title that should be merged back into its parent articles on human rights. But then, the issue before ArbCom is not content; it's conduct, and this behavioral approach to dealing with a non-neutral article is wrong, regardless of the merits of the underlying content argument. MastCell ^Talk 00:43, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Don't you think it is a little bit easy ? So, all allegations of would be fork but the first one ? So everybody is bad but let's only blame one side because the other side was more clever in its behaviour ??? I don't feel this is fair... :-( Alithien 08:19, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

No. Re-read. I think all the allegations articles, including the Israeli one, are POV forks with non-neutral titles. That's my opinion as an editor. However, I can't condone the approach of creating a bunch of inflammatory content forks to "balance" an article after failing to get your way on a content issue. That, to me, is disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. Hence this proposed principle. The matter before ArbCom is the disruption, not the underlying point. MastCell ^Talk 15:34, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I think I understand.

And I still comment : don't you think it is too easy ?.

It is clear that what some did is WP:POINT but in taking that risk they prove they were right (as you say yourself). Isn't too easy to blame them but not to blame the ones who are initially responsible of the fork ? Only because they are more numerous and that votes to modify the situation failed ? Should it be the role of the ArbCom the last step in a dispute to solve the problem to solve the whole matter as a whole ?

If they are only "blamed", some of their disruption will remain and the initial problem will remain too. So...

Alithien 18:14, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

About the heart of the matter

17) Even if the ArbCom doesn't manage content dispute, the heart of the matter of this dispute is there.

Comment by Arbitrators:

There appears to be a fundamental misperception here. ArbCom exists to resolve those user conduct disputes which stand in the way of the peaceful resolution of content disputes. The community (or Jimbo, those who wish an abstract discussion on power and authority on Wikipedia please visit my talk page) has granted ArbCom vast powers to restore order. These powers are not exercised wantonly, or without forethought, but they're on the table if parties are not prepared to act reasonably. Mackensen (talk) 04:08, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Oppose. The community already has a process that works if people follow behavior policies like WP:NPOV (specially how it is explained in WP:WFTE), WP:OR and guidelines/essays like WP:AGF, WP:HONESTY etc. The process might be long winded, in controversial cases, permanent, but it works (or wikipedia would have shutdown a long time ago).

Hence when the process truly breaks down, it is usually because of behavioral issues. This is why ArbCom only rules on behavior. Content disputes are the background of all behavioral issues involving editors, but they are not the heart of the matter in an ArbCom case: the heart of the matter is bad behavior by editors.--Cerejota 00:35, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

proposed Alithien 08:11, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Irrelevant. Ultimately, any dispute could be characterized as a content dispute. It become a matter for arbitration if the behavior of some or all of the parties (edit warring, canvassing, making personal attacks, using Wikipedia as a soapbox, etc) violates community standards of behavior and interferes with a resolution of the content issue. Thatcher131 12:20, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

What Thatcher said. MastCell ^Talk 15:36, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I understand but don't fully agree.

A dispute can arise because the matter has no solution and the topic is hot.

The fact good faith contributors have diametrally different answers to the same questions, basing their thoughts on the same principles, proves this. Alithien 16:38, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with this section's assertion. the whole reason that good-faith editors are having extreme disputes is that there is a content dispoute which is dire need of resolution. Restricting ArbCom from resolving a content dispute is what is creating this whole mess. --Steve, Sm8900 21:34, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Blaming

18) In a content dispute, with contributors of good faith and quality, blaming some for their behaviour is not a way to solve the problems.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Oppose. I think this is not helpful. A better one is an appeal for use of the WP:DR dispute resolution process list here. It is certainly more helpful than launching WP:WHATEVERS at each other.--Cerejota 06:44, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

proposed. And I would add that experienced contributors also proved they understand the project. Alithien 08:16, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Just plain silly. Take for example RFAR/Transnistria in which the parties were edit warring over the content of articles related to Transnistria. While arbitration did not attempt to solve the content dispute, it determined that certain editors' behavior was so outrageous that they should be banned from the topic. When editors' behavior is so combative and disruptive that they prevent normal consensus-based resolution of the problem, it is sometimes necessary to remove them from the topic or even the encyclopedia to allow more reasonable editors to proceed. Thatcher131 12:25, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with what your say. But that is why I underline good faith and of quality. And knowing some of them, from both side, I permit myself to insist. Alithien 16:34, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Contributors of good faith and quality, almost by definition, can not have such terrible behavior that they should be removed from the dispute. This is pretty much a tautology. -Amarkov moo! 04:07, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

ArbCom mission

19) The ArbCom is the ultimate last solution offered by wikipedia to a problem of dispute.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Factually incorrect. "Arbitration is the last step in the dispute resolution process." Mackensen (talk) 11:32, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Superceded by the one below--Cerejota 05:54, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

proposed Alithien 08:16, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Huh? Viridae^Talk 08:40, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Not understood. Do you mean ultimate solution? MartinDK 08:53, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

sorry. corrected. Alithien 09:19, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. ArbCom is the last step of dispute resolution. It is not the only step. Sean William @ 11:11, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment. I think Alithien tried to say exactly what Mackensen says in which case this is self-evident. MartinDK 13:33, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry. Yes. English is not my mother tongue. This is the last step, the last way to solve a problem (constructively). Thank you... Alithien 16:32, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

ArbCom mission (2)

20) In a content dispute where contributors of great experience and quality didn't find a ompromise, if the ArbCom doesn't deal with content dispute, there will be no solution and the dispute will arise again later.

Comment by Arbitrators:

ArbCom is not your mother. Mackensen (talk) 14:03, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

And this is why I voted against taking the case. We are not chartered to deal with content disputes. Period. If the community wishes to change this, they're welcome to, but I don't think they'd like the results. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 15:57, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Total support oppose. I have no idea why I wrote "support"... ArbCom is not my mother, but can it be my Optimus Prime?--Cerejota 05:53, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Alithien 08:16, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Not true. There is very much a solution; it's called mediation. Sean William @ 11:10, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

This has been tested and failed, unfortunately. And this has lasted for months and months. Alithien 16:31, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Editors who behave badly may be removed from the topic or even the encyclopedia, allowing more reasonably-behaved editors to work out their disagreements through the normal dispute resolution mechanisms. Thatcher131 12:27, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok. Let's ban one-side because it has lost a battle in the soapbox much editors make with wikipedia... If experienced editors arrive where we are today, it only shows there is a problem... :-( Alithien 16:31, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Object. As outlined above there are other ways to reach consensus on content issues. ArbCom takes care of the user-conduct that may be in the way of such a consensus. ArbCom is not our nanny, we are supposed to work out content issues ourselves. MartinDK 13:37, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it's fair to expect ArbCom to single-handedly bring peace to (articles on) the Middle East. Editors have to take that responsibility on themselves, and ideally more experienced editors would lead by example. The fact that this hasn't happened is why we're here. MastCell ^Talk 15:40, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

The whole problem here is that ArbCom says it will not get involved content disputes. This is what makes it necessary to bring up all these ridiculous tangential problems where we scrutinize people's behavior. And the truth is ArbCom is involved in content disputes anyway whether it realizes it or admits it or not. In judging an editor, it makes a world of differenece if the editor was adding good edits or bad ones. This ridiculous limitation on ArbCom's focus is what is creating all these ridiculous, trivial unproductive disputes here on this page. --Steve, Sm8900 21:15, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

(moved from arbitrator section)

ArbCom is not your mother. Mackensen (talk) 14:03, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

(To Mackensen) I am not involved in the dispute. Your comment are Uncivil.

And this is why I voted against taking the case. We are not chartered to deal with content disputes. Period. If the community wishes to change this, they're welcome to, but I don't think they'd like the results. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 15:57, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

All that can be said is that there is a problem in spite the fact that people involved are good and experienced editors... Alithien 16:31, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

(To Jpgordon) If you refuse to deal with that, yes, you should have refused indeed. That is a content dispute between experience editors and this is a problem that should be solved. Alithien 16:31, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand what you're trying to say. Sean William @ 21:09, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Somebody moved my comments. The first step of uncivility is insult (eg "ArbCom is not your mother"). The second step is moving other's comments (what somebody did) without doing this clearly and honnestly.

Some will here blame attitudes they themselves cannot avoid having.

Alithien 07:31, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure how my remark could possibly be interpreted as an insult. Mackensen (talk) 20:35, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Absent a mandate from the community or the Foundation to do so, Arbcom will not rule on content. You can say "they should" or even "they have to" all you want, but they (correctly) believe that article content is not within their jurisdiction. They can't make it within their jurisdiction by claiming so, even were they inclined too. -Amarkov moo! 04:57, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Do you have precise references for this ?

Alithien 07:31, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

The top of the page? Where an arbitrator says that they absolutely will not rule on content? -Amarkov moo! 16:56, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Role of the Arbitration Committee

21) The Arbitration Committee exists to resolve user conduct disputes, and will not rule on content. Other forms of dispute resolution, such as mediation, may be used in lieu of arbitration to resolve content disputes.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

This a repeat of two other things... I support, but maybe we should... merge?--Cerejota 05:56, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed. Sean William @ 04:36, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Tu quoque

22) Editors are expected to adhere to policy regardless of the behavior of those they are in disputes with; inappropriate behavior by others does not legitimize one's own

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposer. WP:POTty train the kids...--Cerejota 05:57, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Obviously true. I don't know yet if it is needed. GRBerry 16:20, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Obviously true, too bad people tend not to believe it recently. -Amarkov moo! 16:54, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Admin tools

23) Administrators should not make use of admin tools in disputes that they are involved in. It is wise to wait for a neutral administrator to take the admin action.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Support. Root of the problem or not, this precedent should be set.--Cerejota 00:36, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed. While this may not be the primary problem in this dispute, non-neutral administrators closing Articles for Deletion debates and Deletion review debates only added fuel to the fire. —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 08:17, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Eagle that this is a significant issue that needs to be addressed, though it's not the root of the problem. MastCell ^Talk 16:46, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Other stuff exists is not a valid argument

24) Arguments should be made on a per article basis. All or nothing arguments are not useful, each article should be considered on its own basis.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Essay or no, Wikipedia:Attribution implies this. Articles are discrete concepts and must stand or fall on individual merit. This is central to the encyclopedia. Mackensen (talk) 20:38, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Weak oppose. The principle of all-or-nothing above covers this ground, because . I agree WP:ATT (or to be more formal, WP:V and WP:RS)is from which the WP:ATA essay gets a lot of its thinking. To expand my agreement with Mackensen, one must judge essays by the reasons they exist (which is why I think we should have formal essay hierarchy): some essays are polemical or controversial proposals or comments, others - such as WP:ATA are in fact a synthesis of applicable policy. I think such essays carry the weight of policy, and are a useful way to shorthand discussion. Consider this:

Sentence A in AfD: "Keep The nom's argument is WP:OTHERSTUFF."

Sentence B in AfD: "Keep The nom should consider that this article, unlike the other articles, meets WP:N, WP:V and in fact has many WP:RS, including various secondary sources that establish notability. The other articles where deleted because they failed to meet these policies."

Both say exactly the same thing, yet "B" directly cites policy, while "A" uses a synthesis of policy as shorthand, that nevertheless reflects policy and is way shorter. I think users who try to wikilawyer the invalidity of the WP:ATA "because its an essay" have a twisted sense of what is policy: policy is not an abstract law, but a concrete principle. If it is expressed in an essay rather than in a policy page, and this is used as shorthand by editors, it is not more or less valid a principle. --Cerejota 01:01, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed - Arguments that say in essence you can't delete/keep this article unless you delete/keep all the others are not helpful and move parties further away from a solution, rather then closer to a compromise. —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 08:39, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

We shouldn't have ArbCom ruling on specific arguments in AfD debates. People tend to cite ArbCom cases, and the "other stuff exists" argument is open to various interpretations. The community decides which arguments are valid in which cases, not ArbCom. Melsaran 12:36, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Quasi-support. It's valid, but just insanely weak. Kwsn(Ni!) 16:33, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't think this is appropriate for an Arbcom ruling, and it doesn't always hold anyway. While it is true that the status of related articles is not binding on an article, arguments saying "consensus over there seems to indicate that this should be kept too" are worthy of consideration. -Amarkov moo! 16:40, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Opposed. Essentially this is asking for an essay (actually a portion of an essay) to be elevated to "policy", and it is my understanding that the ArbCom does not do that. Also, I don't think these principles are relevant to this case, but that will require further explanation. 6SJ7 18:19, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Opposed. Elevation of even a much-cited essay to policy should first be considered by and decided by the community not ArbCom in the first instance. Carlossuarez46 19:52, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

The focus on "essay" vs. "policy" is misguided in this case. WP:ATA are already widely employed by admins who close deletion debates. A good admin will discount arguments that are purely or primarily "other crap exists", "all or nothing", "notability is inherited", etc. I'd love to see ArbCom validate it, if only to stop the chorus of "but it's only an essay!" Yes, but it's an essay that reflects how things are done, and like policy, it's descriptive rather than prescriptive. MastCell ^Talk 22:03, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Maybe that's one of the reasons that AfD and DRV are dysfunctional. Of course, that's just my opinion... correct though it is. 6SJ7 22:35, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

They are not dysfunctional, as they help to keep the meatpuppet mobs in check. WP:NOT#DEMOCRACY. Of course, certain political ideologies, with large and active networks of propaganda, along with certain multi-level and "affiliate" businesses capable of paying people, wish that it wasn't like that. Hence wikipedia would be about who can muster the largest numbers of editors to a vote, instead of being about the sourcing and notability of a given topic.

Yet you go to the heart of a matter: Did a group of editors, weary that they cannot delete content they dislike, try to force the community to delete the content by making an offer: we will stop being disruptive if you delete that article, even if it meets content policies as explained in multiple AfDs? Or this didn't exist? Or their efforts are reasonable behaviors in defense of WP:NPOV? You are wrong, and will continue to be wrong, as long as you advocate mob rule over reasoned debate, and deletion instead of edition or notable content. --Cerejota 23:52, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Contributors are expected to make a reasonable effort to ensure articles conform to NPOV

21) Creators of articles are expected to make a reasonable effort that any article they create fairly represents all significant points of view on a topic; it is not sufficient to merely allow other contributors to do the work of adding balance later. Contributors to an existing article are expected to make an effort to maintain balance in how the article represent different points of view, rather than making the article more biased. Creating articles in violation of one's own interpration of WP:NPOV is harmful to the encyclopedia.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Weak Oppose. This is the obligation of any wikipedian. Re-stating might be in order, but I don't now if a pile-on of policy is all that productive.--Cerejota 00:14, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed. This is the problem with creating bogus articles to make a point. Kla’quot (talk | contribs) 16:50, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Weak Oppose per WP:TIND, which suggests this merely as an ideal. One lone editor may lack all the references to make such a thing possible. -- 146.115.58.152 16:48, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Arbcom is not is a means to gain advantage in a content dispute

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. Sadly, given the piling on that one side of the debate is being subjected to, and some of the draconian measures being proposed against them, I think this needs to be made very clear. OTHO, I guess if you remove one side, you will settle the debate. <<-armon->> 12:55, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Support the principle in general, but oppose its application here. You are making a rather canyon-sized leap of bad-faith with this proposal. Tarc 13:04, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

See also my other proposal. <<-armon->> 13:26, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Not really applicable... ArbCom is the final step in addressing problematic behavior, and that's what this case has been about. None of the proposed remedies are particularly Draconian, especially in light of the severity of the disruption and battlegrounding involved. At the most, it would involve restraining some editors from the "Allegations of apartheid" series, which should probably be deleted anyway. There's no way that any of the proposed remedies are going to tip the cosmic balance in any meaningful way, but they may at least send a message that people may actually be held accountable for treating Wikipedia as a battleground and disrupting it to make a point, regardless of the validity of that point. MastCell ^Talk 15:45, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Disagree completely. i also disagree with every single comment posted above in this section. perhaps you have not noticed that we have some huge content disputes here, which are not on the way to being resolved. instead we are on the way to discussing whether various users should be sanctioned, banned, censured, etc. While I realize that in some cases this may be warranted, in some cases the conduct is only due to the nature of this dispute, and the Arbitrators are rightfully reluctant to act too severely. So we may end up with an action that doesn't resolve user conduct issues, but doesn't resolve content disputes either.

Whether this entire case should have been brought is an open question. i have never seen any case with more needless attacks over trivial/nebulous flaws in conduct on BOTH sides, needless clouding of issues, and needless arguments over minutiae; or where BOTH sides have done more to undermine their own case and to undermine the value of this proceeding as well. This case should have been brought about specific issues, and KEPT to those issues, pure and simple. All these disingenuous pleas that various user conduct issues absolutely had to be addressed was just silly, and got us nowhere, and also, in the end, each side's allegations brought a flood of new ones from the other side. So where did that leave either side's case?

With that said, i completely disagree with this proposal. it's all well and good to make a proposal against so-called "unfair" leverage, and to make it sound like you are trying to prevent unfairness. However, all you're doing is preventing some somewhat hopeful attempts at bringing up some real issues which might still be able to give some clarity and real results to this proceeding; and instead, you are depriving this proceeding of whatever remaining potential usefulness it might still hope to have. --Steve, Sm8900 16:19, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Good faith editing and commenting

21) Consistent with the principle don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point, editors should create only articles that they genuinely believe should become part of Wikipedia content. Similarly, in deletion discussions, editors should offer opinions based only on their good-faith beliefs as to the correct action that should be taken. For example, an editor might appropriately argue that "since Article A was kept and Article B is closely analogous, we should keep Article B also" if it is their good-faith belief that Article B should be kept. However, it would inappropriate for an editor to reason "in order to create leverage for the deletion of Article A, which I dislike, I will deliberately create or insist on keeping poor-quality Article B," where the editor does not genuinely believe that Article B deserves a place in Wikipedia.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Belatedly proposed, along with a new proposed finding of fact and a new proposed remedy. Before offering these proposals, I have studied the arbitrators' various views as expressed on /proposed decision, which have left the case somewhat at impasse on the action to be taken. My goal is to offer a synthesis that might help advance the arbitrators' deliberations and upon which compromise might be reached. Newyorkbrad 04:26, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Sure: This is a pretty good formulation of the difference between participating in a controversial AfD and disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. It's probably useful to set this out explicitly in one form or another. MastCell ^Talk 05:11, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Proposed findings of fact

Locus of the dispute

1) The locus of this dispute is a series of ten Allegations of X apartheid articles created between 27 March and 22 July 2007. They were named in the same style as a much older article, Allegations of Israeli apartheid (AoIa for short), which has been the subject of lengthy disputes since its creation in May 2006. Six were started by Urthogie, who has been involved in the AoIa dispute:

• Allegations of Australian apartheid (now deleted) (created 27 March 2007)
• Allegations of Brazilian apartheid (27 March 2007)
• Allegations of Islamic apartheid (now merged) (27 March 2007)
• Allegations of American apartheid (now deleted) (4 June 2007)
• Allegations of Chinese apartheid (now deleted) (13 July 2007)
• Allegations of French apartheid (14 July 2007)

Two more articles were created by other editors with prior involvement in the AoIa dispute:

• Allegations of Saudi Arabian apartheid (6 April 2007) - Jayjg
• Allegations of Jordanian apartheid (now deleted) (17 July 2007) - Chesdovi

Two further articles were created by editors who have not been involved in the AoIa dispute:

• Allegations of Northern Irish apartheid (moved to Segregation in Northern Ireland) (22 July 2007) - Theo F
• Allegations of Puerto Rican apartheid (now merged into Allegations of apartheid) (22 July 2007) - Bleh999

Additional controversy has involved Allegations of tourist apartheid in Cuba (now moved to Tourist segregation in Cuba). This was originally created on 12 July 2006 as Allegations of Cuban apartheid by Briangotts, who has been involved in the AoIa dispute.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Also relevant are:

• Apartheid wall
• Timeline of Israeli apartheid (now deleted)

Both cover related subject matter, and both had extensive edit wars in recent months involving many of the same editors. But those articles have settled down into a consensus of sorts, so they're not actively disputed issues at this time. The history there can provide some insight into how we got into this mess, but that's about it. --John Nagle 19:36, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Support. As a comment for Nagle, the correct title of his POV fork was Timeline relating to allegations of Israeli Apartheid (grabs some breath) which we can find the AfD here, and should definitely be added to the list, along with Apartheid wall. However I must disagree that Bleh999, who started Allegations of Puerto Rican apartheid after I called for ignoring the offense of national sensibility in the France AfD, is indeed an involved editor, and in fact tried to start an AfD that I speedily closed and he insisted on reopening. He is part of the WP:POINT stuff, if not as perpetrator, possibly as unwitting victim. --Cerejota 05:45, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

If Timeline relating to allegations of Israeli Apartheid (that was a post-move name) is to be examined, we'll need its history restored. Can it be brought back, with history, into some workspace outside the article namespace? The "timeline" issue actually started when the timeline was created in the Allegations of Israeli Apartheid article (Andyvphil (Let's start up the timeline.No, I'm not claiming undue significance for Amin. Feel free to add palatable adopters.)) on April 29, 2007. This started an edit war that ran through most of May, during which the timeline was deleted and restored multiple times. I moved the timeline out to a separate article, thinking that would help. The timeline issue is worth examining because it illustrates the first major WP:POINT behavior in this subject area seemingly aimed at making an article worse as a way to get it deleted. --John Nagle 19:00, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed. I suggest that the focus of the arbitration should be agreed at the outset - it will save time and possible confusion. -- ChrisO 18:05, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Note that most of the material that was at Allegations of Chinese apartheid is now hosted at Human rights in the People's Republic of China. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:48, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I believe that the above tries to address too many issues at once. In addition to identifying the locus of dispute, it also attempts to analyse the degree of controversy affecting specific articles, introduces ambiguities (such as whether AoIa is included or not), and states whether creators have been "involved in the AoIa dispute". I suggest that these issues are best dealt with separately. Jakew 13:49, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Also relevant is:

• Allegations of Apartheid (created on 10 July 2005, compressed to a redirect on 8 February 2006, recreated as a distinct article page by User:Jayjg on 5 June 2006.) CJCurrie 02:24, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Contentious deletion debates

2) The creation of these articles has prompted a number of extremely contentious deletion debates. (American - AfD, DRV; Chinese - AfD, DRV; Brazilian - AfD; Cuban - AfD; French - AfD; Islamic - AfD; Jordanian - AfD; Saudi Arabian - AfD).

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Support. Most of these discussions degenerated into things that shouldn't be discussed in AfDs/DRVs.--Cerejota 05:32, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed. -- ChrisO 18:05, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Support. The Allegations of Chinese apartheid DRV being a good example of how the keep side has resorted to personal attacks when their very liberal iterpretation of WP:OR and even worse WP:IAR has not worked. MartinDK 21:22, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Support. The most glaring example there was the "AfD was closed early!" fabrication by the DRV nominator, which was unfortunately quickly picked up upon by several keepers later on. One of the uglier DRVs I've witnessed here. Tarc 01:28, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

That's part of the story, anyway. The results of the French AfD were then overturned by a merge request in which far fewer people participated, and a highly dubious close. (See above under "Moratorium".) Thus continues the systematic effort to purge from Wikipedia any "apartheid" accusation articles except for the one about Israel. 6SJ7 18:17, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Ongoing dispute over Allegations of Israeli apartheid

3) Allegations of Israeli apartheid was created in May 2006 (as Israeli apartheid). The article has been nominated for deletion six times (29 May 2006 - no consensus, 25 July 2006 - speedy keep, 8 August 2006 - no consensus, 30 March 2007 - keep, 19 April 2007 - no consensus, 26 June 2007 - speedy keep). It has also been the subject of a previous arbitration, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Israeli apartheid. It has been, and continues to be, a focus for edit-warring and controversy.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Clarify. I am wary of ArCom ruling on content.--Cerejota 05:27, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Still not clear over what ArbCom is being asked to rule. However, I must comment that I personaly speak of 4 AfDs (still a significant number) instead of 6 because I agree two of them shouldn't count. However 6SJ7 is hardly a neutral commentator, as he has expressed repeatedly that his desire is for AoIA to be deleted, regardless of contents, presumably (he has been less clear on this) because of an ideological opposition. I must say that contrary to his opinion, the AfDs have been contentious but clearly good ones, in particular the speedy keeps: they follow policy. Even one AfD should suffice, but for the deletionists, this is unacceptable. They are sour grapes. --Cerejota 02:08, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

In your opinion. 6SJ7 01:23, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Doh! --Cerejota 23:54, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed. -- ChrisO 18:05, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

To clarify as requested by Cerejota: this proposal does not concern content issues but is intended to provide background on the history of the article which was the original spark for this controversy. As pointed out in section 5 below, the history of this article is closely related to the history of the rest of the "allegations of apartheid" articles. -- ChrisO 15:49, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that the "background" is distorted and misleading. It may give someone the impression that members of the so-called "core group" referred to elsewhere by ChrisO nominated the article for deletion six times. This is not the case. The first nom was by a sock of the creator, on the day the article was created, for gamesmanship purposes. Some of the other nominations were by people who were not even involved with the article. One of the nominations was closed after 36 minutes, before any of the people involved in the article were even aware of its existence. Some of the closes have been questionable, either procedurally or substantively or both. And all of the nominations after the first one have been unfairly burdened by the label "second nomination" all the way down to "sixth nomination", which drew non-involved editors to support a "keep" simply because it was a second, third or whatever nomination. So as far as I am concerned there has never been a "clean" AfD for that article, so the continuing references to "six nominations" present a false picture of what has happened. 6SJ7 16:04, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment: The first AfD for the article was actually posted on May 29, 2006 -- the same day the article was created -- and the nominator, "Fullsome Prison", was a sockpuppet of the administrator, Homey, who created the article. [4] That sockpuppetry was not known until months later. Thus began the corrupt history of the article that started this whole mess. 6SJ7 19:39, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I've corrected the date. -- ChrisO 19:41, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

The Allegations of Israeli apartheid controversy is a bit more complicated than this. "This whole mess" (to use 6SJ7's phrase) did not start with the first afd, or even with the creation of the present article. It goes back a bit further.

As early as 2004, Wikipedia's article on Apartheid (later renamed as History of South Africa in the Apartheid era) included a section about practices in other nations that some believed analogous with apartheid-era S.A. The first edit in this section referenced Israel and Spain -- and, interestingly, the first appearances of the phrase "Allegations of Apartheid" on Wikipedia appear to have been made in this edit from 00:34, 15 November 2004 and this edit from 01:32, 15 November 2004.

On 10 July 2005, this section was moved to a new article entitled Apartheid outside of South Africa (which, in turn, was later renamed as Allegations of Apartheid).

Our problems appear to have started on 8 February 2006. At 00:40 of that day, following a bitter content dispute (exemplified by this edit), the information having to do with Israel was arbitrarily removed. Later in the same day, the article itself was redirected to Segregation. Some of the material from "Apartheid outside of South Africa" was added to Racial segregation on 8 February, and the material on Saudi Arabia was added to Human rights in Saudi Arabia. The section on Israel, however, seems to have vanished completely. It seems unlikely that this was entirely accidental.

It's possible that none of this has any bearing on the present controversy, given that the nature of the debate has changed significantly since February 2006. Nonetheless, we should be clear that the problems having to do with this subject matter did not begin with the first afd. CJCurrie 02:51, 13 August 2007 (UTC) minor adjustment 03:28, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

That may be, but the fraudulent AfD for one of the articles that is actually the subject of this arbitration did not help the situation, and did more to place us where we are today than any of the ancient history that you mention. 6SJ7 04:15, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

But given all that revealing history, are we supposed to believe the original same day creation/AfD was intended to inoculate the article against deletion or against valid creation? Hard to know now which side the prankster was on. -- 146.115.58.152 04:42, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Uh huh. It's difficult to know for sure who the pranksters are now, too. As for the first AfD, it's pretty clear that Homey (waving if he's reading this, and perhaps writing as well) was seeking to "inoculate the article against deletion." By the way, under his "real" name, he voted "keep" in the AfD that he had started under the "sock" name. 6SJ7 02:12, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I'd to put a bit more historical context on this dispute, continued from my comments above. The decision to redirect Allegations of Apartheid in February 2006 put an end to the controversies surrounding that page for a time, but they resurfaced on 5 June 2006 when User:Jayjg decided to relaunch the page with a call to merge Allegations of Israeli apartheid into it (it will probably not come as a surprise to any readers that the latter article had been only created days before). There was subsequently an afd for the relaunched Allegations of apartheid article, which truly must be seen to be believed.

Jayjg's decision to relaunch the page appears rather puzzling, perhaps even a WP:POINT violation, when considered alongside comments that he made on the article a few months earlier. As far as I can tell, Jayjg was himself responsible for setting the motion the decision to dismantle the original article ... and yet he created it again after Israel apartheid made its first appearance. How else am I to interpret this?

In its initial form, the relaunched article included information on Australia, France, Malaysia, Saudi Arabia and the United States. User:Jayjg subsequently subsequently expanded the page to include copious amounts of information on other countries (and, in the process, attempted to merge Allegations of Israeli apartheid without consensus). Most, if not all, of the subsequent "Allegations of [...] apartheid" articles were spun off from this source.

I would also like to draw to the attention of readers Jayjg's comments here, which refer to prior remarks made here and here. Assuming that Jayjg actually endorsed Viriditas's arguments, his subsequent support for the other "Allegations of ..." articles seems quite ironic. CJCurrie 04:19, 15 August 2007 (UTC) modified 04:54, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

A seventh (or fifth according to some counts) nomination 3 September 2007 Result:None (closed because of this arbcom case) should be added to the list. It exhibits a similar degree of strong language and heat as noted in previous matters.--Peter cohen 11:56, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Failure of centralised discussion on the use of "apartheid"

4) In the above-mentioned arbitration, the Arbitration Committee directed that "Discussion of global issues which concern use of "apartheid" and all polls shall be at Wikipedia:Central discussions/Apartheid with subsidiary dialog on the talk page of affected articles." The global issues were discussed intensively on that page between June 2006 and November 2006 without a resolution being found. From mid-November 2006 to March 2007, discussions became sporadic, with no discussion at all between March and July 2007. Discussions resumed at the end of July 2007 following the controversies, AfDs, DRVs etc. concerning the creation of the "allegations of apartheid" series.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Support. I opened an enforcement request precisely around the issue of WP:APARTHEID with no response[5]. ArbCOm should clarify.--Cerejota 05:25, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed. -- ChrisO 18:05, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. A lot of the original ArbCom issues were resolved long ago by the consensus to merge parts of the different "type X apartheid" articles (e.g. social apartheid, gender apartheid, global apartheid, etc.) into Allegations of Apartheid, getting rid of Apartheid (disambiguation), making Apartheid redirect to the historical South African Apartheid with dab links up top, and moving Israeli apartheid to Allegations of Israeli apartheid (though people have been complaining about that ever since, even people who supported the move in the first place). WP:APARTHEID accomplished much of what the original ArbCom intended it to. -- 146.115.58.152 18:44, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Good point. I'd assumed that lack of centralised discussion = failure, but of course it could have meant that the discussion was taking place elsewhere. Either way, it's clear that no centralised discussion was ongoing at the time that the disputed series of articles were created. -- ChrisO 18:52, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

The creation of POV articles creating a supposed need for a centralized debate which would re-context the deletion of the Israeli article was the apparent strategy in the first place. Thus whether to centralize debate or not and creating further articles to further attempt to justify a centralized debate is all a part of which side of this argument one was on. WAS 4.250 20:09, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Another good point. I've added a line to the end of the statement above to note the correlation between the "allegations of apartheid" controversy and the resumption of centralised discussions. -- ChrisO 20:12, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

You may have missed this previous ArbCom remedy, WAS: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Israeli_apartheid#Centralized_discussion. It was made by the ArbCom for a reason, and was not a "strategy". ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:14, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Support. Allegations of Apartheid has not solved anything. That article is currently fully protected for a reason and Ideogram has stated on the talk page that he intends to AfD it as soon as the protection is removed. If that happens this will explode. ArbCom granted amnesty to those involved so that they could settle this without resorting to incivility and disruption. Given the events since that ArbCom case I'd say it has failed. That failure is the main reason this case has become necessary. MartinDK 21:37, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Support. It was a good idea to try centralizing the discussion, but it didn't help. --John Nagle 04:48, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Correlation between article creation and AfDs

5) The timing of the creation of "Allegations of apartheid" articles has been closely correlated to AfDs on Allegations of Israeli apartheid. Allegations of Australian apartheid, Allegations of Brazilian apartheid and Allegations of Islamic apartheid were created by Urthogie shortly before the fourth deletion debate on AoIa and Allegations of Saudi Arabian apartheid was created by Jayjg shortly afterwards. Allegations of American apartheid was created by Urthogie shortly before the sixth deletion debate on AoIa and the same user created Allegations of Chinese apartheid and Allegations of French apartheid shortly afterwards, along with Chesdovi creating Allegations of Jordanian apartheid.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Weak Support. Strengthens WP:POINT, however I think it is part of that section, don't really see it as separate.--Cerejota 05:23, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed. See section 1 for the article creation dates and compare with the AoIa AfD dates in section 3. -- ChrisO 18:05, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

As per Jayjg' evidence, he created only one of these articles. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:24, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I've corrected the statement. -- ChrisO 18:26, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Articles with names that include "Allegations of XXX" are POV magnets

6) Articles with names that include "Allegations of XXX" are POV magnets, forfeit de facto the possibility of achieving NPOV status, and thus they become a focus of endless debates, AfDs, DRVs, wasting time of many good editors, time that could be used better in improving the project.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Content dispute. --Ideogram 18:30, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I am not referring to content disputes as related to these articles, but about the ample evidence that these articles have created a major disruption in the project. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:33, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Please move your comment to your section. --Ideogram 18:36, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Please see [6] :

The sources in this article must refer to "apartheid" in France, or "apartheid" instituted by France". You cannot bring in a whole bunch of other sources that don't refer to "apartheid" in order to construct a counter-argument, instead you must bring sources that directly refer to the topic of this article, which is "Allegations of apartheid".

For this reason, finding counter-arguments of "There are allegations of X" is impossible ! With this kind of title, you can't add statements dealing with other POVs, to eventually reach a NPOV article ! NicDumZ ~ 21:52, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Weak object. This is a content issue. However, if ArbCom wants to expand WP:WTA to include "Allegation(s)" I have no problem.--Cerejota 05:21, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:28, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, but ArbCom does not rule on content. Sean William @ 18:32, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

That is not about content, but about the effects that these POV magnets are having on the project. The ArbCom has referred in the past to POV magnets. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:33, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't disagree about the titles being POV magnets but it's still essentially a content issue. This arbitration is about conduct issues, which is the ArbCom tends to focus on. -- ChrisO 18:37, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Are we here to solve matters rather than to behave as lawyers ? The ArbCom is -before all- here as the ultimate way to solve a dispute and should be free to behave accordingly. If it only "punish" some behaviours, it becomes a protagonist of the battleground instead of trying to stop this and solving the matter. Alithien 07:58, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Arbcom doesn't rule over content. Period. Melsaran 19:59, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Here's a link to the poll wherin this form of title first gained widespread community support. -- 146.115.58.152 20:41, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Support, if ArbCom does not rule on content, then they should on policy, specifically WP:NPOV. <<-armon->> 02:37, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

It's true that such articles are harder to get NPOV on. But we can't just ditch all heavily disputed articles on the grounds that they're hard to write well (even were I to think that Arbcom should rule on this, which I don't). -Amarkov moo! 16:43, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

It is not about "harder" or "easier", Amarkov. Political statements should not exists in WP as articles, but need to be given the right context. My point is that it is our responibility of the community not to allow such divisiveness. It brings the worst out of people, spilling a real-world dispute into Wikipedia. WP is not a battleground, and when it does, it gets bloody: that is the nature of wars. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:49, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

WP is not a battleground. That is reason for sanctioning users who make it a battleground. That is not a reason for deleting the articles those users turn into battlegrounds, if such articles are necessary to have a good encyclopedia. "POV magnet" isn't a reason for deletion. -Amarkov moo! 16:51, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

The principle, as written, is undoubtedly true, but deals entirely with content and is probably outside the traditional purview of ArbCom. MastCell ^Talk 02:23, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

support. Even if the ArbCom members cannot comment on the issue on a content dispute, they could nevertheless admit the content is a magnet from which the dispute is generated ! (This is the real heart of the matter). Alithien 07:56, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I support this in principle. Having reviewed the material & arguments in this case, I believe it is appropriate to make some kind of statement about the word "apartheid" -- which is an undeniably emotionally-packed word. (However I would favor a statement along the lines of "Apartheid is one of many emotionally-packed words, and more than average care should be taken in their use" -- this does not make the assertions the proposed statement under discussion does.) Although I do not condone violations of WP:POINT for any reason, adopting this would explain why this guideline was violated. Further, I do not see this statement as dealing with content, but as a general observation made as a suggestion about how to prevent future conflicts winding up on the steps of the ArbCom. Had both sides kept this in mind -- one side being sensitive to the word's connotations & looking for ways to compromise, the other realizing that the word enflames their emotions & working harder to be less passionate -- perhaps this matter would not need the ArbCom's attention. -- llywrch 19:09, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Correlation between POV magnets and unproductive user conduct and behaviors

7) Articles that have been assessed to be POV magnets attract unproductive behavior, are divisive, and become battlegrounds mimicking real-world disputes.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Object. This is a truth of life. What exactly would ArbCom rule? Delete controversial articles? Relaxing our behavior rules in controversial articles? Any way you look at it, it is the responsibility of individual editors to remain productive in the face of controversy, and egrerious violations should be pursued using WP:DR. Neither should we shy away from controversial topics, nor should we have special treatment for bad behavior in controversial articles, so I do not see value in ArbCom ruling on this.--Cerejota 05:19, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:45, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

While that's true in principle, it's not particularly dispositive of anything that I can see in practice. George W. Bush is a POV magnet that attracts unproductive behaviour, is divisive, and has become a battleground mimicking real-world disputes. Should we delete that article? -- ChrisO 19:21, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

George W. Bush is a a biographical article, not a political statement. And this proposal is not related to "deleting" any article. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:22, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Kinda overstating the obvious, really. Controversial subject matter will no doubt see *drum roll* controversial editing. There's no reason to treat controversial articles any differently than non-controversial ones. Tarc 01:34, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Again, the principle is undoubtedly true, but seems framed to lead to content-based ArbCom remedies. Many articles have been assessed to be POV magnets: global warming, passive smoking, AIDS reappraisal, statin, Vitamin C... but I don't know that ArbCom can do anything about the controversial nature of the topics. It can only deal with behavior that violates Wikipedia's policies. MastCell ^Talk 02:26, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Accusations of anti-semitism

8) Editors involved in the "allegations of apartheid" dispute have made unsubstantiated indiscriminate explicit and implicit accusations of anti-semitism against other editors and administrators.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Support. Clearly this is a conversation stopping innuendo and accusations that promotes an uncivil environment. WP:POOR--Cerejota 05:14, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

The behaviors shown below by editors is a clear illustration of my point. Thanks!--Cerejota 01:55, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Reject. Reliable scholarly sources demonstrate high correlation between singling out Israel for undue harsh criticism (in particular calling it an apartheid or racist state) and antisemitism. "Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g. by claiming that Israel is a racist endeavor", "Applying double standards by requiring of it a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation." (more refs per request). So much for "unsubstantiated indiscriminate". Indeed, an Orwellian "conversation stopping innuendo and accusations that promotes an uncivil environment". ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 04:38, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment : Yesterday, a French contributor got reverted for changing in the French Dominique Strauss-Kahn article the first sentence from "DSK is a French Economist[...]" to "DSK is a French jew Economist". ([7]) He asked me "do you think I am being anti-semitic for adding this ?". But the reason he was reverted was not for adding the "jew" word, it was because it was not the most important thing you'd need to understand his political career: The English article mentions that was raised in a Jewish family, but does not says "DSK is a jew, and also a French economist, etc...":

In the same sort of things, it's not because that the central article, AoIa, is about a Jewish country, that opponents of this article should be treated as anti-semitic. Some may have issued anti-semitic comments, some may have not, that's not the point of my comment. I'm only mentioning that this particular issue, in the Israeli context, is very particular. Anti-semitic accusations in a content dispute about Ufology would require immediate attention ; however, here, all these accusations must be handled with a very, very, particular care. (For better understanding of this comment, you might want to know that I never ever took position in The AoIa article. I'm trying to be as neutral as I can on this matter.) NicDumZ ~ 16:00, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed. As the target of one such claim, I'd like to state for the record that I unreservedly condemn these accusations. A more serious violation of assuming good faith is hard to imagine. -- ChrisO 22:26, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Here's another one from just yesterday. Though the more blatant editors who trot out this trope aren't aparty to this dispute. -- 146.115.58.152 22:43, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure that latter point is the case - Humus sapiens and IronDuke (the implicit accusers) have contributed to many of the AfDs and DRVs on these articles, as the evidence illustrates. Or are there other editors who use the same trope on different issues? -- ChrisO 23:41, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I suppose you are right, I'm just not sure how these things work. -- 146.115.58.152 23:52, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

"There are clearly many editors on wikipedia who hate Israel...", "...it was created by anti-zionists", and "The Israel haters...". What are these, snippets culled from long-ago debates? Nope, they come from Sefringle's statement on the main page of this arbcom case. It is bad enough that these disgusting charges are leveled in the course of article edits and discussions, but even worse when they are allowed to stand in an arbcom case. Tarc 03:45, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Here's another accusation from IronDuke, directed against me: [8]. Here's my response: [9]. CJCurrie 03:36, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Nothing in my statement was untrue—I didn't "accuse" CJ of doing anything, I pointed out what CJ in fact did—supporting [10] an antisemitic sockpuppet farmer, someone whom other editors had long been suspicious of. When CJ was called on this, he initially said that he could see no evidence Kiyosaki was antisemitic before the hateful diatribe he left on Jimbo's page [11], and challenged editors to find any some. Later, when I showed CJ such evidence [12], he replied that "I'd never seen that particular comment before now, and "This may come as a surprise to some people, but I didn't read everything "Kiyosaki" wrote during his time on Wikipedia" on the talk page, implying, I hope, that he was aware Kiyosaki's earlier remarks were cause for concern. And yet he replied to Kiyosaki, that same editor, on the same page [13], just three hours after the offensive remark. I still think CJ was guilty of failing to give the matter the attention it deserved. I have seen no hard evidence that CJ is antisemitic, and I don't think he need be pilloried or sanctioned (at least for his Kiyosaki support, though I suspect he will be sanctioned in some way before this process is through), but neither do I think it means I'm obligated to pretend it didn't happen, or that it is a violation of WP:CIV to point out the error. IronDuke 22:49, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I have seen no hard evidence that CJ is antisemitic.

IronDuke, are you seriously unaware that comments such as this have the appearance of being unsubtle smears, notwithstanding your denials? In any event, I've already explained my position as regards "Kiyosaki"; I was unaware of his bigoted statements until very close to the end of his time on Wikipedia, and am confident that I acted appropriately based on the knowledge I had at the time. CJCurrie 23:44, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry you see it as a smear, it certainly isn't meant that way, and I've taken pains to express that to be taken that way. I don't know how I can make it any clearer. IronDuke 00:04, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Let me explain my position more clearly, then: a phrase like "I have seen no hard evidence" is such a significant qualifier as to draw the rest of the sentence ("that CJ is antisemitic") into doubt. Perhaps this wasn't intentional on your part, but it still has the appearance of being a smear. CJCurrie 00:17, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I say categorically that I did not intend to smear you. That I cannot say: “I know for a fact that CJ is not an antisemite” in no way implies that you are one. It just says I don’t really know you that well. IronDuke 00:46, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps, but you should be aware that it's considered bad form to write "I have no hard evidence to assume that [x] is guilty of a serious offense", when you actually have no evidence at all. Should I assume that you'll at least show more caution with your choice of words in the future? CJCurrie 00:53, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, I don’t think it was bad form, especially in that I expanded on my remarks at the time to state clearly that I was not disparaging you, or applying the epithet to you. What I hear you saying is that it still somehow wasn’t clear to you, and I’m very sorry that’s the case. I’ll try to be even clearer with my reasoning with you in the future. IronDuke 01:14, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I can remember the context of this edit. I wasn't responding to Kiyosaki, so much as making a general statement about the Desmond Tutu quotes on the page (I believe that I initially moved them, and then realized that they were duplicates). Moreover, it seems that Kiyosaki was making multiple edits on the AoIa talk page during this period ... I can distinctly remember not wanting to bother reading all of them. Why IronDuke continues to insinuate some sort of connection between us is beyond me. CJCurrie 23:59, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps this will clarify it: I am not saying that you and Kiyosaki are of like minds, rather, I wonder whether you were as careful as you should have been, in enabling him, when there was evidence available. I have no trouble positing that you did not read it, but even if true, that doesn't make it okay: just because an editor is on your "side" doesn't mean you should encourage him right up until the time he makes his odiousness so apparent that he's actually banned (again). IronDuke 00:07, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

How exactly did I "enable" him or "encourage" him, IronDuke? As I recall, I mostly avoided him. CJCurrie 00:17, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Here is where he gave you a barnstar: [14]

Here is where you thanked him for it: [15]

I would characterize that as encouragement. IronDuke 00:44, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Rolls eyes. For the love of god, I've already been through this (more than once, I might add). In case you've forgotten, I wasn't aware of his bigotry when I accepted the barnstar. Once I was, I removed it. And I'm puzzled as to how my two word response constitutes encouragement in any meaningful sense. CJCurrie 00:51, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

CJ, you just asked me how you encouraged him, and I told you. Your stating that you mostly avoided him implied, to me, that you did not mean to say, “How did I encourage him after it became blindingly obvious he was an antisemite,” but rather, “When did I ever encourage him.”

Oh, and one other diff of interest: Here’s Humus Sapiens, less than half an hour after you made an edit engaging with Kiyosaki, stating, “May I suggest that each of Kiyosaki's edits should be scrutinized because of that editor's glaring bias.” [16] You didn’t see it? Didn’t read it? Didn’t buy it? And then you’re affronted when people ask how you weren’t aware of what exactly Kiyosaki was? You see what I'm saying? IronDuke 01:11, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

An accusation of bias is not the same as an accusation of prejudice. You should know that by now, I would think. CJCurrie 02:32, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Meanwhile, I see that Humus sapiens is making explicit insinuations of anti-Semitism on other pages now: [17]. CJCurrie 23:52, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

This is not the first time CJCurrie being refuted by a number of editors. Seeing his attempts to turn another WP article into a battleground, I have asked him to stay away from such sensitive matters. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 00:29, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

To be precise, I've been "refuted" by three editors in the course of a highly polarizing discussion. I'm quite prepared to stand by my comments on the page in question. Does Humus sapiens plan to stand by his remarks? CJCurrie 00:32, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I stand by my comments. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 00:56, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Ugh. Going by his logic there, when can we expect to see the ADL's opinions excised from the Hamas and Hezbollah pages? Tarc 00:23, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Let's continue this content dispute - in the appropriate place - when Hamas and Hezbollah are not on the list of terrorist groups. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 00:56, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Comments like that show just how much you do not understand NPOV. Tarc 13:08, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Strongly oppose. This proposal is new antisemitism. Alithien 08:02, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Support. I also find Alithien's comments above a little disturbing in that they help to perpetuate the very behavior that this proposal aims to address. As the New Anti-Semitism article points out, conflating anti-Zionism, (or legitimate critique of Israel and its honest representation), with anti-Semitism can trivialize the meaning of antisemitism and exploit it in order to silence debate. Admins like Humus Sapiens (talk · contribs) (diff) and Jayjg (talk · contribs) (diff), among other editors, have made these kind of insinuations which act to poison the well and discourage the contributions of other editors. Tiamat 11:31, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

At the civility and collaborationn level, what is the difference between creating an article that claim "Israel is an apartheid state" and stating "people who claim Israel is an apartheid state are antisemite" ?

Everybody can discuss about the human rights situation in Israel. It is harder to discuss about the apartheid reality (as many write) in Israel.

Hiding behind "alleged personnal accusations of antisemitism" is exactly the same as hiding behind "alleged personnal accusations of being citizen of a racist state".

Alithien 08:24, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

No, it's not. People can express a wide variety of views on race relations or human rights within a country, whether it be Israel, the US, Saudi Arabia, or France. Your argument seems to be that describing a country's policy as racist is equivalent to a personal attack on all citizens of that country. That doesn't make sense. The US has some policies which have been widely described as racist. Does that mean every time someone discusses one of them, or calls US policy racist, that they're calling me a racist? No. There's a huge leap between this and directly labeling or implying that an individual editor is an anti-Semite. MastCell ^Talk 18:05, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Support, per experiences that I've had with certain other editors. CJCurrie 17:06, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment: While I in no way endorse the comments presented, are the editors of the diffs cited in the proposed statement even parties here? If not, why not? Carlossuarez46 20:00, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

The diffs throughout this section show these statements are not limited to these two editors and I'm not sure that their being "parties" or not to his ArbComm has much relevance. From my understanding, who is a party has yet to be explicitly outlined. Tiamat 00:00, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Support: This pattern of behaviour continues to happen see [18] for a recent example with the added implication that any Jew who joins in is "self-loathing".--Peter cohen 12:09, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Concentrated editing

9) The creation and development of the "allegations of apartheid" articles has been dominated by a relatively small number of editors, with Urthogie creating most of them and Jayjg providing the largest number of edits.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Very weak support. This is pushing it a bit into content territory, however I have two concerns in this regards: 1) The editors who started additional articles didn't discuss the creation of the articles in the respective projects for the countries at hand, nor where they discussed in WP:APARTHEID (as per previous ArbCom), nor where they discussed in the talk pages of Allegations of apartheid. So there was no outstanding community need for their creation. 2) However, some of them where actually of relatively high quality, and could be considered regular forks of Allegations of apartheid because of WP:SIZE reasons, so in this sense what can ArbCom rule? That we cannot be bold? I might change my very weak support if it there are compelling arguments. --Cerejota 05:11, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

• • I am pretty sure that "The creation and development ... has been dominated by a relatively small number of editors" can be said about a majority of WP articles. It is not a problem elsewhere. The problem becomes when such editors assert WP:OWNERSHIP or become disruptive. I don't see any evidence of that. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 10:50, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed. Based on statistical evidence presented at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Allegations of apartheid/Evidence#Narrow responsibility for articles. -- ChrisO 01:14, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Support. Who could deny all this was WP:POINT ? Nevertheless this is not the heart of the matter. Recently ArbCom has chased user:Zero0000 because it decided to deal only with behaviour and not in trying to solve the problem. It can reequilibrate the balance of forces on the battleground in punished some others or try to solve all this mess. Alithien 08:04, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Is ArbCom a tribunal, as in real life, or the ultimate way to solve problem ? Alithien 08:05, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Pattern of AfD voting

10) A core group of around 12 editors has consistently voted to delete Allegations of Israeli apartheid (AoIa) but has voted to keep all the rest, or to delete if Allegations of Israeli apartheid is deleted as well. Diametrically opposed arguments have been presented for deleting AoIa and keeping the rest. See evidence.

Comment by Arbitrators:

The POINT violation is obvious; Sefringle may only speak for himself but the AfD participation is highly, highly suggestive. Mackensen (talk) 12:35, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Weak support. I think this is covered my other parts on WP:POINT and WP:BATTLE. However, I am willing to hear this out as a distinct thing to rule on. I take note of comments below, and disagree with singling out as "core" group of anyone. I am particulary concerned that ArbCom might rule against or for this set of editors, instead of including the whole community. I want to seek a systemic solution that either endorses or forbids the arguments and behaviors of the editors in question, dealing only with them will setup us up for continued disruption in the future. --Cerejota 05:03, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

• • Oppose - conspiracy mongering insinuations. There is only a cabal if you want there to be one. We come from various backgrounds and often do not share political views. It is unfortunate that articles related to the Jewish history, Jewish religion and Jewish state are under relentless attacks, but it is a shame that this ArbReq, just as the previous one, is abused to attack users based on their political views. BTW, there is nothing wrong with being a Zionist. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 11:04, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed. -- ChrisO 01:17, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

What about those editors that !voted keep on Allegations of Israeli apartheid and !voted delete on all others? Can these be also named as a "core group", or not? Jossi 01:30, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Conceivably, but I've not had time to do that research yet. To be honest, though, I'm not sure how relevant the delete !votes are. The issue at the centre of this arbitration is the charge that editors were responsible for creating, maintaining and supporting "allegations of apartheid" articles in systemic violation of various policies. If this scenario is true, editors !voting to delete the articles would thus be acting to remedy the perceived violation, rather than perpetrating and perpetuating it. The first is commendable, the second is not. There is also the point that the core group's keep !votes were frequently based on non-policy grounds, while the pro-deletion (pro-keep in AoIa's case) editors - from what I recall of reading the debates - based their arguments on consistent grounds of notability and sourcing. As I recall, the disparity in the two sides' arguments - policy-based vs. non-policy-based - was noted by quite a few independent editors in the DRVs on the American and Chinese apartheid articles, both of which supported the closure of the relevant AfDs. -- ChrisO 01:37, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

What is peculiar, is the assumption that these AfDs comments were made in bad faith. I did not. I am not a "zionist" and not part of any "cabal", and I made those comments based on my understanding of WP policies. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:06, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

There's no assumption of any sort of faith, merely the observation that (a) many of the keep voters also voted to delete Allegations of Israeli apartheid and (b) they did so mostly on the basis of either non-policy-based arguments, or arguments of general principle to support the deletion of AoIa which were promptly discarded when it came to the other articles. The obvious inference is that editors cherry-picked arguments to support their preferred outcome, rather than relying on consistent arguments to reach consistent outcomes. Personally I believe this is what happened, but others may interpret it differently. -- ChrisO 02:11, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I should note that Sefringle has now stated that he and other "zionists and supporters of Israel" supported and developed the articles for POV reasons as part of an ongoing battle against "anti-zionists". This is clearly relevant to the pattern of AfD voting noted in evidence. -- ChrisO 08:05, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Sefringle speaks only for himself. My "votes" and comments speak for themselves, except where I have specifically based my votes/comments on those of others, and I know I have never relied on the quoted statements by Sefringle. I don't think many (if any) other editors have done so either. I can also say, in response to this absurd proposed finding, that my votes/comments have not been "diametrically opposed", rather, they have been based on consistent principles which I have already explained elsewhere and which I will post in the arbitration when I get a chance. It probably goes without saying that I think that ChrisO's accusation of non-policy-based voting (at least on my part) is absurd as well. 6SJ7 02:00, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

We shouldn't forget there's a real offsite concern about WP:SOCK#Meatpuppets, e.g. [19], as pointed out by some frustrated editor here. If this Hasbara call to arms by israelactivism.com has had even a modicum of success, this is exactly what I would expect the result to be. -- 67.98.206.2 18:51, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I thought this would come up at some point. Yes, this Hasbara outfit is seeking to recruit activists to join a team on Wikipedia to push a pro-Israeli POV (which of course implies that the team already exists and is active). However, there's absolutely no evidence that I know of to suggest that the team has been involved in this case. The only conclusions we can draw from Hasbara's intervention is that it illustrates how volatile and controversial our Israeli-Palestinian articles are and indicates the need for responsible behaviour by admins. -- ChrisO 07:44, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree, and would reject any sort of McCarthy-esque witch hunt here (I am not now, nor have I ever been etc.) Still, ArbCom should be aware there could be a bear in the woods. Er, that is, if there is a bear.... -- 146.115.58.152 09:25, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

And we all know what bears do in the woods... -- ChrisO 20:48, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

If you think that's all they do, I'm never taking you camping! -- 146.115.58.152 23:02, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Minor gripe, Articles for deletion is not a vote. —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 09:33, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely, but it was treated as such by these editors. Note the comments made in the American and Chinese DRVs when they insisted that AfDs were a headcount and that admins shouldn't rule on policy when there wasn't a clear majority in an AfD. That's why I proposed #Articles for Deletion is not a vote above. -- ChrisO 20:47, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Support: The pattern of editing and AfD participation presented in the Evidence section speaks for itself, notwithstanding various admissions that the forks were created as "balance" or as bargaining chips toward a "systemic solution" outside the standard deletion process. MastCell ^Talk 16:55, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment: And the opposing side of core editors mirrored the vote, voting keep for one article and delete for the others. So? Why only mention this voting pattern for one side? This is what is at the core of the content dispute. One side views it as a matter of balance that if such an article must exist, it should be fully covered across the spectrum and not just singled out for one country. The other side believes it to be Point. So the two sides, having opposite perspectives about it, have voted in mirror. --MPerel 20:52, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Your statement is incorrect MPerel. No evidence has been provided so far that would indicate that there is such a voting pattern among the "opposing camp" (or further, that there are any such commonalities that might constitute a definition for an "opposing camp"). G-Dett's edits, the only ones provided as evidence of a voting pattern that you describe actually belie such a claim. She voted "keep" on the article on tourist apartheid in Cuba. If you have evidence that supports the conclusions that you have made, please present it. I would be most interested to see it. Tiamat 09:33, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

IronDuke has been incivil

11) IronDuke (talk · contribs) has made incivil comments in relation to the allegations of apartheid articles and the users involved with them. See evidence.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Support, as per my comment below--Cerejota 01:22, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed. We have to start somewhere with regards to the misconduct of specific users. Picaroon (t) 05:13, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Support - clearly the case. -- ChrisO 07:41, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

There's been incivility on both sides, but none by me. See my rebuttal here: [20]. IronDuke 22:28, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment. Then please by all means formally accuse those you consider to have been uncivil (of both sides). I must admit I am very tired of open-ended accusations with no consequences. While I could understand their use as rhetorical devices in other discussions, in a formal enviroment such an ArbCom proceeding I think they are out of place. As I have suggested before, either refrain from accusing people, or formally charge them. Poisoning the well and innuendo are not civil behavior. I was waiting for evidence of your incivility, but you just provided it: all the open ended accusations of wrong doing and needless trolling... time to go diff hunting.--Cerejota 01:22, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

strong oppose : blaming one or the other is not a solution. Alithien 08:06, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

support ALithien' 'Alithien, you are absolutely right; unfortunately blaming each other is the only way to bring action in this warped process. --Steve, Sm8900 02:52, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Does anyone else see how INSANE this is??? We are all reduced to cataloguing every single infraction and offense, no matter how trivial, all because ArbCom rules only on user behavior, not on content disputes. This is crazy. We all sound like a bunch of ridiculous three-year-olds, and this getting worse and worse by the hour.

And because of the nature of this process, ArbCom can't even step in and tell us all to knock it off, and grow up. Not one of these posts would normally allowed on even the most contentious regular talk page. --Steve, Sm8900 14:48, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

What a silly comment. Of course ArbCom can do just that, via article bans, site bans, and/or probations. If a ruling is handed down that one is barred from editing a particular article, that is a pretty clear message of "grow up" and learn to act civilly. Tarc 14:56, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

No, what I meant is, ArbCom can't step into this proceeding, and tell us to stop raising so many minor allegations. You're right; of course, they can obviously intervene in regards to user behavior anywhere within the articles, and in fact that is the entire point of this whole proceeding; so you would be right if that had been what I meant before. So I understand why you replied that way, and you're right; however that was not what i meant in my preceding comment. --Steve, Sm8900

I see, but that's pretty much a distinction without a difference. Somewhere in this morass, someone pointed out that conduct within these proceedings can and will be taken into account in the final deliberations. So if there are some that are doing just that, then there's little to gain by stepping in and admonishing them now. Give em enough rope to hang themselves I say, as it'll all be judged at the end. Just take the high road and don't respond in kind. Tarc 15:11, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Opposed. IronDuke's quoted comments seem pretty mild and reasonable. This is just scapegoating. 6SJ7 22:54, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Strong oppose. The evidence linked shows IronDuke asking an editor to stop poisoning the well and stating "I intend to give your views a fair and respectful hearing". It is quite a reach to arrive at labeling this misconduct. --MPerel 20:58, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Strong support. IronDuke's comments have clearly been over the line. CJCurrie 02:02, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Sefringle has been incivil and has assumed bad faith

12) Sefringle (talk · contribs) has violated Wikipedia:Civility, a policy, by making incivil comments, and Wikipedia:Assume good faith, a guideline, by assuming bad faith without basis. See evidence.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Oppose. He is guilty of other things, but his infractions in these regards are minor. --Cerejota 09:02, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed. Picaroon (t) 05:31, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Support. I've just read his statement. Good grief, talk about self-condemnatory! -- ChrisO 07:40, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Oppose. While his statement is strong rhetoric, I have to admire his honesty in explaining his own, and perhaps others, point of view. Let's not shoot the messenger. Assuming bad faith about a different group of people you have to somehow share space with (among whom there may indeed be a few bad apples) is what leads to the crime of apartheid to begin with, so this point of view may be an overall cultural problem ArbCom can't deal with. -- 146.115.58.152 08:36, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Uncivil, yes. Assumed the worst possible faith, yes. Treating Wikipedia as a battleground, yes. Egregious personal attacks and indiscriminate smearing of editors who hold opposing viewpoints as "Israel-haters", yes. Disrupting Wikipedia to make a point, yes. And that's just in his own evidence presentation! ([21]) MastCell ^Talk 22:38, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

One point that interests me is that throughout his various statements (for which see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Allegations of apartheid/Evidence#Sefringle's statements, he refers consistently to "we", not "me". I would be interested to know whether there was communication between him and other editors on the strategy that he describes. His comments certainly suggest some degree of coordination. -- ChrisO 22:46, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

No. I am not in communication with anyone else about these articles. I say "we", because many of the people who voted the way I did seem to have similar views to the one I have over this issue. But since you brought it up, I am changing the my comment to only be attributed to myself.--Sefringle^Talk 02:45, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

strong oppose : blaming one or the other is not a solution. Alithien 08:06, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

strong oppose. It's really too bad you all still haven't grasped the deep sensitivities, on both sides, involved in the content dispute here, instead of continually targeting behavior of users on one side or the other. --68.164.203.41 13:58, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

• I don't believe that "sensitivities" are terribly relevant to this or any discussion, only what is verifiable and notable to warrant inclusion in the Wikipedia. Some Turkish people are extremely sensitive about the articles on Kurdistan and Armenian genocide, but that is of no account or relevance in determining whether articles on each subject should be here. Tarc 14:04, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Ideogram has violated his 1RR parole, been incivil and has assumed bad faith

13) Ideogram has violated his 1RR parole, Wikipedia:Civility, a policy, by making incivil comments, and Wikipedia:Assume good faith, a guideline, by assuming bad faith without basis. See evidence.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Very weak support. I say we let that other forum decide. He is very tangential to this discussion, and useful only to illustrate why the creation of articles might have been WP:POINT, it attracted a polemical figure completely unconcerned with the original issue to the discussion. It backfired, but that doesn't make any less relevant as an example.--Cerejota 05:50, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:27, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

This guy is already in hot water. See Wikipedia:Community sanction noticeboard#Ideogram.C2.A0.28talk.C2.A0.C2.B7_contribs.29 -- 67.98.206.2 17:09, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Read up on WP:POT lately? - Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/67.98.206.2. Tarc 18:22, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

strong oppose : blaming one or the other is not a solution. Alithien 08:06, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

This proposal is now moot given Ideogram's community ban. -- ChrisO 20:36, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Sefringle's use of Wikipedia as a battleground

14) Sefringle has sought to use "allegations of apartheid" articles as an ideological battleground.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Support. He just called a group of editors "Israel haters" in Talk:Allegations of Israeli apartheid, during discussions for consensus around the title. However, while these seem like personal attacks and incivility, I do not think that Sefringle should be singled out for those behaviors, as the general incivility of the talk pages and editing involved set a pretty low bar. However, he has indeed used wikipedia as a battleground for ideology, and very few of his edits and contributions are helpful as a result, they are ultimately about winning a battle for his ideology, rather than for the encyclopedia. --Cerejota 01:27, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Sefringle: No one argues for/against people having opinions and expressing them.

Yet every editor in wikipedia is required, by WP:NPOV, to write for the enemy that includes me, and that includes you.

By expressing sentiments contrary to this non-negotiable policy, and by doing so in ways that inflame ideological tension to the point of being disruptive, you are creating a battlefield. Even the Flaming Keyboard of Wikipedia JayJG, has on occasion written for the enemy. It is not negotiable. Don't like it, get the fork out of here.

Our diverging opinions should be enough to insure neutrality, but constantly expresisng them as argument is not productive. I respect your deeply held believes, and empathize with some of them. But this is not the place to make battle for them.

There is an editor very similar to you in this respect, John Nagle who is always talking about Zionists conspiracies, Zionist attacks on wikipedia, Hasbara, doing POV forks, and in general being a bit WP:POINTy. His honesty, like yours, is admirable. His choice of battleground, like yours, is not.

If I want to go to argue politics with people on the other side of my opinions, there are a bazillion battlefields out there in the interwebs. Wikipedia is not intended as one of them, and you do little to respect this, and a lot to try and turn it into the battleground. I will say it again, a key part of this whole situation is the unwillingness of a large number of editors to leave their rhetorical AK-47s and UZIs (Or is it M-4s now?) at the door, and try to live out in wikipedia the very same battles - and in the same terms - that we should be writing encyclopedic content about. It is but human that we do so, this is the very reason why we are not a battlefield is a policy: since it is counter-intuitive, it must be expressly ruled against. I think ArbCom mustt express support for this important policy, and must ask Sefringle to stop turning this into a battlefield. Thanks!--Cerejota 03:45, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed. Per Sefringle's own statements, cited at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Allegations of apartheid/Evidence#Sefringle's statements. -- ChrisO 22:37, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Response: First of all, this whole concept of "allegations of apartheid" is a battle for ideology, and I should not be accused of incivilry for expressing my views on the articles. The articles exist for that purpose; they are not encyclopediac, they are attacks. I am simply being honest as to what I think of the articles, and I am sorry if my views offend anyone. They are, in my opinion, attack pages against zionists and israel supporters, and most of the supporters of the allegation do have a negative view on israel for one reason or another. It is obvious based on how they edit, or what their arguements are for keeping the apartheid articles. I do not think stating what the problem with apartheid articles is should be considered a personal attack or action of inclvily. How else is a compromise going to be reached, if nobody seems to understand what the problem is?--Sefringle^Talk 02:40, 14 August 2007 (UTC).

Right, what a terrible slur to suggest Israel apartheids Arabs because of some crazy idea that they hate and want to destroy Israel. Why, anyone who would even suggest such a thing must hate and want to destroy Israel. In fact, such editors are probably in league with those accursed Arabs, who, don't you know, hate and want to destroy Israel. Um.... so does that sum it up? -- 146.115.58.152 04:25, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

strong oppose : blaming one or the other is not a solution. Alithien 08:07, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

TShilo12 has been incivil and has assumed bad faith

15) TShilo12 (talk · contribs) has violated Wikipedia:Civility, a policy, by making incivil comments, and Wikipedia:Assume good faith, a guideline, by assuming bad faith without basis. See evidence.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Oppose. We already have a general category on wanton unwarranted accusations of antisemitism, since htis has been a minor actor, I see no reason why he should be singled out.--Cerejota 01:28, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed. -- ChrisO 22:52, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

The evidence provided consists of one diff, which takes some work to see any incivility or assumption of bad faith in. -Amarkov moo! 23:07, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I assume you missed the bit where he accused everyone he disagreed with of antisemitism? Mastcell and I have both asked him to withdraw the statement, but he's not done so. I've changed the diff to make his comments clearer. -- ChrisO

ChrisO may need to take a break from this. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk)

If I'm accused without reason or any supporting evidence of antisemitism, you can bet that I'm going to bring that to the table in this arbitration. I hope you think that such accusations aren't acceptable. -- ChrisO 23:11, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Not acceptable at all. But this is not ChrisO v. Others. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:13, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Correct, it's not, and never has been. TShilo12's violation lies both in his complete misrepresentation of my role and his indiscriminate claims of anti-semitism against multiple editors and admins. That is unacceptable behaviour and needs to be corrected. -- ChrisO 23:23, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

On the one hand, TShilo's remark was totally inappropriate and an egregious personal attack, and he responded aggressively when I asked him to desist (see [22]). However, I agree with jossi that the scope of this ArbCom proceeding needs to be limited. I haven't seen that TShilo has been significantly involved in the Allegations of Apartheid articles (correct me if I'm wrong), so his behavior, while poor, is outside the scope of this proceeding. I think further such attacks by that particular editor can be dealt with via the usual means, without bringing them into this ArbCom proceeding. MastCell ^Talk 23:58, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

He has been involved in Talk:Allegations of Israeli apartheid and !voted delete in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allegations of Israeli apartheid (fifth nomination) - see his edits for April 2007. -- ChrisO 00:05, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

strong oppose : blaming one or the other is not a solution. Alithien 08:07, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Humus sapiens has been incivil

16) Humus sapiens (talk · contribs) has made incivil comments in relation to the allegations of apartheid articles and the users involved with them. See evidence.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Weak oppose. Evidence presented is nothing out of the ordinary for the low levels we have sunk around here, and the antisemitism stuff is covered in a blanket section. I could be persuaded by more evidence. I do have to state that the antisemitism innuendo, and the accompanying poisoning the well has disrupted the ability of the community to be productive, however this should be dealt in another section. --Cerejota 01:43, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed. -- ChrisO 23:02, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Nah. A sarcastic comment does not warrant this assessment. I think you are pushing this too much, and as an example I offer this: your comments such as this one, do not help this arbCom case. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:06, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Sefringle has admitted explicitly what his agenda is. He's opposed to WP:POINT because it doesn't allow him to push his POV disruptively. I don't have to assume bad faith; he's already acknowledged editing in bad faith and explicitly argued that WP:POINT should be deleted. We shouldn't be shy of calling Sefringle a POV warrior, because he's openly declared that he sees his role as fighting "anti-zionists" (sic). That is practically a definition of POV warring. -- ChrisO 23:19, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't see incivility at all here. I see a sarcastic comment demonstrating his opinion on a proposed title, which is not bad. -Amarkov moo! 23:09, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

There are many ways of demonstrating an opinion without making a comment implying racism or anti-semitism. Humus' comments were inflammatory, insensitive and unnecessary. Such comments only serve to make tensions worse and do nothing to help reach a solution. -- ChrisO 23:19, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

But the comment doesn't imply that. -Amarkov moo! 23:24, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

The comment is quite clear, as are the implication. Let's not forget who's primarily associated with persecuting Jews and Gypsies. Rather than argue further about it, though, I suggest leaving it to the ArbCom to decide. -- ChrisO 23:30, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, let the arbCom decide, and in the meantime do not make comments such as Frankly, I don't see him surviving the arbitration in which he's a party. There is no need to escalate an already highly contentious situation. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:36, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, this is another long, long reach to assert incivility where it clearly does not exist, coming from one of the editors who has been the least civil throughout this whole process. It's bewildering and disappointing. IronDuke 23:14, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I have not encountered ChrisO before this dispute, that I recall, so I am not aware of such behavior. If you have evidence about uncivil behavior, it would be appropriate to list in the evidence page. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:22, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Support I guess it's like the old George Carlin joke: Richard Pryor can use the word nigger any time he wants. Why? Because he's a nigger! While true, throwing the phrase "dirty jew" around even by a Jew is pretty uncivil. -- 146.115.58.152 04:49, 14 August 2007 (UTC) I rescind my support per User:MPerel's comment below, and after noticing User:IronDuke make this argument first and more than once during these discussions and AfDs. An arbitrator should be above "monkey see, monkey do" but this seems minor. -- 146.115.58.152 18:42, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

strong oppose : blaming one or the other is not a solution. Alithien 08:07, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Strong support CJCurrie 04:23, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Strong oppose, Being that these article discussions are laden w/incivility, if all that could be dug up on H.S. was a sarcastic comment expressing distaste for antisemitic titles, that speaks volumes on H.S.'s behalf. He is one of the most calm, civil editors around, an exemplary Wikipedian when it comes to heated topics. --MPerel 19:26, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Strong oppose per MPerel. 6SJ7 19:35, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

ChrisO asserts admin privileges while engaged in the dispute

16) ChrisO closes Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Allegations_of_American_apartheid while being actively engaged in other "Allegations of XXX apartheid" articles.

After that closing, he posts more than sixty messages in user's talk pages about related AfDs (see contribs and more contribs) in possible violation of WP:CANVASS

Comment by Arbitrators:

It looks like he tried to reach all editors concerned, which does meet the requirements of WP:CANVASS. He shouldn't have closed the deletion debate himself, yes, but he learned from that mistake and took the next fractious closing to noticeboard. He was, of course, accused of further wrongdoing. When the Bad Faith Brigade is out in force there's no winning in this world. This finding is a non-starter; it's not actionable. Mackensen (talk) 03:55, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Strongest Oppose. He did what other admins involved in the dispute should have done: defended wikipedia against wanton policy violations. While I'll stipulate ChrisO has had lapses of judgement, these have not reached the level of WP:POINT as the evidence clearly demonstrates a number of other editors have. A lapse of judgment is a spur of the moment thing, a consistent WP:POINT disruption is a premeditated, multi-month conscious violation of policy. Lets keep a sense of proportion here: ChrisO might sometimes over reach, but I have never seen someone subjected to so much hate and vitriol remain so calm and resist the temptation to really do something stupid. Thanks!--Cerejota 01:37, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Jossi: I understand your point but consider this: His closure, while controversial and probably a complete lapse of judgment, was validated by a DRV.

This validation should put to rest any allegations (har-har) of misuse of Admin tools. A lapse of judgment and ignorance of the rules should be excused for what they are, and he can correct me but he has admmited to a lapse of judgement. Had the DRV overturned, the story would be different, and then he would have certainly have had mis-used his tools. That is the key point.

You simply cannot punish someone whose punishable action was validated by a formal community review process. This is like trying to jail a cop who kills an armed man in a hostage situation because he was off-duty. This is a no-brainer: The reaction should be "apology accepted - move on".--Cerejota 05:17, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

6SJ7: I still disagree with the deletion, but on entirely different grounds than your WP:POINT AoIA deletionism - I did so for notability reasons. When I described the deletion as illegal - which is a matter of opinion at that point - the DRV was not over. Please re-read my oppose statement here: His closure, while controversial and probably a complete lapse of judgment, was validated by a DRV. As I stated in the DRV, you want to turn a single instance of lack of judgment into a witch hunt. ArbCom, hopefully, will resist the temptation to build the stakes, and understand that the DRV had the effect of validating his action.

You and other supporters of this motion miss the point: it is impossible for ChrisO to have done an illegal or sanctionable action. Had you, as was suggested at the time, gone and formally accused him of wrongdoing instead of trying to poison the well in the DRV, I might have even supported some kind of action, as the DRV was open. Yet instead of engaging the WP:DR process, we got vitriol after more vitriol. Even with a poisoned well, the DRV validated ChrisO's judgement, which meant my judgment was wrong, yours was wrong, and there is nothing to see here. I insist that anyone who feels the DRV was bad, to actually open formal accusations against the closing admin. The innuendo has to stop.

Since AfDs are content issues, and process validated him, ArbCom would be threading dangerous territory: the only way they could punish him is by overturning the DRV and re-listing the AfD, which would mean the closing admin of the DRV *also* must be subjected to sanction, as he validated an "illegal" action. It makes no sense, unless ChrisO is to be burned at the stake, to sanction him over his use of his admin privileges in this case.

And Jossi, ChrisO's intervention, in any case, was a positive one: it set in motion the chain of events that led to the creation of this case, which in turn has apparently led to a round of well reasoned, well debated, generally civil (gasp!) discussion on content editing, of which you are part. Not the way I would have done it, but far from a negative outcome.--Cerejota 03:02, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

proposed ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:24, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Support (more to follow). 6SJ7 02:04, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Oppose as written. He did close the American AFD, but he also learned from the DRV that he shouldn't. This learning isn't reflected here. See the evidence page. As to the talk page notifications, the evidence is that he was notifying all participants in one or more prior related discussions, which has long been considered one of the acceptable lists of people to notify precisely because it does not attempt to votestack and change consensus. As examples of notifying those who are likely to disagree with him, he notified User:Bleh999 (diff) and User:Beit Or (diff) who disagreed with his viewpoint in the French AFD, and User:FeloniousMonk (diff) who disagreed in the American DRV with his actions and decision in the American AFD. GRBerry 02:20, 14 August 2007 (UTC) Additionally, the talk page notifications are not administrative actions so are not relevant here. GRBerry 02:26, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

In your evidence, ChrisO seems to have learned from his mistake, and that is commendable. Nevertheless, the harm was done at that stage, resulting in further escalation to which he contributed. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:22, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

(response to cerejota) What others may have done is inconsequential to what he did. As one that is trigger happy about characterizing others, he lends himself to closer scrutinity; that is what happens in ArbCom cases. He didn't need to close that AfD. He could have asked an uninvolved admin to do the honors. Not only did he close an AfD that he shouldn't have, he then proceeded to advertise other related AfDs to no less than 66 editors. We can assume that he did that in good faith as you said, but it may not be so. Once involved in a dispute, an admin must be extra-cautious not to exercise his privileges. My point is that these articles have created havoc, and all involved carry some degree or responsibility for the mess, including ChrisO, as per the evidence presented. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:12, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

He shouldn't have done this, he knew or should have known that, and it caused problems. It doesn't matter that the end result of his actions was upheld. If someone is disruptive, that is bad, whether or not people agree with what the disruption was intended to accomplish. -Amarkov moo! 05:46, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Indeed it is Amarkov. MartinDK 06:55, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Are you trying to tell me something? No rhetorical question there, I honestly don't know what your point is. -Amarkov moo! 23:20, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm refering to your "Strong insanity" comment on that already very heated DRV. If ChrisO caused any disruption by closing the AfD he did not intend to. We all make mistakes and given that comment by you on that DRV surely you should understand that. MartinDK 05:33, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

He should have been able to realize that what he did would cause disruption. He may or may not have actually realized that, but not thinking actions through in controversial circumstances is bad too. I don't really support anything more than a handslap for this, anyway; this is just the finding that he did indeed do such a thing. -Amarkov moo! 05:39, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Oppose. I believe GRBerry sums it up well. Yes, I did close the American AfD but I had had no prior involvement in that article; I had never edited it, discussed it or commented on it, or indeed had any interaction with it of any sort. I believed that was sufficient distance to avoid charges of involvement, but obviously that view was mistaken, and I accept the comments of some of the DRV contributors on the issue. However, I'll emphasize that the closure was on the basis of a close reading of the policy arguments and was upheld in the subsequent DRV. As the closer of the DRV discussion said, "it is consensus below that the decision was the only reasonable choice that might have been made." [23] I don't believe that the closure was disruptive. The result would most likely have been challenged in DRV whoever did it and whichever way it was closed (as ^demon pointed out in his comments on the Chinese DRV).

As for contacting other editors concerning the Chinese AfD: I decided to notify the editors who had been involved in the two most recent AfDs because the AfDs were closely related, the articles were in the same series, and the issues in each case were virtually identical. It was a limited notification written neutrally and posted on a nonpartisan basis to editors who had participated in the previous two AfDs only, regardless of which way they had !voted. (See [24] for an example - Beit Or went on to !vote keep in the Chinese article.) The contacted editors had already participated in the French and American debates, so they had already shown an interest in the issue. As GRBerry says, this is long-standing accepted practice and is an example of what WP:CANVASS calls a "friendly message": "Neutrally worded notifications sent to a small number of editors are considered "friendly notices" if they are intended to improve rather than to influence a discussion". The discussion was indeed improved by having the involvement of a wider cross-section of the Wikipedia community. No admin privileges were involved - such a notification can and could be sent by any editor. -- ChrisO 06:55, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

strong oppose : blaming one or the other is not a solution. Alithien 08:07, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Oppose as that is a rather fraudulent charge. This isn't a Zeq vs. Zero redux where an admin is charged with using administrative powers against a user in a debate. Simply closing an AfD that one has argued in while engaging in other "allegations of..." articles is not even remotely analogous to an abuse of admin power as this nominator is claiming. Tarc 13:05, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I didn't argue in the AfD. I didn't participate in it at all, in fact; nor did I edit, discuss or otherwise comment on the American article prior to the AfD. I had absolutely no involvement in it until the moment of the AfD closure. -- ChrisO 18:46, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Ahh, right then, I misread the initial accusation. Merely posting in other "allegations of..." articles is an even more tenuous accusation by the nominator, IMO. Tarc 19:34, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Support Whatever the reasons, he is clearly an involved party in the dispute, and wikipedia policies state clearly that admins involved in a dispute should let other non-involved admins handle the use of the admin privliges.--Sefringle^Talk 19:46, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Cerejota, I find your comments rather odd in light of the fact that on August 2, you referred to "ChrisO's blatantly illegal deletion of the USA article." [25] How do you go from "blatantly illegal" to "lapse of judgment" and decrying "hate and vitrol" against the perpetrator of the act you called "blatantly illegal", in less than 2 weeks? 6SJ7 07:40, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

ChrisO used admin tools while engaged in the dispute

16.1) ChrisO closed Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Allegations_of_American_apartheid while being actively engaged in the dispute about "Allegations of XXX apartheid" articles. He learned from the deletion review that involved admins should not be closing these AFDs.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Oppose. Second sentence is completely relevant as per WP:AGF. This is a moot point as deletion was not overturned in DRV, which means it stood in solid ground to begin with. Please note I voted against deletion and for overturn, and hence was not happy with the decision.--Cerejota 05:00, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Better replacement, more accurately reflecting the evidence. GRBerry 02:26, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Support the first sentence. Oppose the second sentence as being irrelevant, and an apparent attempt to whitewash a clear abuse of administrative powers. 6SJ7 03:06, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

The deletion was endorsed by DRV. This is yet another attempt to divert attention from the central issue which is creation of articles en masse to prove a point and bloc voting. He learned from this but no harm was done. No clear abuse of admin privileges. MartinDK 06:17, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

The central issue doesn't excuse other misconduct. And harm was done; more of the heated discussion necessary to resolve that in DRV is harm. -Amarkov moo! 06:21, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

By that token, you would have to say that the person who started the DRV - Humus sapiens - is primarily responsible for the "harm". I inadvertantly triggered a controversy when I closed the American AfD. Humus started the DRV with the specific objective of starting a controversial debate to overturn the closure. Of course, putting it that way just shows the vacuity of the "harm" claim. Humus had a policy-given right to start the DRV, just as I had a policy-given right to close the AfD. The wisdom of either decision is another question entirely. -- ChrisO 19:23, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Oppose. See my comments above. Also, closing an AfD is not "usage of admin tools". Anyone can close an AfD - see Wikipedia:Deletion process#Non-administrators closing discussions. The title of this point is fundamentally wrong. -- ChrisO 06:59, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

A reading of the page you linked to shows that it does not apply here. It says non-admins should not close AfD's as "delete" because they (that is, we) cannot delete articles. And besides, you did delete the article, which only an admin can do. 6SJ7 07:19, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

strong oppose : blaming one or the other is not a solution. Alithien 08:08, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Oppose per reasons give in previous section. Tarc 13:06, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Support per my comments int the above section.--Sefringle^Talk 19:48, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

ChrisO used admin tools while engaged in the dispute

16.2) ChrisO closed Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Allegations_of_American_apartheid while being actively engaged in the dispute about "Allegations of XXX apartheid" articles.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed (rewrite of above)- ChrisO has used the tools, though it seems to be apparent that he has learned from the mistake. In any case this action only added fuel to the fire. —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 09:12, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Isn't this a virtual duplicate of 16? -- ChrisO 20:49, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

It differs by not mentioning the talk page postings/canvassing. Since that didn't involve admin tools, it doesn't belong in a finding about admin tools. GRBerry 13:33, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

ChrisO used admin tools while engaged in the dispute

16.3) Three instances:

1. Closed Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Allegations_of_American_apartheid while being actively engaged in the dispute about "Allegations of XXX apartheid" articles. Evidence
2. Deletes Allegations of Puerto Rican apartheid (a redirect to Allegations of apartheid#Puerto Rico) without AfD. Evidence
3. Protects Allegations of Northern Irish apartheid while actively engaged in an edit war. Evidence.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Some questions and observations. The first matter has been discussed elsewhere; I find it problematic to "bundle" it in this finding. On the second, I find it a stretch to claim that ChrisO was "involved" in a dispute over the article Allegations of Puerto Rican apartheid. Redirects don't get deleted via AfD anyway. It may not be the intention, but the inclusion of this gives the impression of reaching for sticks with which to beat ChrisO. Finally, the third matter. Very rogue to be sure. I don't get the impression from the threaded discussion that anybody seriously contests the benefit done the article. Am I mistaken in this? Mackensen (talk) 20:53, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment. ChrisO restored Allegations of Puerto Rican apartheid after a short and sweet WP:DRV.--Cerejota 01:08, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

• Proposed. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:22, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Taking these in turn:

1) I had never edited the article or its talk page, discussed it anywhere else, participated in its AfD or indeed had any involvement with it whatsoever until the moment of the AfD closure. I had never even read the article until the day of the closure and had no pre-conceived view of its worth. (I had previously said - and still believe - that these articles need to be dealt with on an individual basis in assessing their compliance with Wikipedia:Attribution and other standards.) I believed that this was sufficient distance to be able to close the article without a significant conflict of interest. Where I erred was in not appreciating the possible appearance of a conflict of interest, especially in the eyes of the people who were predisposed to assume bad faith. To quote Mastcell in the American DRV, "I don't think it's abuse per se, but admins, like Caesar's wife, should ideally be above suspicion." My decision in the American AfD was upheld as "the only reasonable choice that might have been made.". I'll note that following the comments in the American DRV, I went out of my way to reduce the level of conflict in the upcoming Chinese AfD closure (see GRBerry's evidence).

2) This is a seriously trivial item. While tidying up my watchlist, I noticed that the redirect was not linked from anywhere and deleted it under CSD R3, "Redirects from implausible typos or misnomers that were recently created." Cerejota asked me to restore it and Coredesat recommended that it be undeleted as "while the redirect is implausible and has no incoming links, since the article was merged, the redirect and history have to remain for GFDL attribution purposes." I promptly undeleted it. Issue closed.

3) This is a wholly exceptional issue: it's the first time in my entire four years on Wikipedia that I've felt compelled to invoke WP:IAR, a policy that I personally detest. The background: Allegations of Northern Irish apartheid was created by Theo F, a France-focused editor with no involvement in the Allegations of Israeli apartheid mess. I'm not clear why he created it, but it may have been a reaction to the AfD on Allegations of French apartheid. It was created as a stub, following which Urthogie began expanding it. Urthogie's behaviour (and later his explicit admission) had made it clear that he was using these articles as a tactical device to systematically create POV forks to "balance" Allegations of Israeli apartheid. The article itself was a dreadful mishmash of random Googled quotes, the title was hopelessly POV, and I knew from personal experience that the basic premise - that an "apartheid debate" existed in relation to Northern Ireland - was completely false. It was plainly going to end up on AfD, the POINT brigade was plainly going to descend on the article and turn it into another battlefield, and we were plainly going to end up with a major row between local editors on the one hand and the POINT brigade on the other (just like the French and Chinese articles).

I took an exceptional decision to head off this scenario by doing the following: moving the article to Segregation in Northern Ireland; protecting the redirect left behind at Allegations of Northern Irish apartheid (and unprotecting it only 90 minutes later); in the meantime, rewriting the content to preserve the sources but reflect the proper context, namely segregation (for which "apartheid" has very occasionally been used as an analogy - there is no "apartheid debate" in NI); expanding the article to provide further context and link it to other related articles on NI; and inviting editors in WikiProject Ireland and WikiProject Northern Ireland to review the article ([26], [27]). At no point was Urthogie (or anyone else) unable to edit the article. Five editors, including the article's original creator, agreed that the revised and renamed article was preferable, and Urthogie himself acknowledged that "You might be right about the page move". The very brief debate on the article's talk page was over inside 48 hours and has not been resumed since.

I accept that this was an unorthodox action. However, it produced a solution for the article which enjoys consensus and has not been further disputed. The article itself has since been expanded considerably and has provoked no additional controversy. A contentious AfD, further drama, edit warring and POINT violations were averted. My intervention temporarily inconvenienced Urthogie's self-admitted POINT-violating scheme but inflicted minimum harm for maximum benefit to Wikipedia. It's virtually the only "allegations of apartheid" article which has been satisfactorily resolved without a big fight and with the agreement (or acquiescence in Urthogie's case) of all concerned. I think that's proof enough of the benefits of this intervention.

One final point. I'm aware that some might argue (pace the American apartheid DRV) that I wasn't the right person to intervene, that I was too close to the issue, etc. This was an exceptional instance in which I felt I had to act immediately. The other apartheid articles had very rapidly metastized out of control and turned into massive flame wars. If I'd stepped back and asked another administrator to intervene, explaining the background to the apartheid articles, the political context (which has actually been in my area of professional expertise), my belief (later confirmed) that Urthogie was engaged in a POV campaign, and so on, the time lost would have risked this metastization occurring. I acted immediately because, as an administrator, I'm under an obligation to "attempt to prevent disruption to the Wikipedia site and its users" (per Wikipedia:Arbitration policy/Past decisions#Administrators). This compelled me to - for the first time ever in my editing career - invoke IAR: "If a rule prevents you from working with others to improve or maintain Wikipedia, ignore it." To use an analogy, it was as if I'd seen someone set a fire while I had an extinguisher in my hand. I could have stepped back and waited for the fire brigade to come along to put it out, but this would have been at the high risk of letting the fire take hold while I waited. I believed - and still do believe - that that would have been an irresponsible thing for me to do. -- ChrisO 01:23, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Chris, boiling down your Point 3, would it be fair then to say that your contention is while you did use admin tools while in a dispute, you felt you had a good reason to? IronDuke 21:19, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes. It was essentially a choice between standing back and letting Urthogie create a fresh battleground, or nipping the problem in the bud before it turned into a battle. I judged that the harm caused by protecting a redirect (not an article) for 90 minutes was much less than the harm that would be caused by a pitched battle between British/Irish editors and the POINT brigade in the inevitable AfD that would have followed. My action was intended to uphold Wikipedia's NPOV and POINT policies and avert that scenario. -- ChrisO 23:22, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

You paint this as a binary choice, when you actually had another choice: Asking for a non-involved admin to intervene. Your attitude seems one of "I know better", when actually you were at the time and continue being an integral part of this fracas. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:28, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I've already explained the urgency of the situation in the final paragraph of my statement. -- ChrisO 00:38, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

"Urgency" in a wiki, is a very poor excuse. There are other admins and editors around, y'know? We do not need Don Quixotes. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:42, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

(To Mackensen) You're not mistaken. There've been no further disputes about the article and it's since been substantially expanded by UK and Irish editors uninvolved in the "allegations of apartheid" articles. Everyone involved, including Urthogie, has agreed that the current title is more appropriate. -- ChrisO 21:26, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Ideogram is a long term disruptive editor.

17) Ideogram has engaged in abusive sock puppetry, edit warring and block evasion.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Strong Oppose. This must be circumscribed to the "Allegations of apartheid" articles. If there are specific examples in this series, evidence must be provided. If proposser wishes, he can raise a separate case focused on Ideogram, bur proposal is way too borad and general. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cerejota (talk • contribs)

Seems true, but I don't really see the point of this. ?! (unless we have evidence of disruptive actions on the allegations articles) NicDumZ ~ 20:47, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed. - Jehochman ^Talk 18:49, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

He's certainly been an "overzealous" supporter of China. How much of that behavior is more than tangential to this case? You may want to submit specific evidence. -- 67.98.206.2 19:11, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I have. Check the evidence page. If this evidence and proposed finding of fact are irrelevant to the case, I apologize and invite the clerk to remove them. We also need to be on the lookout for the Ideogram's socks. - Jehochman ^Talk 20:00, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

You can add this evidence. You can also summarize this in a new section in the evidence page. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:07, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Ideogram has certainly been uncivil, as Jossi's evidence shows. However, I share 67.*'s caution about citing his other issues (which are new to me, I have to admit) in this arbitration. I don't see how they're relevant here, unless his alleged sockpuppets etc. have actually been active in this matter. This would seem more appropriate for an RfC and perhaps a community sanction. -- ChrisO 21:06, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

They are confirmed sock puppets, and the puppetmasters has said that he has others. In my view, it is very likely that these additional socks could be involved in the dispute, so I feel that the committee needs to have this information. That's why I posted it. - Jehochman ^Talk 00:44, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Oppose. This is too general and with the risk of assuming bad faith seems like an attempt to get ArbCom to punish Ideogram for things outside the scope of this case without opening a seperate case. Clever, but unfortunately also a bit too clever. MartinDK 06:27, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

First, Arbcom isn't limited to any particular issues. They can look at whatever they want. Second, I am not asking for anything except for people to understand Ideogram's presentation within the context that he has a history of bad faith actions. To this day he continues to operate sock puppets. - Jehochman ^Talk 10:20, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

My opposition to this is based on the fact that we could all dig up dirt on each other that is unrelated to this case. Please, let's not go there. If there is evidence that he abused any socks in this case then we can reconsider. Ideogram is not unresponsive to criticism, he agreed on my talk page not to AfD the Allegations of apartheid article. I'm not supporting the use of socks which I believe are a bad idea even when used within the rules but let's not make this an even bigger mess than it already is. MartinDK 15:11, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I am throwing a spanner in the works. Ideogram was sitebanned a few minutes ago. [28] - Jehochman ^Talk 15:16, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Problem solved it would appear. MartinDK 15:17, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Bad faith accusations by User:ChrisO

19) Above in the evidence, he accused numerous editors of making WP:POINT allegations. Mainly against the people who wanted the israel apartheid article deleted, specificly bolding the participation of us, and claiming attempts to improve the articles are WP:POINT. He also accuses me of WP:POINT because of our views and how we voted in the afd's. Apparently, based on his comments, he believes I am acting inappropaite because of my votes on afd's.[29]

Comment by Arbitrators:

And? Mackensen (talk) 03:56, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

? Is accusing someone of POINTy allegations bad faith ? NicDumZ ~ 08:23, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Strong oppose. Unless, of course, the ENTIRE ArbCom is acting in bad faith. This is a spurious, bad faith accusation on the part of one of the most blatant offenders of WP:BATTLE in this case.--Cerejota 01:31, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed--Sefringle^Talk 23:01, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand this proposal at all. -- ChrisO 02:06, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

G-Dett has made bad-faith accusations

G-Dett has accused editors who create apartheid articles on other countries (other than Israel) of having ulterior motives and hidden agenda, instead of acknowleding that once the article on Israel was accepted, this was natural next step in exploring this issue. G-Dett has cast aspersion on legitimate, well-founded, well-sourced articles, claiming they had no justification and had an systematic bias, instead of acknowledging their hard-earned efforts.

Comment by Arbitrators:

The personal attack policy doesn't extend to articles. Mackensen (talk) 04:16, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Oppose as circular. This very ArbCOm case exists precisely because of this point of view presented. I agree with it to a certain extent, and this is why I participate; I do disagree on treating all of these articles as one entity, and their contents as of the same quality, whatever the motivations of the creating editors. That said, you cannot sanction someone for essentially arguing soemthing that made enough sense to the ArbCom for them to accept to at least hear it some more. Unless ArbCom members are a special kind of extreme masochists, I am willing to bet that their incentive is aligned with not accepting cases on spurious or false accusations. Hence, if G-Dett's comments are bad faith accusations, then ArbCom is a bad faith committee. They might just yet rule that no WP:POINT haberdashery was going on, but they at least do not consider the concerns as "bad faith". I might change my vote if other diffs are provided that are not connected to the WP:POINT allegations (har-har, I said allegations!)--Cerejota 04:11, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed--Steve, Sm8900 02:44, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Support. One example is as follows from his nomination of the Allegations of Jordianian apartheid afd: "Most of the articles in the metastasizing pseudo-series "Allegations of apartheid" are shabby, but this one is almost insolent in its frivolousness. All were created in violation of WP:POINT by editors who have tried unsuccessfully to delete Allegations of Israeli Apartheid, a copiously sourced article which covers a very prominent, very public, very contentious, and wide-ranging international debate among scholars, journalists, public figures, Nobel laureates, and so on." [30] --Sefringle^Talk 03:06, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Strongly oppose. G-Dett was in fact arguing that certain posters were creating obvious WP:POINT violation articles as part of the ongoing political gamesmanship around Allegations of Israeli apartheid. CJCurrie 03:19, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

so what you're saying is that G-Dett made a set of blanket accusation against a whole group of good-faith editors and well-sourced articles.

By the way, my problem is not with G-Dett personally. Actually, I applaud him for eloquently stating the real crux of this whole matter, and thus giving us a chance to address the real central issue in this proceeding. --Steve, Sm8900 03:28, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Oppose as that is the very core of this arbitration; that a collusion of certain editors and admins (by their own admission, as linked to elsewhere) sought to undermine the original AoIA article by creating numerous "allegations of..." articles. That these new articles were "well-founded, and "well-sourced" is serious stretch of credibility, given how many have been deleted or merged elsewhere. Tarc 17:01, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Oppose in the light of Urthogie's explicit comments here, in which he clearly states an ulterior motive for the creation of these articles. G-Dett's statement appears to have been a straightforward reflection of a fact admitted by the article creator himself. -- ChrisO 20:43, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Urthogie has violated WP:POINT

21) Urthogie (talk · contribs)'s creation of the American, Australian, Brazilian, Chinese, French and Islamic apartheid allegation articles was a violation of Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Oppose. We already have a general, blanket section. I don't see why we have to single out Uthorgie.--Cerejota 05:46, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed. Let's get back to the heart of the matter and away from bickering over content. --Hemlock Martinis 05:30, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Oppose For better or worse, Urthogie was simply WP:SPLITting out pre-existing sections from Allegations of Apartheid. This simply had the side effect of editors in far flung wikiprojects noticing content that they never would have otherwise. -- 146.115.58.152 06:40, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Support in the light of Urthogie's statement here [31]. -- ChrisO 08:13, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I still don't like it. His statement there is perfectly valid. There's no innate reason Israel should be labeled as the only apartheid country in the world. If he accepted the contents of Allegations of Apartheid as being WP:NPOV/WP:RS'd/etc., then his splits were acting in good faith, which is all we can ask for in an editor out here. -- 146.115.58.152 09:08, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Oppose. Urthogie was perfectyl justified and within his rights, given the prior history of this. There is no reason to label one country apartheid, and yet constrain the use of that in regards to other countries. --Steve, Sm8900 14:27, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Support as the subject in question admitted to doing just that. Tarc 15:00, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Support per above. This really is the issue being arbitrated, after all. --John Nagle 18:52, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Oppose, the statement linked above by ChrisO demonstrates Urthogie created the article series with the genuine intent of providing balance and NPOV. One of the main arguments by one side of this content debate is that it is POV to single out one country and exclude others for coverage on a topic that is widely applied in the press and literature. --MPerel 03:47, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Sm8900 has violated WP:CANVAS

22) Just thought people involved in this debate should know that User:Sm8900 has appeared on the WikiProject Israel page asking users to come and support Israel here, saying "your help is vitally needed" and describing the people who wrote the Apartheid in Israel article as having a "warped unfair POV", and those who wrote the others as "more even handed". Number 57 08:01, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Also on Wikipedia:Notice board for Israel-related topics and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Jewish history.

See /Evidence#User:Sm8900 and WP:CANVAS. NicDumZ ~ 08:43, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Support. See my comment in injuction.--Cerejota 01:27, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

I do not see anything about this detailed in /Evidence. Please make a section for yourself, and follow the instructions on that page. Thanks! —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 08:25, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I have put it in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Allegations of apartheid/Evidence#Evidence presented by Number 57. Number 57 08:34, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I still do not see diffs to the various claims made above. See the Simple diff and link guide. —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 08:43, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Please see my comment above (: NicDumZ ~ 08:46, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok that makes sense now. —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 08:47, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, have posted the diffs now - first time I have "given evidence"! Number 57 08:58, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I did make those comments, to let others know of what I feel is an extremely important issues. I have almost nbever taken a step like that, but felt it was warranted. --Steve, Sm8900 13:31, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Strong support: A clearer violation of WP:CANVASS and WP:BATTLE could not be intentionally constructed. See my proposed injunction above. I would favor action by ArbCom based on what can only be seen as intentionally pouring gasoline on a fire. MastCell ^Talk 18:09, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Or bringing an important issue to others' attention. Canvassing is not prohibited. The "campaigning" section says there is "no hard and fast rule" about bringing an issue to others' attention. It does admittedly say such efforts should not be overdone. --68.164.203.41 13:47, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Jayjg has used admin tools while engaged in the dispute

23) Jayjg deleted United States military aid to Israel, after an Articles for deletion debate while being engaged in the dispute.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Oppose. Relevant as evidence that an involved admin here engaged in the exact same behavior as ChrisO, but was not sanctioned as a result. In any event, not relevant to this case in general.--Cerejota 09:17, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

• • This case is turning into a mixed bag of politically based grievances. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 11:00, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

proposed - While this deletion was not specifically about "Allegations of XXX apartheid", it is related to Isreal and its relationship to other countries, and may have added fuel to the fire. As there have been no other closings since, it could have just been a mistake. —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 09:12, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes he did... but that appears to be an isolated mistake, and I don't really think it's relevant to this dispute, which is about the apartheid articles. -Amarkov moo! 16:53, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Amarkov - this is about conduct relating to the Allegations of apartheid articles, not about every controversial action (inappropriate as this one was) by Jayjg or anyone else. MastCell ^Talk 17:48, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

When did this happen? I'm not generally a Jayjg (talk · contribs) fan, but I don't see him doing anything significant in the history of United States military aid to Israel. Unless history records have been deleted (and Jayjg does still have "oversight" privilege to do that), he just doesn't seem to have been involved much. The merger into Israel-United States military relations seems to have worked; the tables of numbers on US aid to Israel are in there. --John Nagle 18:35, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Please see #6SJ7, Humus sapiens, IronDuke, Jayjg and Tewfik have applied double standards in DRVs for a highly relevanty related issue. -- ChrisO 01:53, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

ChrisO has made personal attacks and been uncivil

24) Though he has been an administrator for years, and has admonished others not to make personal attacks, ChrisO has made such attacks on others, even in posting remarks during this arbitration. See evidence.

Comment by Arbitrators:

He sounds angry, but I see nothing particularly objectionable. Mackensen (talk) 20:47, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Proposed. IronDuke 13:26, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Weak oppose. If you have better evidence, maybe, but this evidence is weak, some are characterizing ideas, not people, others are run of the mill sarcasm and outright humor. If you want, we can ban sarcasm, but I am pretty sure no one wants that.--Cerejota 09:13, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Judging by the evidence posted, this is a bit of a stretch. Catchpole 17:11, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

He could have been a bit nicer, but he wasn't so incivil that an Arbcom finding is really warranted. -Amarkov moo! 17:40, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I was angry and still am, at the sheer pointlessness of it all. This affair has dragged in 300+ editors across the various AfDs and DRVs, wasted countless hours, required a full-blown arbitration, produced any amount of bitterness and venom (a fair amount directed at me, I'll note) - and all for what? So that a handful of editors could make a political point? -- ChrisO 22:01, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Anger does not work, Chris. And your "anger" has contributed to the escalation as well. You cannot take part in a solution, if you become part of the problem. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:43, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

You helped to create the problem and (as I've set out below) you systematically sustained and furthered it. You seem to have realised very recently that a different approach was needed, which is all well and good, but - particularly considering that you're an administrator - you had absolutely no business participating in a majorly disruptive POV-driven scheme in the first place. The whole thing was underhand, unethical, unjustifiable and completely unnecessary. And I'll add that I've personally resented the smears of cabalism and anti-semitism that have been thrown in my direction. -- ChrisO 23:43, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I did not "systematically" do anything, Chris. Your long-term involvement in the dispute, and your involvement in the development of this case, shows that you have been and continue to be too involved, not on the best of moods, and I may say, acting as if you do not carry any burden for this mess, only accusing others or bad behavior while failing to see your own. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:20, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

My first contribution to this debate was on 18 July 2007 when I !voted to rename and rewrite Allegations of French apartheid.[32] Hardly "long-term involvement". -- ChrisO 23:03, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Either you have a serious memory problem, or the holier than thou attitude you have exhibited in these proceedings have clouded it. You were admonished on July 2006 and advised 'not use their administrative tools without prior discussion and consensus on no less than a previous ArbCom case about this subject. After that, and since July 2006 and up to today you have been involved in this controversy, with a very specific point of view. See WP:AKASHA. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:48, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

OK, let's rephrase that: I had a brief involvement with the Israeli apartheid article prior to July 2006; after that, I had no involvement with that article or any of the POINTy ones created by Urthogie et al before July 2007. My involvement since then has been limited to the French, American and Chinese AfDs and DRVs, making a handful of comments on the centralized discussion page and editing the Northern Ireland article. The scope of my involvement has actually been pretty narrow. -- ChrisO 07:52, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Not so.... You have been involved in the allegations of Israeli apartheid article as much or more than others that you have chosen to present "evidence" against. Just check your contrib list. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 13:46, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Chris, I sympathize with you anger--and I say this with out irony. I hope you can see that others are angry as well, and for good reason. This whole mess was created by Homey who has been banned for massive sockpupeteering and disruption, including the original AoIa article which I believe he created simply to cause this havoc. I still believe it is incumbent on us to act with civility. I believe you have violated WP:CIV, and I also believe the arbs won't censure you for it. I still hope you'll take all this is to heart, and maybe be a bit less... caustic when interacting with people you disagree with. IronDuke 02:07, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Allegations of Saudi Arabian Apartheid was at first a part of Allegations of apartheid

25) Allegations of Saudi Arabian Apartheid was at first a part of Allegations of apartheid (see evidence), but was later spun out. This is consistent with editors following the WP:SUMMARY guideline, which observes that "When there is enough text in a given subtopic to merit its own entry, that text can be excised from the present entry and replaced by a link."

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Oppose. Content issue. user:Cerejota

Alithien: Parent article is part of the WP:POINT accusation. Bad faith is inherited, so this is in any case damning evidence of the original intent and purpose behind Allegations of apartheid. Still, I do not read this that way, I read it as asking ArbCom to validate forking, which is a content issue. BTW, I think Allegations of apartheid is the best of the bunch, and I hope we can keep it, but with a different title. --Cerejota 12:37, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed by Jakew 20:56, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

It is not a content issue. It proves the guy who created that article was of good faith and didn't perform WP:POINT.Alithien 10:46, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Cerejota: This is not a request that ArbCom validate forking. Please see section 2 ("What content/POV forking is not"), subsection 3 ("Article spinouts - "Summary style" articles") of WP:CFORK. It is not a request to consider content issues; since there is a claim that an editor acted in bad faith, it is surely reasonable to show that the edit in question is consistent with applicable guidelines.

I'm afraid I don't understand your statement that "bad faith is inherited". Jakew 13:35, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Jossi has violated WP:POINT, WP:NPOV and WP:GAME

26) Jossi has violated Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point by systematically voting to keep articles which were themselves created to illustrate a point, despite previously having argued in the fifth AfD on Allegations of Israeli apartheid that "we do not need articles based on an allegation or based on a viewpoint. Issues related to ... internal policy, society, culture, etc, can be explored in the related articles." In seeking an all-or-nothing approach on the articles on which he was voting, he attempted either or both of the following: to "balance" an article he considered a POV fork by maintaining other POV forks to "neutralise" it, in violation of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view; or to game the system by forcing the deletion of an article which he had previously sought, but failed, to delete. See evidence.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Oppose. I see disagreements and efforts to solve issues and to ultimately improve WP, but no evidence of disruption. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 11:18, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed as a trial proposal for the various editors involved in what is, as Mackensen has noted, an obvious multiple POINT violation in the AfDs. Note that on each instance, like many of the other "core group" of editors involved in sustaining these articles, Jossi has sought a non-policy-based all or nothing solution. To quote, "Keep together with all other "Allegations of XXXX apartheid", or better, delete them all." [33] Keeping them regardless of their individual merits all only makes sense in the light of Urthogie's admitted scheme to "neutralise" the Israeli apartheid article by creating multiple POV forks as "balance". Deleting them all regardless of their individual merits only makes sense in the light of seeking to leverage the POV forks to obtain the deletion of the Israeli apartheid article outside of the normal AfD process. Both tactics are, very clearly, POINT violations. Occam's razor strongly suggests that Jossi at least complicitly supported the POV-based rationale set out by Sefringle, and he certainly partipated in furthering a systematic campaign of disruption; in my view, wilfully. His actions were particularly egregious in the light of the Arbitration Committee's previous finding that "One aspect of the responsibilities of an administrator is to attempt to prevent disruption to the Wikipedia site and its users." He did not prevent it; he supported and furthered it. -- ChrisO 23:38, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Ludicrous and obvious tit for tat. I did not "complictly" (sic) supported anything besides my own editorial viewpoint. FYI, we are making good progress at Allegations of Israeli apartheid (see talk page), that is the proof in the pudding. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:44, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I've proposed this first for you because (a) your approach to the AfDs stood out as particularly egregious, and (b) as an administrator you're not only supposed to know better, you're under an active obligation to prevent the conduct that Urthogie engaged in. I believe that similar "charges" are justified against the other "core group" of editors involved in this affair, but rather than spamming them all at once I'm proposing this as a trial balloon to obtain feedback. -- ChrisO 23:50, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Sure Chris, sure. Posting this a few minutes after I presented evidence of your behavior in misusing your admin privileges in this lengthy dispute. As an editor, I may have made a mistake of judgment alongside during AfDs, and I take responsibility for that. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:41, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I've been working on this proposal for a couple of days - the timing is coincidental (I hadn't even read your post at that point). I was originally going to name Jayjg, but since he's not here to defend himself that wouldn't have been fair, and the same goes for Humus sapiens, who hasn't participated in this arbitration yet (as far as I know). -- ChrisO 01:41, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Support and extend to other admins and editors whose voting record and comments match this description, as outlined in the evidence section. Tiamat 00:10, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

oppose this is rediculous. None of this users edits violate any policy, at least not on this issue.--Sefringle^Talk 01:26, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I think, of all the things that disturb me about the remarks by the people who aggressively support AoIa is the idea that it’s not enough that AoIA be kept, or that other articles be deleted—it’s that dissent itself can and must be stifled; no one may vote in an “unacceptable” way, and no one can criticize those who voted for AoIa, or against any other article in that family. This whole process, for me, has smacked of bullying from the start. I have no problem with folks disagreeing with me, or voting contrary to my veiws, I do have a problem when people say that merely having an opinion is somehow disruptive. I can’t think of anything more chilling to and for Wikipedia. IronDuke 02:25, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

This only makes sense if voting "keep" on an AfD against previous opinions is disruptive. Which it really isn't, unless you can show everyone acted in tandem. -Amarkov moo! 02:29, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure I follow your reasoning. I have no trouble with anyone's !votes. People can express whatever opinion they like. I have a problem when people attempt to use arbcom to enforce their own ideas about what content should look like, and to silence people who disagree with them. IronDuke 02:33, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh, sorry, I should ave made it clearer I was talking about the original proposal. I actually agree with you mostly. -Amarkov moo! 04:09, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Oppose, I am sure he was seeking consistency as he saw it, as was I. 6SJ7 19:54, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Strongly Oppose, again, his vote pattern mirrored the opposition, which is not a surprise since the basis of the dispute is whether the article series provides balance (one side's pov) or exhibits Point (the other side's pov). If editors are going to be subject to sanction for voting their conscience, things don't bode well for our encyclopedia. --MPerel 21:11, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

The only opposition cited so far at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Allegations of apartheid/Evidence is User:G-Dett. Is he such a maelstrom that 12 editors need to stand up to oppose him? -- 146.115.58.152 22:05, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, G-Dett contests the previous evidence as selective, so it's still not clear who this opposing cabal is. -- 146.115.58.152 00:03, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

6SJ7, Humus sapiens, IronDuke, Jayjg and Tewfik have applied double standards in DRVs

27) 6SJ7, Humus sapiens, IronDuke, Jayjg and Tewfik have applied a double standard regarding AfD closures by involved administrators. See evidence.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Well, we can't sanction hypocrisy in itself, for which associated editors should be grateful, because the evidence thereof is damning. However, said evidence strongly reinforces the arguments advanced by others that editors treated Wikipedia as a battlefield. Is there any corresponding analysis for editors who supported ChrisO but attacked Jayjg? Mackensen (talk) 20:55, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Strong Oppose. Non-sanctionable. They (hopefully) decrease their credibility in front of the community by doing this (or become heroes to those who advocate the turning of wikipedia into a battlefield), but they are not violating any policy in arguing anything in good faith. One man's terrorist is the other's freedom fighter. It is not for ArbCom to require coherence from editors. Sophistry is not WP:HONESTY, but thats not even a guideline.--Cerejota 06:45, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

• I reject the "double standard" accusation as a gross misrepresentation of my actions (none of which involved administrative power) and my position. I repeatedly asked that "The same pro/con arguments should be applied across all "Allegations of apartheid" series. Consistency please.": [34], [35], [36], [37], [38], [39]. I did not vote in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allegations of Jordanian apartheid, so why not list it as evidence of my "double standard"? ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 10:19, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

You said that, and then disobeyed your own statement. As I said, the evidence its all there. However, I fail to see how this double standard is anything other than embarrassing to the editors who have it, including yourself.--Cerejota 12:29, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I am asking for a comprehensive solution. Since sources show that this offensive political epithet was applied similarly to a number of countries beyond S. Africa, we either use it consistently or don't use it at all. If to resist attempts to single out one country is "double standard", then how do you characterize those who perpetrate such attempts? ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 12:03, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed. I'm grateful to Clayoquot for spotting and documenting this - I was quite startled when I read his evidence. I would like to draw attention to the fact that this mirrors the pattern of behaviour documented in my own evidence, where the very same group of editors similarly applied diametrically opposed standards in related AfDs. I can only echo Clayoquot's comments that "I cannot understand how anyone can apply the same code of conduct to both administrators and arrive at this set of conclusions. That this has happened is an indication of the unhealthy level of partisanship that we have." I believe the double standard results from a perception on the part of these editors that Jayjg is a member of "their side" and his innocence must be presumed, while I'm "the enemy" and must be strung up by my scrotum from the nearest tree. It's a further illustration of the nakedly partisan behaviour that underlies this content dispute. -- ChrisO 01:36, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

There's a big box that Kirill left at the top of the page that deals with this, I think. "There are certain users who liked content I didn't, and hated content I liked," is not something arbcom will sanction, I hope. This is, of course, not to mention your own fairly obvious double standard, if your reasoning were to be applied across the board. IronDuke 02:31, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Conduct, not content. -- ChrisO 08:20, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

ChrisO, in one sense I actually agree with you. however, since there is no ability to addres a content dispute in this process, people have no choice but to "sue" individual editors as a way to bring this matter for resolution. It's the same as when the NAACp aabnd other legal advocacy groups used to deliberately on to challenge certain unfair practices, in order to briung matters to a head and bring the case before the higher court. I'm not claiming the manle of reformer for anyone here, my side or the other side, but I'm just using the analogy to expalin the course of events here. --Steve, Sm8900 17:29, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

ArbCom is no place for courtroom tactics. What do you mean by "suing" individual editors? MartinDK 17:37, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm...: Yes, the criticism of ChrisO's close does seem fairly hypocritical when juxtaposed with their support for Jayjg's earlier activity. But is hypocrisy sanctionable by ArbCom? MastCell ^Talk 17:52, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

To clarify: I'm not proposing a specific remedy for this. This finding of fact is intended to support the proposition that a number of editors have overtly acted as a partisan bloc/clique/faction. This has already come out strongly documented in the AfD evidence. The sanctionable aspect is that these editors have openly treated Wikipedia as a battlefield. -- ChrisO 19:38, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Again, your evidence does not show this. IronDuke 02:32, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

It's not a tactic, or hypocrisy. i truly believe that those on the other side of this dispute are wrong, and have mishandled Wikipedia edits. However, if I could, I would only approach this in an objective manner, looking only at content issues, no matter how great i believe any infractions to be. however, due to the structure of ArbCom matters, i have no choice but to emphasize complaints about editor conudct, and de-emphasize any points about content. Or did you really that all four editors cited in this section are all bad-faith? Obviously the nature of this approach is inherently what makes them seem to be comitting an infraction. --Steve, Sm8900 19:20, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

These editors sprang to Jayjg's defense when he reversed another (neutral) admin's close in an area where Jayjg himself is far from neutral. They then piled on ChrisO when he committed a similar infraction. Both actions were wrong (Jayjg's maybe marginally worse since it involved undoing a neutral admin's action to impose his preferred close). Excusing one while lambasting the other is hypocritical. But as Cerejota says, while damaging to these editors' credibility, I don't know that it's a finding that ArbCom will, or needs to, sanction. MastCell ^Talk 20:05, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

If these editors have enlisted a double standard, then so has their opposition, since the opposition's votes exactly mirrored those of the editors above. The opposition voted to keep the article in once case and delete for the others. The only double standard going on is applying a double-standard label to the editors of one side of the debate and not the other side who did the same thing. --MPerel 20:27, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Since this just repeats you argument above, I am repeating my response. The only opposition cited so far at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Allegations of apartheid/Evidence is User:G-Dett. Is he such a maelstrom that 12 editors need to stand up to oppose him? -- 146.115.58.152 22:05, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't see any evidence on the evidence page that G-Dett has used a double standard. Boldface summary opinions are not a standard. Having most recently reviewed the French AFD, I can say from memory that his standard there was whether there are significant secondary sources that discuss the use of the apartheid analogy in a specific context (versus primary sources that use the analogy), that he felt the France article demonstrated only one source with one offhand comment meeting that standard, so he inclinded toward deletion but could have been convinced otherwise by secondary sources on the speech act. Similarly, in the French AFD he distinguished the Israeli article because he believes there are such secondary sources on the speech act. This isn't applying a double standard, this is applying a consistent standard to different evidence. This is a standard that is fundamental to multiple policies and guidelines (WP:NOR in the WP:PSTS section, WP:V, WP:RS, WP:N (and all specific subject variants), WP:NEO, WP:NOT, etc...) and is highly supported by Wikipedia consensus. A double standard is when because of an irrelvant personal bias someone applies different logic patterns to evidence that they acknowledge is similar. (For Wikipedia, all pro/anti biases are irrelevant.) It is possible that other comments elsewhere may show a different standard, as I've dug for incvility and edit/move war evidence by page rather than consistent logic pattern by editor evidence thus far. But the right type of analysis on opining pattern was done by ChrisO, as it was about the logic, and the analysis done by Leifern is useless because it ignores the logic. GRBerry 14:14, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

In response to Mackensen's question "are there editors who supported ChrisO but attacked Jayjg?", Clayoquot posted this over at the Evidence page as a possibility. So I'd like to offer my explanation for what may look contradictory at first, but the actions of Jayjg that I was referring to were not analogous to ChrisO's AfD closure at all. What Jayjg did in the military aid to Israel debate was unilaterally reverse Doc Glasgow's keep decision of the article, with the edit summary of "nonsense". That is what I was calling for action/sanction on, a very brazen and intentional usurpation of the AfD process. ChrisO's situation was that some felt since he was "involved" in the general sense of being involved in Middle Eastern articles that he should not have closed that AfD. Perhaps in future situations, yes, it would be better for him to get a non-involved admin (although ^demon, a non-involved admin, was savaged in his closure of the Chinese apartheid) to close, but using that as a reason to overturn his AfD at that present case was ludicrous. Tarc 12:43, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Too many contributors prevents good discussion

28) The presence of too many contributors on a topic prevents a good and productive discussion.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Complete, absolute, total, mega-oppose. Quality of editors has nothing to do with quality of editors.

If dozens of editors behave correctly, assume good faith, and are honest, a much better article develops. If, in contrast, there are only two editors are set in their POV ways, pulling disruptive stunts on each other, being uncivil, and refusing to write for the enemy, then the result is bad article. And sometimes, a dozens of editors behaving well can hold back hundreds of bad editors: we call that RC Patrol among other names around here.

Current events are a great example, sometimes even with the need for sourcing, notable news events are in the Main Page before they are on the front page of the New York Times, and sometimes with more verifiability!

It reminds me how I ended up in this whole Israeli-Palestinian conflict mess, 2006 Lebanon war, which taught me more about myself, wikipedia, and the entire conflict than all the books and papers I had read (and in the case of In fact, Twefik, who is here, and I had an unfortunate spat, and I took a rather long wikibreak after it to process what I learned, but to this day the bulk of my mainspace and talk page postings are for that article, and its first weeks, when it was a current article. In spite of having the same partisan battleground issues as the rest of the Arab-Israeli/Israeli-Palestinian conflict articles, it is also one of the best war coverage articles in wikipedia, precisely because it attracted huge crowds (its worse sub-articles are to the last one the less trafficked ones). It also had one of the most memorable acts of wiki-vandalism ever, which was so memorable even Wonkette carried it! (hint: it had to do with a debate over the infobox picture)--Cerejota 01:12, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed. Alithien 08:44, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Interesting, and perhaps true (too many cooks spoil the broth) but there's not really a remedy for that. Your fire marshal doesn't work here? (I mean, in general, I have nothing against your local fire marshal, as long as he's enforcing the maximum occupancy rules.) Not sure how it applies to this case, compared something in WP:CURRENT where there could be hundreds of different contributors in any given hour. -- 146.115.58.152 17:15, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

True to some degree, but completely impossible to enforce. We can't say "sorry, you can't discuss this because others got there first, go away". -Amarkov moo! 04:35, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

@IP146 and Amarkov.

Yes, I never wrote it could enforce whatever.

That is just a "thought".

@IC146, Amarkov and Cerejota

This is only to underline the fact that I have the feeling there are too many people involved in this topic. In practice, it prevents "each contributor" to discuss with "all" the others.

This -obviously- prevents a good discussion. It should be an oral debate to work.

To be sure everybody hears all the others...

@Cerajota

"Complete, absolute, total, mega-oppose"

Isn't this an "extreme langage" ? Alithien 10:59, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Preventing a discussion is a content issue

29) Preventing a contributor to discuss (eg on a AfD) is a content issue. It prevents informations to be given to the community.

Comment by Arbitrators:

By that metric any sanction is a content issue. Topical bans are well within the remit of the Arbitration Committee. Mackensen (talk) 12:16, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

The canonical example is Everyking, who was barred from commenting on other administrators' actions. Mackensen (talk) 20:46, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

proposed. I think everybody should agree there some "bug" in the AfD process today. It is a vote (behaviour issue) or a discussion (content issue) ? Alithien 09:10, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

To Mackensen:

No. Usually people banned from editing a topic are not banned from discussing the topic. And usually few sanctions are a content issue (only total ban).

If -indeed- AfD are discussions, banning people from them is a content issue...

Is discussion disrupting when it is a basic principle of wikipedia.

I think the way AfDs are seen is not consistent.

Topical ban only concerns the article page, not the discussion page.

[User:Alithien|Alithien]] 12:55, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Arbcom can and has banned people from discussing topics as well as editing on them, if they feel that's the only way to stop disruption. Should people have to be banned completely because they can't discuss well in one topic? -Amarkov moo! 04:37, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Do you have examples of such bans ?

Alithien 08:05, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Most topic bans are worded as "User X is banned from articles related to Y, along with their associated talk pages". -Amarkov moo! 00:44, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

To Mackensen

The example you give is not a content issue.

Kind Regards, Alithien 11:34, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Preventing a discussion (precision - AfD)

29b) Preventing a contributor to discuss on a AfD is a content issue. It prevents informations concerning the content of the article to be given.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. In response to the exemple given by Mackensen. Alithien 09:14, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Oppose - I'm not buying it, personally. A content dispute is, well, a dispute over the content; editors who disagree as to what should or should not be in an article. Stretching that to cover users' contributions in this manner is like Ronnie Reagan declaring ketchup to be a vegetable. Tarc 12:52, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Inconsistent opinions voiced in different AFD debates indicate bad faith

30) Some editors have advocated keeping one or more "Allegations of . . . apartheid" articles in an AFD debate, and subsequently advocating deleting others in similar cases. Given the circumstances, the only reasonable explanation for this pattern is that the editors in question were attempting to prove a point, and were disrupting Wikipedia.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Oppose. It depends. In the abstract it doesn't work, it need to be concrete, and hence it is already covered on the WP:POINT stuff. --Cerejota 09:09, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

If the Arbcom is to conclude that !voting in different ways on similar cases is an indication of bad faith, as per proposed FoF#6, then they should do so in a content-neutral way. To do otherwise would be to inappropriately single out editors on one side of the debate, and "de facto" support some content over other content.

It is content neutral, but this misses the point. The question isn't whether editors have voted to delete some articles and keep others, but whether people have voted clearly and repeatedly against their own stated principles in order to make a point. In this regard, when you see edits like this followed by edits like this and then back to this you have an issue. Throw in edits like this and this and you have a serious issue. WP:POINT isn't just about comparing results on supposedly similar articles, but looking at what people have said and done. This requires clear evidence, but that evidence has been provided here. Mackan79 03:35, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Oppose. Often, what seems inconsistent isn't really so. Voting "keep" for one "Allegations of" article and "delete" for another could be an indication of specific concerns with specific articles that are unique to those articles, combined with an acceptance of the apparent Wikipedia consensus that articles about "apartheid allegations" are encyclopaedic. Furthermore, it's perfectly possible to be inconsistent and yet sincere. I've seen numerous instances of that on Wikipedia. ElinorD (talk) 20:35, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment I would assume that this is equally directed to those who want to keep any of these articles while wanting to delete any of the others. Isn't that an WP:ALLORNOTHING solution? Carlossuarez46 01:54, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Differing opinions voiced in different AFD debates do not indicate bad faith

31) Some editors have advocated keeping one or more "Allegations of . . . apartheid" articles in an AFD debate, and subsequently advocating deleting others in similar cases. This is not necessarily an indication of disruption, bad faith, or WP:POINT. The articles are all different, and people may have valid reasons for !voting one way in one AFD dispute and a different way in a different AFD dispute.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Obviously, this and #30 above cannot both be true, but either would be content-neutral. I believe that #31 would be far preferable, because it assumed good faith, refraining from condemning people for the way they !voted. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 14:36, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree, as qualified above in #30. Mackan79 03:41, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

They may, but it's clear that not everyone in this case actually does have valid reasons. -Amarkov moo! 04:38, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

That's true. That's why we AGF, unless there's good evidence of bad faith in a specific instance. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 04:55, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Quadell. 31 is far preferable to 30. It assumes good faith in the absence of evidence to the contrary, and it's far less dogmatic, with "not necessarily" (which allows for a possible alternative explanation) instead of "the only reasonable explanation" (which doesn't). ElinorD (talk) 20:38, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

A group of editors has violated the previous ArbCom mandate to negotiate apartheid-related disputes in good faith

32) A group of editors, including Jayjg (talk · contribs), Humus sapiens (talk · contribs), IronDuke (talk · contribs), 6SJ7 (talk · contribs), Urthogie (talk · contribs), and Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg (talk · contribs), has attempted to utilize the Allegations of apartheid series of articles as a bargaining chip to urge deletion of Allegations of Israeli apartheid. This approach circumvents the deletion process and violates the previous ArbCom mandate to negotiate apartheid-related disputes in good faith.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Opposed, I think this is ridiculous. I have not circumvented anything, nor have I done anything in bad faith. I have participated in many discussions of these articles, on talk pages and centralized discussion pages, not just in AfD's. My AfD comments reflected my opinion and I clearly stated why I thought that certain articles (which had substantial sourced statements) should be retained pending a global resolution of the "apartheid" issue, which is really a POV issue. I don't think I should be penalized for making good-faith arguments in AfD's, and the same goes for the other targets of this proposed finding. 6SJ7 18:17, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Strong support : Please see how 6SJ7 is dealing with the merge vote on the French article talk page : Talk:Social situation in the French suburbs#There was no consensus for this merge (a bit long, but I think it worths it). Votes were 15-4 (and 2 neutral) in favor of the merge, and yet, he comes one week after the vote, does not deem answer my questions about his position, and yet, he says there was no consensus, blocking the merge process. (Why ? see above : he "oppose[s] this proposal in the absence of a global solution on "Allegations of X apartheid" articles". [40] ) NicDumZ ~ 10:39, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

This is getting preposterous. I did not "block" anything. There was a merge poll, it was closed in favor of a merge, the merge was done, and the same day the poll was closed and the merge was done (not a week later as Nick says), I stated that I did not believe there was a consensus. (And contrary to the "15-4" figure, only nine people participated in that particular poll.) I did not undo the merge, and the merge was not undone by anyone, so I didn't "block" anything. All I did was make a few comments on a talk page. It's pretty clear that I am being targeted based on my opinions. 6SJ7 14:27, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

• "only nine people participated in that particular poll" I think you forgot to take into account the merge vote on Talk:Allegations of French apartheid. This is very surprising since you asked to combine the votes from the two pages :[41] . So... ?
• I did not say that the merge was done one week later ; I say you've come one week later to contest it. Pretty different: You appear not to care about the vote, not even answering my questions, but yet, one week after the end of the vote, you come, and say that there was no consensus. Why ?
• "All I did was make a few comments on a talk page" What's the point of these comments ? I mean ? You don't really take part into the vote (no answers to our questions) ; There was a clear consensus (Or do you oppose this ? I can add an evidence "there was a consensus on the vote", but that'd obvious, wouldnt it ?) ; And yet you come to contest the vote. What was the aim of this ? Starting a new battle ? NicDumZ ~ 07:35, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

what is one man's "bargaining chip" is another man's "genuine means to achieve objectivity and fairness." Obviously some editors feel that if apartheied allegations are not fair for everyone, then they are not fair for anyone. you may disagree, but that that's the whole point, reason and focus for this entire proceeding. So instead of calling non-good faith, let's just call it the assumption, which some find fallacious, which is at the heart of one side's view of this issue. --Steve, Sm8900 14:54, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

That would have been a valid point if not for the explicit statements that they were bargaining chips. Tarc 15:32, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed. See my evidence for the basis for naming these editors. Given the existence of a prior ArbCom mandate to negotiate in good faith, the efforts to create and maintain the Allegations series, then to vociferously argue to "Keep XXX unless all articles are deleted," clearly represents a bad-faith tactic to have the Israeli article deleted. MastCell ^Talk 17:33, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

(Response to 6SJ7): I regard that explanation as revisionism. I think the evidence presented makes a very compelling case that you and these other editors were not simply defending well-sourced articles or making good-faith AfD comments, but campaigning to have the Israeli article deleted by using the other Allegations articles as bargaining chips. It was not subtle, current protestations of innocence to the contrary, nor was it "negotiating in good faith" by any stretch. The bottom line is that you don't solve a POV problem by creating 6 new POV problems and then insisting everyone get behind you to fix them all. MastCell ^Talk 18:32, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I didn't "insist" on anything. I commented in a few AfD's and my comments reflected my opinions. If my opinions were not supported by policy (though I think they were), they could have been disregarded (and in some cases they were, though I don't think that was correct.) But I don't think that I (or others) should be punished with a multi-article ban, for expressing an opinion. 6SJ7 18:57, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

As you must be aware, no one is talking about sanctioning anyone for expressing an opinion. The sanctions, if any, would be for disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. You and others have admittedly responded to a problematic article by creating and defending a bunch of other problematic articles. You argued strenuously to keep those problematic articles unless the Israeli one could be deleted, circumventing the multiple failed AfD's on that article. In the process, you've managed to piss off a large number of previously uninvolved editors. We're not talking about expressing an opinion, and describing it in those terms is revisionism. MastCell ^Talk 20:24, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

The implication here is that people only need argue apartheid related disputes in good faith because Arbcom said so, which is not the case. Bad faith is sanctionable anyway. -Amarkov moo! 18:48, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Of course, but it's worse when it's in direct defiance of a previous ArbCom ruling. My point is that last time around ArbCom used the carrot approach (amnesty, etc). It's been ignored - so it may be time to employ the stick. MastCell ^Talk 20:19, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

The evidence here does not support the conclusions, or the remedy. The glee with which some editors are advocating punitive measures--what becomes in effect collective punishment--is disturbing. "Time to employ the stick"? IronDuke 22:37, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I don't feel any glee at the prospect of sanctions on anyone. I was employing a carrot-and-stick metaphor. The first ArbCom case clearly tried a forgiving approach - amnesty and so forth - with explicit instructions to be on better behavior in the future. I think that the second chance provided last time around has been abused. Therefore, I think that stricter remedies, rather than yet another amnesty, are in order this time around. That's all. Of course, it's not up to me, but to the Arbitrators. MastCell ^Talk 01:58, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Support. I would add that there are other editors who have made similar arguments, but since these editors were involved in the previous arbcomm and are more experienced editors, holding them to a higher standard is perhaps appropriate. Tiamat 01:18, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

• Strongly Oppose There is no evidence of bad faith here, and the "evidence" cited does not contain any explicit statements about "bargaining chips" or anything like it.Slrubenstein | Talk 17:20, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Cerejota has violated WP:CIVIL

33) User:Cerejota has made many uncivil actions which have violated WP:CIVIL

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. Today Cerejota has made a personal attack against me, stating "editors who have reverted you, excluding me, are to be congratulated." Cerejota has also falsely accused me of violating WP:3RR. [42] --Sefringle^Talk 02:52, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Neutral - A bit of selective quoting there, don't you think? In full, the "congratulated" quote was "Regardless of POV, editors who have reverted you, excluding me, are to be congratulated for defending the principles of WP:CONSENSUS and in a few cases WP:NPOV." In effect, saying that people should be congratulated for upholding Wikipedia policy in the face of (in Cerejota's opinion) your nonconstructive reverts, not congratulated merely for the act of reverting you. A bit snarky, but I'm not sure it rises to the level of incivility.

As for the 3RR violation, it depends on whether the initial edit is considered a revert in itself or not. There's quite a bit of chatter about that aspect on 3RR's talk page, but from what I gather from there this doesn't look like it's qualify. Sefringle definitely hit the 3rd revert but not the magic number 4. So unless Cerejota plans to report it and cross his fingers for a "disruption" ruling, the 3RR accusation should probably be withdrawn by the accuser. Tarc 13:07, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

No. If accusing people of breaking policy were inherently sanctionable behavior, nobody would be willing to call attention to rulebreaking. I hope it's obvious why that is bad. -Amarkov moo! 00:47, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Move wars occurred

34) Multiple move/redirect edit wars occurred in the series on 30 July, involving four separate articles.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Allegations of apartheid/Evidence#Four move/merge wars occurred simultaneously on 30 July 2007. Unfortunately, the only one that took a break for discussion resumed on 12 August and recurred through protection yesterday. Jayjg (talk · contribs) had a total of 7 actions on all 4 articles (including 4 actions on 1, but was initiator so didn't technically violate 3RR), G-Dett (talk · contribs) had 3 actions on 1 article, Beit Or (talk · contribs) had 4 actions on 2 articles, including 3 on 1. These three editors were one action away from a WP:3RR violation. Others involved on 30 July were Lothar of the Hill People (talk · contribs) (6 actions on 3 of 4 articles), T L Miles (talk · contribs) (2 actions on 1 article), and ChrisO (talk · contribs) (3 actions on 1 article, as initiator didn't violate 3RR), Urthogie (talk · contribs) (2 actions on 1 article). I intend this as evidence of the disruptive effect of the series more than as evidence of sanctionable action by any one individual. GRBerry 16:46, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Jayjg violated WP:POINT

35) User:Jayjg violated WP:POINT by restoring Apartheid outside of South Africa (now Allegations of Apartheid) from a redirect to a full article page, in response to the creation of Israeli apartheid.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Opposed. And just when I thought this case could not get more absurd. The action you are complaining about took place on June 5, 2006. That means that it took place before the prior arbitration case even started (and well before it ended, obviously), which means it is covered by the amnesty that was given at the end of that case. (I believe that was in September of 2006.) But beyond a purely technical argument, I think it is reasonable to question the motives of the proposer when he reaches back this far to find more mud to sling at Jay. This can't even remotely be called a WP:POINT violation. Or perhaps CJCurrie is confusing this with another action that took place on June 5, 2006, when his friend Homey moved Apartheid outside of South Africa to Apartheid outside of South Africa and Israel. [43] (It didn't stay there long.) If you want to talk about making a point, that's a pretty good example. 6SJ7 05:33, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed, per my comments on the evidence page here and here. CJCurrie 03:10, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Opposed: per 6SJ7, this appears to precede the amnesty granted last time around. MastCell ^Talk 18:36, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I was operating under the assumption that the general amnesty was limited to Allegations of Israeli apartheid, and did not extend to Allegations of Apartheid. (The precise remedy was worded as follows: "Based on the difficult and controversial nature of this matter, with the exception of Zeq, who remains banned from editing the article, the principal participants in this dispute shall be granted an amnesty for past actions." Note the reference to "the article" (singular), rather than "the articles" (plural).)

I realize this may strike some readers as hair-splitting or wiki-lawyering. Perhaps some clarification from the Arbitrators would be in order. CJCurrie 03:51, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

as far as I know, the arbitrators have never issued any overt clarifications, nor does it appear they will. At this point, there have been so many allegations, counter-allegations, and counter-counter-counter-allegations, that it seems little could be done to resolve the core issues, though I'm sure there are still some aspects of user behavior which they can address.--Steve, Sm8900 15:58, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

36) User:Jayjg violated WP:POINT in the creation and support of various Allegations of ... apartheid articles.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed, per evidence here. Mackan79 19:37, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I think this is pretty much inarguable, based on his repeated references to a "systemic solution" while arguing to keep the various Allegations articles, his central role in expanding and defending the Allegations series while simultaneously arguing vociferously for the deletion of the Israeli article ([44], [45]) etc. As an editor at "French apartheid" asked in exasperation, "Why the hell are you bringing up Israel here?" Well-supported by the evidence presented. MastCell ^Talk 20:23, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Support By way of adding further evidence, I'd like to draw the attention of readers to this edit from 23:20, 26 October 2006. While responding to my argument about the inclusion of Global apartheid and Sexual apartheid on Apartheid outside of South Africa, Jayjg ridiculed the idea of creating "separate article[s] for every section on this page". He also singled out Saudi apartheid as an apparent reductio ad absurdum example. I find it difficult to reconcile this with his subsequent votes to keep various "Allegations of [...]" articles, including the one for Saudi Arabia.

(By way of full disclosure, I should clarify I initially endorsed the creation of a "Saudi apartheid" article. I did not realize, at the time, that the term "Saudi apartheid" was not in common usage. During the recent afd for Allegations of Saudi Arabian apartheid, I voted "merge": I believe the information should be included somewhere on Wikipedia, but I no longer believe it deserves its own article. I realize some might find this inconsistent; my response is that I acted in good faith on both occasions. It is, in any event, far more inconsistent to ridicule the notion of creating spin-off articles, and then vote to keep them.) CJCurrie 04:46, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Oppose. Unless I'm missing something, Jayjg created one article, and that was a spinout from another article, per policy. I'm also a bit puzzled that CJCurrie is bringing up things from October 2006, excusing his own change of heart, but not allowing that other people just might change their views in good faith over a period of months. ElinorD (talk) 02:49, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Jayjg also voted to keep several articles which have been described (accurately, I believe) as WP:POINT violations. Turning to your second point, my "change of heart" was as follows: I initially favoured creation of a "Saudi apartheid" article, but now believe the relevant information from this page should be retained on other articles. Jay's "change of heart" was that he initially ridiculed the notion of creating multiple spin-off articles, but then voted to retain multiple spin-off articles. Which is the greater mark of inconsistency, I wonder? CJCurrie 03:00, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

ElinorD, can I ask whether you are responding to both sections of evidence? Mine is not based on changes of opinion, but specific comments such as here where he states that the "worst of the POV-pushers" who initially supported the "inflammatory" titles seem to be coming around to a more reasonable position. His saying this in the same debate as he argued and voted to keep seems to preclude the idea that he changed his mind; he seems to have fully admitted that he continued to see the articles as an embarassment. I don't see the wiggle room. Mackan79 05:00, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I think (with reference only to the second proposed finding above) that the argument that Jayjg "only created one article" significantly understates his role. He was very active in expanding several other Allegations articles, and was a leading and often somewhat strident voice in the deletion discussions. Whether his conduct rose to the level of violating WP:POINT is one issue, but I don't think there's a question that he was heavily involved in the articles and discussions leading to this ArbCom case. MastCell ^Talk 18:12, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

What articles did Jayjg create? ChrisO's evidence only identifies one page (Saudi Arabia), and as I showed in my evidence, that was a case of spinning out content rather than creation per se. Jakew 22:02, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

WP:POINT has to do with disruption, not just article creation. CJCurrie 22:42, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you on that. However, it's pretty difficult to be disruptive without doing anything. The proposed text outlines two of Jayjg's supposedly disruptive activities: creating articles and supporting them. But when we look one of these, as I remark above, he only created a single article, and there is a perfectly good explanation for that. This isn't the "evidence to the contrary" that I need to assume disruption of the project to make a point. It's merely an interpretation. Jakew 23:06, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Jayjg has made a very large number of edits to the Allegations series as well as been very active in their deletion discussions. These contributions are detailed in the Evidence, and in his contrib log. He's definitely "done something". Whether it rose to the level of violating WP:POINT is the question. MastCell ^Talk 23:40, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that he's been active in editing many of these articles. But editing articles is not itself evidence of bad faith. If it is, Wikipedia has a severe problem.

It occurs to me that if one makes the assumption that the creation and expansion of these articles is a WP:POINT, then participation can be seen as evidence of disruption. However, if one makes the assumption that the creation and expansion was done in whole or in part in good faith, then participation cannot be seen as evidence of disruption.

What seems to be lacking is evidence to support that initial assumption. Jakew 11:10, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

well-said. you just summed up this entire proceeding, as well as one of the main reasons that many of these claims may be less than fully verifiable, or at least not really suitable for direct action. --Steve, Sm8900 15:44, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Centralized discussion as a remedy from the last case

37) Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Apartheid was set up as a remedy in the last case. This led some editors to believe that a "systemic solution" to the apartheid articles was called for.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Support, but with a slight factual clarification. The centralized discussion page actually existed prior to the initiation of the first arbitration. However, the ArbCom did endorse and direct its continued use to work toward a common solution to the relevant series of articles. I think the "spirit" of this proposal is correct. When the series of articles evolved to include different articles, it was indeed reasonable to believe that the idea of an overall solution still prevailed. That was not the only reason why seeking a "global solution" was appropriate, but it was one of them. (I'm speaking of my own reasons here, others may speak for themselves, or agree or disagree with me.) 6SJ7 00:55, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

OK what's the protocol here? Should I edit it for accuracy? <<-armon->> 03:01, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed I would like a finding of fact on this because that was my (and I assume other's) understanding. <<-armon->> 13:10, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

No... a systemic solution could certainly have been discussed at the centralized discussion board, but interpreting its existence as a mandate to pursue a systemic solution by "alternative means", regardless of opposition or lack of consensus, seems like retroactive justification. MastCell ^Talk 15:40, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry but you're begging the question here. You're assuming that editor's views advocating editorial consistency was "alternative means" (i.e. bad faith). I don't accept that and I happen to know for a fact it wasn't. Unfortunately I can't give you a recording of my inner thoughts. <<-armon->> 03:00, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Support The blessing ArbCom gave to WP:APARTHEID may have been the original sin here, violating, IMHO, the spirit of WP:BURO. Doesn't completely absolve all subsequent actions, but I agree this helped plant the idea of the need for a "systematic solution." -- 146.115.58.152 00:37, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Apparent motivation of certain editors

38) Based on the overall record, it appears that one or more editors created "allegations of ... apartheid" articles and/or commented in favor of keeping such articles in an attempt to cause the deletion of Allegations of Israeli apartheid, which they believed should be deleted, rather than because they genuinely believed that the other "allegation of ... apartheid" article(s) deserved a place in Wikipedia.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Belatedly proposed, along with a new proposed principle and a new proposed remedy. Before offering these proposals, I have studied the arbitrators' various views as expressed on /proposed decision, which have left the case somewhat at impasse on the action to be taken. My goal is to offer a synthesis that might help advance the arbitrators' deliberations and upon which compromise might be reached. Newyorkbrad 04:33, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, seems pretty clearly supported by the evidence presented. I would change "created" to "created or substantially expanded" for the sake of accuracy. Of course, specifying the "one or more" editors in question is the rub. MastCell ^Talk 05:13, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

My view is that it is not necessary to identify specific editors in this decision, and that the attempt to do so may be what is making it difficult for the arbitrators to reach a consensus. It might also be desirable for the finding to note that while some editors appear to have acted for the reasons described, others did not. Newyorkbrad 16:40, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

This would be a more nuanced, and certainly fairer, proposal. IronDuke 02:19, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

That was the goal. There could also have been a somewhat more nuanced discussion during this case about the permissibility of strategic !voting on Wikipedia, but we'll save that for another day. Newyorkbrad 02:57, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Proposed remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Deletion

1) All of the "allegations of <foo> apartheid" articles are to be deleted, and shall not be recreated for at least a year.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Content issue. Mackensen (talk) 20:48, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Total Oppose. This is a content issue. Let the community sort it out. Say what you will of the AfDs, but all of them have closed and survived DRV. --Cerejota 04:57, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Taking a leaf out of King Solomon's book here. All of this is generating way more heat than light, and removing the tempation will allow people to focus instead on less drama-inducing issues. >Radiant< 11:07, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I think this would just forestall the inevitable resumption of the debate in a year's time. In other words, this buries the problem rather than addressing it. It also rewards those who from the outset have been opposed to the existence of the Israeli apartheid and who created the series of POINTY articles, effectively giving them the WP:ALLORNOTHING outcome they have repeatedly invoked and desire. Tiamat 12:23, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

And keeping them all gives the other side the ALLORNOTHING outcome they apparently desire (plus added drama), so your point is? >Radiant< 12:44, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I think you may be missing the point. Keeping them all or deleting them all is what opponents of the existence of the Israeli apartheid article want. Those who support the existence of the Israeli apartheid article and who want to see it appropriately named and properly developed per NPOV have varying opinions on what to do with the rest of the articles. Some have voted to keep articles like Allegations of Brazilian apartheid (while renaming it to Social apartheid in Brazil or other options), some have voted to delete others. Again, I repeat, your proposal rewards those using the WP:ALLORNOTHING arguments (as outlined in the evidence section by ChrisO). Tiamat 13:04, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Oppose - So, what, the deletion reason to use would be "too controversial" ? Would you plan to send the lot of em through AfD or would this just be a unilateral decision from the Ivory Tower to delete? That'd be quite a dangerous precedent, that if disputes cannot be worked out the solution is to bypass the deletion process and chuck it for an arbitrary length of time. Tarc 12:58, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I think this proposal maks the most sense. WP:ALLORNOTHING is not a policy, nor is it a guideline. I wish people would stop quoting it like it was. IronDuke 14:33, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm aware it's not policy but that's really quite irrelevant to the points raised in objection (WP:ONLYESSAY). Would you care to address them? Tiamat 15:00, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

WP:ONLYESSAY is a logical paradox. It is a redirect to an essay -- in other words, just someone's opinion -- that says that when discussing deletions, you should not dismiss references to an essay. If you fed that logic into a computer, it would be like that Star Trek episode where Kirk gets the computer so confused it starts to smoke and eventually explodes. Let's not do that to Wikipedia's servers. 6SJ7 18:41, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment Did someone not get Kirill's memo? -- 67.98.206.2 18:25, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Weak oppose. While I'm normally all for cutting the Gordian Knot, this isn't the right venue to propose such an approach, and it's not an appropriate remedy in this instance. First, ArbCom doesn't do content. The arbitrators have already made this clear. Second, this arbitration isn't fundamentally about the content of the articles, but about the conduct that has accompanied their creation and maintenance. The ultimate fate of the articles has no bearing on the arbitration. Third, this problem arose in the first place because editors sought to force all-or-nothing solutions without using our existing dispute resolution procedures. It would be ironic in the extreme if the ArbCom was to do the same thing. The fate of the articles should be decided through dispute resolution and the normal AfD process, not through the imposition of solutions or POINTy game-playing. -- ChrisO 18:54, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Wishful thinking - Although I appreciate the attempt, this will not work. The issue at hand is one related to system-wide NPOV issues, and the inability of the editors to deal with these issues through normal WP:DR channels, which they saw (given the actions taken) as failing to resolve their content disputes. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:06, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Support all of these articles are attack pages with major POV issues. While arbcom may not decide this for us, this needs to be inacted for the benefit of writing an encyclopedia, rather than a POV battleground, which is what the apartheid articles create. Not one of the articles are encyclopediac; they are just sourced insults.--Sefringle^Talk 19:51, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Not a good idea. I see where Radiant is coming from, and I wouldn't be sad if all the Allegations articles disappeared tomorrow. But efforts to delete the Israeli article through approved channels have failed. It is a reasonable interpretation to believe that a group of editors, unhappy with that outcome, has tried to circumvent Wikipedia's deletion processes by creating other similarly titled content forks, then insisting on a "systemic solution". In the process, much drama has ensued. That approach should be condemned, not rewarded. MastCell ^Talk 22:58, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Even if we were to ignore that Arbcom won't rule on content and that motives behind creation are irrelevant when considering deletion, there is no reason for an arbitrary limit on recreation. Yes, that would forcibly end the dispute, but the price of doing so is too high. -Amarkov moo! 23:17, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

ArbCom doesn't rule on content. Period. The community may decide about these articles, not ArbCom. Melsaran 12:47, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

1) content issue. 2) The last time we postponed discussion to a specific date, it only postponed the fighting, it didn't solve it. Not worth trying. GRBerry 16:45, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

total support. enough with "allegation" articles. we have opened the door to a whole range of "allegation" articles. What about allegations of fascism, secualarism, anti-secularism, etc, etc, etc? This is very shaky ground. we should stick to only factual articles, titles and approaches. --Steve, Sm8900 16:49, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Um, I have to believe that most or all such articles would be deleted at AfD, unless a group of editors steps in to demand that they're kept in order to make a WP:POINT. MastCell ^Talk 17:46, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

And indeed, they most likely would have been deleted had it not been for this intervention. -- ChrisO 18:28, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Support Radiant has hit the nail on the head. We're building an encyclopedia not putting up lightning rods here. All "allegations of XXX apartheid" titles are crap: it's not a content issue its whether we care enough about WP:NPOV to enforce it. Carlossuarez46 20:18, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment: personally, I would like to see *all* of the "allegations of xxx apartheid" articles deleted, as I find them all quite unencyclopedic. But such a decision is outside of the arbitration committee's purview, imo. --MPerel 20:19, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Editors advised to pursue existing processes to resolve content disputes

2) There are no shortcuts to resolving content disputes in Wikipedia.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Strong support. At many points during the editing I raised this point, only to be rebuked. These pages, discussions, and AfDs are filled to the hilt with innuendo, accusations, and all kinds of other similar things, but they are never acted upon. Arguments became circular and stuck. As I mentioned in requesting that this case be accepted, the environment became so heaving with the stench of distrust, bad faith, innuendo, accusations etc, that it was almost WP:POINT to even participate. That bad stench took days to leave my mouth, and in large measure why I left this article for months, until the "Allegations" forks re-started. I am still not sure what I am doing here, but I soldier on. More WP:DR! More WP:DR! --Cerejota 04:03, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:13, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Wishful thinking. While that would be nice, it is pretty clear at this point that that isn't working.--Sefringle^Talk 19:52, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

... we do not have any other way, Sefringle. If WP:DR does not work, lets fix it. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:00, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Some people on this workshop page are under the delusion that ArbCom will end this dispute once and for all. They won't. This case, and (almost) every other case, will address the conduct of the editors involved. They will not decide on the status of the articles. Period. The parties to this dispute will have to engage in the standard forms of dispute resolution once this arbitration is closed. When they cease flinging mud at each other, and engage in mediation or healthy discussion, then the dispute will truly be resolved. Endorse this remedy. Sean William @ 21:15, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh really, Sean? That's just great. i thought the point of ArbCom was provide a way to resolve disputes. That's the point, when people are flinging mud at each other. It';s great to try to be the voice of reason. But telling people to be reasonable will not create a solution. I thought the whole point of ArbCOm is dispute resolution. guess not. --Steve, Sm8900 21:17, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

ArbCom is the last step in dispute resolution, for use when all else fails. This is, by and large, a content dispute. The case was accepted to look at the conduct of the parties, not to come to a decision regarding the status of the articles. Sean William @ 21:37, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Sean but there something here I sincerly do not understand :

What comes after the last step when all else failed ?

The contributors will have to start back the process from the beginning ?

-( Alithien 21:50, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

You work the problem by discussing. Sean William @ 21:56, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Like we are doing here. If there is a will, there is a way. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:09, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

You do not answer :-)

And not answering is often considered as an attitude of bad faith that generates in a conflict. :-(

What comes after the last step ? Do we have to conclude the ArbCom is useless and doesn't work or cannot resolve such disputes ?

Jossi, you have not, like me and many others, been discussing on these articles during 18 months for nearly (let's be positive) nothing, seeing the same contributors having the same disputes with the same issue, over and over and over again... We are discussing maybe because they see we are not taking any decision. Let's just take a decision, you will see them coming back, with arguments, just to... discuss ;-) Alithien 22:24, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

No, I have not been involved with these articles until very recently. And I believe that most issues can be resolved is there is a will to do so. Here, we may have a problem with NPOV that is quite difficult to resolve, and in that difficulty and when it gets frustrating, editors look for others ways to resolve them, right or wrong. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:06, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

It seems then, that arbcom is useless for dispute resolution. It, in this case, is better off being described as putting the involved editors on trial, rather than attempting to resolve the dispute. If I knew this when entering the case, I would not have gotten involved in this case, or at least, attempted to avoid it.--Sefringle^Talk 22:34, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

If you wish the community to adopt some kind of content arbitration mechanism, you should open a discussion at the Village Pump or the en-wiki mailing list. All that ArbCom can do is sanction individual editors for bad behavior. The presumption is that if editors who have disrupted the consensus process are placed on probation or given a topic ban, then other, more reasonable editors will have a chance to fix the content problem. You may not agree with this presumption, but it is built into the Wikipedia's foundations, and can not be changed by ArbCom on its own. Thatcher131 22:36, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

OK, per your suggestion, I added the suggestion here.--Sefringle^Talk 23:24, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes. No matter how much anyone supports an arbitration process for content, Arbcom does not do that. If someone wishes to set up a committee that does, go ahead and propose that, although I doubt it will get consensus. I personally would strongly oppose any committee having the power to make binding rulings on content, as diametrically opposed to the idea of Wikipedia. -Amarkov moo! 23:15, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Though at times (as appears to be the case right now), it seems that regular dispute resolution techniques don't seem to be working. I think we need a committee like this. I thought when I presented my case, that arbcom was this committee; I realize now that it isn't. Wikipedia needs more than just a courtroom to prosecute editors based on their behaviour during a dispute; it needs an unbiased committee that actually settles issues when all else fails, based on which side presents its case the best. Anyway, I think it is time to take this discussion to WP:VPP, and let the community decide; that is the only way a decision can finally be made as to what to do.--Sefringle^Talk 23:18, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree completely, 100%, with Sefringle, and also Alithien. --Steve, Sm8900 02:39, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Support the principle which I think is within ArbCom's jurisdiction to confirm but that's about as far as we should go here. Any further discussion and proposals should be dealt with outside of this case. MartinDK 06:08, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Alithin, can you please post the comment here which you posted at Village Pump? thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 18:36, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Support, seeking to penalize the opposition by means of arbitration is not the way to "win" in a heated content dispute. There are better methods of resolution. --MPerel 20:14, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Like what? Creating a bunch of content forks to use as bargaining chips after 6 AfD's don't go your way? I apologize for the sarcasm, but people are still making this case out to be just about content. It's not. It's about conduct. Experienced editors, who should know better, have gotten so caught up in winning a content dispute by any means necessary that they've badly disrupted a much wider slice of Wikipedia to make their point. MastCell ^Talk 17:23, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

That's your perspective of course. But there is more than one perspective here. The main problem with disputes in general is that people tend toward narrowmindedness and are so certain of the correctness of their/our own views that they/we are unable to hear the other side. In this case, one side views the articles as merely forks and bargaining chips, another side views them as balance. One side thinks it POV to apply allegations of apartheid to any other country but Israel; another side sees it as POV to single out one country. It all *does* boil down to a content dispute. Should other articles on allegations of apartheid exist or not? Is the title itself POV and the content better incorporated within the body of articles with less contentious titles? Those questions need to be resolved somehow. That these articles under the current title cause so much controversy is an indication there is a POV problem with the status quo. The method of "resolving" by attempting to remove from the discussion editors belonging to one of the perspectives (the ultimate aim of this arbcom case) is not the solution. --MPerel 18:06, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

There has actually been quite a bit of evidence presented demonstrating that even the creators/defenders of the Allegations articles viewed them as "bargaining chips" toward a "systemic solution" (i.e. deletion of the Israeli article). MastCell ^Talk 18:17, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, the evidence presented has been one-sided. The lack of evidence presented by the "other" side is likely due to lack of time and the weariness and disheartenment caused by the adversarial arbcom process. I am in the process of completing a comprehensive analysis of *all* editors who contributed to the 23 afd discussions that hopefully will introduce a little more objectivity. It's not how I prefer to spend my few hours I have available to volunteer to WP, it is labor-intensive, but the selective presentation of evidence is disconcerting and I hope to remedy that. --MPerel 18:28, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

This "one side views them as balance" thing is what is fatally flawed and a violation of point-making policy, that is what some around here don't seem to get. If there is disagreement over an article, then there are AfD and DRV and other avenues to take it through. When you (the general "you", not singling MPerel out) fail to get what you want out of that, it is simply unacceptable to create subsequent "allegations of..." articles that the "opposition" will find equally disagreeable. Of course if said articles passed the same thresholds (WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:N, etc... as Israeli apartheid, then they would have to remain, regardless of "opposition" and regardless of the motivations for creation, just as the Israeli one remains. But by and large they did not pass what is required by Wiki policy.

The crux of the matter here though is how some persons carried themselves throughout those article creations, edits, and the ensuing AfDs and associated DRVs. That is what this arbitration is for, to judge whether the creation of sub-standard articles just to make a point is enough of a disruption to warrant a ban from the topic or the encyclopedia itself in order to calm the angry waves. Tarc 18:33, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

The obvious solution

3) All of the "allegations of <foo> apartheid" articles that do not have specific citations to the word "apartheid" being used of the situation in question are to be deleted, and shall not be recreated for at least a year. This also applies to individual sections within articles.

Comment by Arbitrators:

I don't think it's too much to insist that an article discussing allegations of "apartheid" contain sources mentioning the word "apartheid." Otherwise, who's making the allegations? Mackensen (talk) 00:03, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Good question; please see my answer below. 6SJ7 01:07, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Strongest oppose, absolutely not. This is a content issue. --Cerejota 03:52, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Somebody had to propose it. ^Thanks, _{Luc "Somethingorother" French} 23:18, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Oppose. This seems like another attempt to remove all allegations articles except the Israel one.--Sefringle^Talk 23:34, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Again with the arbitrary recreation limit. Also, if there are specific citations to "institutionalized racism", saying "ZOMG THEY DIDNT USE A WORD IN A DIALECT OF DUTCH TURNED NEW LANGUAGE, DELEEETE" is stupid. -Amarkov moo! 23:40, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment. This proposal does not seem to bear any relationship to the case at hand. All of the articles that were created had sources accusing the country in question of "apartheid", by name. (I think the Jordan article may have had only one or two, which is why there was little controversy about deleting or merging it.) In other words, even the ones that have been deleted or merged -- French, American, Chinese, etc. -- had at least several sources using the word "apartheid." Allegations of American apartheid had, among other things, citations to a U. S. Supreme Court justice, in a concurring opinion published in the official court reports, referring to pre-1964 government-enforced segregation at lunch counters as "apartheid". Pretty good as sources of opinion go. But anyway, all the articles are/were sourced in one way or the other. That isn't really the issue. 6SJ7 01:07, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment. Hopefully all these articles had sources that mentionned the word apartheid at least once... :-)

The problem is deeper : 1. how about the notability of the use of this word ( in some cases ) and 2. the fact it is used by only one side of references but not unanimously locates the topic of the article on 1-side pov, in a way giving the answer before the question...

For complex matters, it is not a good way and it simply doesn't respect WP:NPOV. Alithien 07:13, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

ArbCom doesn't rule on content. Period. The community may decide about these articles, not ArbCom. Melsaran 12:48, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

It's not really a content decision, quite so much as a "this is a loaded term, so you'd better have cites to back it up" behavioral thing. ^Thanks, _{Luc "Somethingorother" French} 19:37, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

If anyone can find an article failing this test, they'll have community support for deletion fairly quickly. The issue is different - in large part whether there are secondary sources or only primary sources. GRBerry 16:47, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. The particulars of the wording is irrelevant to me; only the point that AoA articles that don't contain sufficient cites for "apartheid" being used should be shoot on sight. Feel free to suggest an alternate wording. ^Thanks, _{Luc "Somethingorother" French} 19:37, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Oppose per the Arbitration Committee's note at the top of this page to not make pointless requests for Arbcom to decide on content dispute. --MPerel 20:35, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Parole on WP:POINT creation of articles

4) Editor must consider that creating and/or articles for the purpose of WP:POINT is a bad idea.

If any uninvolved editor that starts an article, or significantly edits an article, and WP:POINT is alleged, ArbCom will give speedy consideration and must impose an indef ban of a minimum 1 week to a year on creating new articles (other spaces should remain open) if found in breach, but will leave deletion to the community.

If the editor is a currently involved editor (ie, an editor mentioned or participating in this ArbCom), any uninvolved admin who considers there is a breach, can impose indef ban of a minimum 1 week to a year immediately and speedy delete and protect the article and in question, subject to immediate appeal to ArbCom.

If the editor in question is a party to this ArbCom case, any uninvolved admin can impose indef ban of a minimum 1 week to a year immediately and speedy delete and protect the article and in question and can also indef ban the user from editing any main space articles until ArbCom rules. Essentially, it will treat the editors as regular paroled editors from other cases, with the caveat that since there is a significant numbers of admins, the admins who can impose sanction are described.

If the editor is an admin (in the corresponding categories), ArbCom can desysop.

This doesn't include DRV overturns, existing articles, or articles, regardless of actual title, outside of the "apartheid and country" topic.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposer. This is an obvious remedy. This rules a bit on content, but I think strikes a balance. I have some confusion on the technical terms (parole, indef ban) so anyone who knows better please fix. --Cerejota 05:44, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

To clarify: remedies are connected to principles of the case, not abstract. This clearly reflects the creation of articles to "bury" AoIA alleging the need for NPOV in a WP:POINTy fashion, a key reason why this ArbCom exits - who decides is a clear question: ArbCom. This is not about content itself, but about how content is created and edited: behavioral issues.

I disagree that this is too general (it is actually quite narrow), and that it is too harsh. It is precisely harshness of consequences what we need to allow the community to actually edit a quality article instead of having to deal with the POINTy-headed ones. The only ones that have anything to fear are those who have engaged in the prohibited behaviors. I want consequences, not slaps in the wrist like in the last ArbCom. But I am willing to make it a parole rather than one for past behavior. --Cerejota 01:25, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

• • I don't see an evidence of disruption (as in Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point). It is only natural to expect that one article may be followed in a good faith by series of other encyclopedic articles exploring the same concept elsewhere. Exploring {{Discrimination sidebar}} alone, was it a WP:POINT to follow Anglophobia with Francophobia, Indophobia, Sinophobia, Russophobia? How's Homophobia Lesbophobia, Transphobia, Biphobia? ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 11:31, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

The "If the editor is an admin (in the corresponding categories), ArbCom can desysop" part doesn't make sense. Admins can get desysopped when they abuse their admin powers, not when they abuse "editor powers", i.e. something any editor can do. Melsaran 12:39, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I oppose this remedy. Who decides what is "a WP:POINT article"? That can be very subjective. ArbCom can't decide that, because it is content-related. Individual admins can't decide that, because their will inevitably be disagreements over whether a certain article was created to make a point or not. The community can decide that, but we don't need an arbitration remedy for this. Melsaran 12:41, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Erm... no. It's not clear from the way it's worded, but what this actually does is mandate a 7 day block on anyone who violates WP:POINT, and also pushes enforcement of that policy onto Arbcom. Oh, and since I commented on this case, even though I'm not involved in a dispute, any article I create can be speedy deleted, along with the mandatory week long ban. And in my case Arbcom doesn't even have to review it first; "any uninvolved admin" decides that I've breached the ruling, then I get to sit there without the ability to edit while Arbcom conducts a review. -Amarkov moo! 17:09, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

oppose this is exactly the problem I am talking about as to what is the problem with WP:POINT. These so-called WP:POINT violation articles are attempts to NPOV wikipedia, and that should not be taken as a violation. This is not a compromise, it is an attempt to force arbcom to resolve our dispute by banning the editors on my side of the dispute based on a guideline (not a policy), which is largely based (or at least is being used that way) to force a particular side down, and thus extend the the anti-israel bias with the allegations of israeli apartheid article. These so called violations are subjective as it is anyway.--Sefringle^Talk 01:33, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

This is where you keep going wrong. Several editors have freely admitted that the subsequent "allegations of..." articles were created to make a point, not to "NPOV wikipedia". The article creators and editors did not have the interests of NPOV in mind, but only sought to create an all-other-nothing atmosphere in which they would "agree" to give up the new articles in exchange for others giving up the Israeli apartheid article. Actions such as that most certainly did not have the best interests of the Wikipedia in mind. Tarc 13:59, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Oppose, one side sees the set of articles as a balanced series on the topic of apartheid, the other side sees it as POINT. How to frame the reasons behind the existence of these articles is itself a content dispute and should not be decided by arbcom. --MPerel 20:41, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Oppose is wasn't the creation of the articles that was the problem. It was the way the losers of the AfD's for AoIA showed up to skew the results of the AfD's on other countries, attempting to shout down the objections of knowledgeable French, Cuban, Brazilian and Chinese project editors, and offer them a tit for tat. I'm reminded of a recent news article talking about watering down the meaning of "Genocide", another crime against humanity. This began as quote mining (i.e. WP:SYN) in Allegations of apartheid. The subsequent splits weren't a problem. It's the subsequent attempt to WP:GAME the AfD system where things got ugly. -- 146.115.58.152 22:29, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Injunction

5) [Involved editors] are banned from participation in deletion discussions for a period of one year.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed. Thinking out loud here. Accepting the premise that a broken deletion system failed to get us out of this mess, it may make sense to focus sanctions on those processes. Involved editors would have to be defined elsewhere. Mackensen (talk) 23:47, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

(To ChrisO). Well, if we find that there's deliberate POINT disruption of deletion discussions, then it makes sense to me to bar the source of the disruption. From practical experience, it's almost impossible to properly circumscribe this kind of ban. Mackensen (talk) 00:15, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Support, but only for editors shown to have engaged in WP:POINT disruption, and uncivil behavior. To ban all involved editors would be throwing the baby with the bathwater.--Cerejota 06:50, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Adding: I think we should consider parole rather than automatic ban. I am all for giving people a second chance. Parole should exclude parties of the previous ArbCom around AoIA, and should be a ban. I also think it should ban admins if we ALSO accept the principle of admins being role models, if they are to be held to a higher standard, then lets start now. --Cerejota 07:11, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

To Amarkov, just because an editors is the image of a great editor, or are great at RC patrol, or are in MedCab, or help welcome new users, or have done thousands of posts, it doesn't mean you shouldn't be severely punished for an egregious violation of rules. We have yet to see if anyone should be banned this harshly, but I am all for harshness. I want effective punishment, I want people to think five times before trying to study how they can advance their POV and start a disruptive effort. I want to be allowed to edit according to our policies, and to be able to freely debate with those with whom I have difference of opinion without having to worry about meatpuppet snipers lurking in the shadows. I deserve this, you deserve this. I say off with the gloves. The attitude that led to the User:Essjay, that if you are mostly good you can get away with being bad here and there, is very bad, and at the core of this mess: a bunch of otherwise cool people going all Lord of the Flies on us. --Cerejota 07:11, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

To Mperel: so you advocate we punish innocent editors as a remedy? Or that we set wrongdoers free simply because they represent a side of a POV battle? I am not advocating only one side be punished, I am advocating only those who are found, through evidence, to have engaged in wrongdoing be sanctioned. It might seems as obvious to clarify the matter, but arbcom has imposed sanctions on innocent editors before simply for being in a party discussion. In other words, you can call it the "Cerejota saves his ass" "Sanctioned by association" exception. Since no evidence of wrongdoing against me has been presented (oh, wait, a glaring omission, say my rivals!), I am making sure that by self-nominating as a party I am not sanctioned by association.--Cerejota 03:08, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

All deletion discussions, or just those relating to these particular articles? I think this proposal does have some merit. However, I think it would make more sense to focus on the specific areas of contention - for instance, all deletion discussions relating to Middle Eastern articles, or all deletion discussions relating to "apartheid" articles, or something like that. There is a more general problem here. An issue I've noticed in relation to these AfDs is that there appears to be a "piling-on" effect whereby the same group of editors turn up and !vote in unison, acting in lockstep as a block, over and over again. You can see exactly this dynamic in action in my evidence. I believe this problem goes wider than just AfDs; I try to steer clear of Middle Eastern articles (I value my sanity and I have better things to do, frankly), but I've noticed a very similar editing pattern there. Again, you have the same group of editors, literally the same people, turning up en masse and engaging in edit warring, tag-teaming, etc, all acting in lockstep. There seems to be a general unwillingness to engage in the normal process of dispute resolution and a systemic preference for imposing solutions through sheer weight of numbers. If that sounds familiar, it's because we've seen exactly the same pattern of behaviour in this case. If you ask someone like G-Dett, who has to face this all the time, I'm sure she could provide chapter and verse on the problem - I've only really observed it looking in from the outside. -- ChrisO 00:11, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

(To Mackensen) Thanks for the reply - that makes sense. I should add that I'm not suggesting that this arbitration should tackle the wider problem that I've noted above. I merely mention it to illustrate the context in which this case has occurred. The ArbCom has enough on its plate already. :-) -- ChrisO 00:22, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

ChrisO has accurately described the editing patterns and larger problem at work here and at other articles related to the Middle East. In my experience, it has often blocked the development of articles in this subject area - the Israeli apartheid article is being just one of the more egregious examples. A ban from deletion discussions won't directly help address these wider issues, but it might help to send a message that disruptive bloc behaviors (be it point-based voting, tag-team edit-warring, etc.,) will not be tolerated. Tiamat 01:35, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I do not think that a user that commented in a few AfDs, following his/her editorial judgment should be banned from anything. That is overreaching, and unnecessary. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:40, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

The proposal lacks a definition for what would constitute an "involved editor" under this sanction (and indeed, it's quite amorphous for the case at large.) But I think it would have to be more than the actions you are describing. Tiamat 02:03, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I think the real issue with afd's is the system has been broken for a long time now, and it goes beyond involved parties. Xfd's, for all practical purposes, have become democracies, where whichever side (support or oppose) gets the most votes wins. We may say that admins should close based on consensus, but consensus at afd's is not based on policy anymore as evident by WP:SNOW and WP:IAR. If a closing admin goes against the majority vote, even based on what policy makes most sense, their closure is likely to be taken to Delrev, and may or may not be overturned. This problem is far bigger than just this arbcom case, and I don't think any of us should be singled out for this just because we are having issues over one article. All the time crap is kept while good articles are deleted; it may not be the norm, but it happens all the time. Getting a bad article or article on a non-notable topic deleted is not always possible even when it makes sense. I don't think any solution like this one would solve the issue. I think it would make it worse. I also doubt this would solve this particular content dispute, as none of the involved articles could attempt to delete any of the articles or try to keep any of them if an uninvolved party desires to. We need to do more than just "send a message," or put people on trial; we need a feasible solution that all involved parties can agree upon, or we need arbcom to decide based on Wikipedia policy what should be the best solution for all of us to follow. Removing the problem only creates a group of editors to argue over the same things. It does seem like some of the involved parties did join Wikipedia quite recently. Both sides would just be replaced, and not by sockpuppets, but rather by new editors with the same views, especially on such a notable and hot topic as the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.--Sefringle^Talk 01:57, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Interesting proposal. I'd expect deletion discussions to include DRV and XfD (AFD and TFD have been relevant, although I haven't gotten far enough back in digging for evidence to have said anything about TFD yet, the template binding the series has been on TFD 3 times). This looks like an even more limited version of a topic ban, and there is plenty of precedent for topic bans. So it ought to work similarly to topic bans and it ought to be a viable solution if the details are reasonable. GRBerry 04:35, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

This is definitely an interesting remedy, but I don't think the situation calls for it. I see no reason to believe that anyone involved in this dispute will necessarily be disruptive in other deletion discussions. -Amarkov moo! 04:43, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

• Excellent solution, but per above should be limited to deletion debates related to this topic. >Radiant< 08:44, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

comment. Forbidding to vote but please, not to discuss and argue. Alithien 15:05, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

(As below) Discussion is participation. Nobody votes in an XfD, no matter what the bolded words look like. GRBerry 16:23, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

• Support People who try and WP:GAME the WP:AfD system should be given a break from it. -- 146.115.58.152 01:52, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose. Ban a side of the discussion? Hmm, it concerns me that there are editors that actually would seek this. --MPerel 03:55, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

It's pessimistic to think there won't be remaining and new editors to take up the baton. I believe it was Aristotle who wrote wikipedia abhors a vacuum. -- 146.115.58.152 18:08, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Involved editors

6) (clarification of point 5). All contributors who has edited this page and who has already voted on a request for deletion related to the "allegations of ... apartheid" are considered as involved editors. They can discuss on deletion page but not vote.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed.

Indeed. If you edit this page or if you have voted for deletion, it means that you feel involved in the case ! With 100% chance, this injunction will prevent any "disturbing" editor to go on fighting and none of them will feel harmed because both "sides" will be sanctionned.

The good faith and good will editors sanctionned should not feel harmed either. It is just a topic among many others. They still can argue. They are just prevented to vote.

Instead of asking the ArbCom to comment the content, only non involved members of the community will listen to the arguments and judge them.

More. With such an injunction, all involved contributors will have to argue and convince others and will not have the opportunity just to "give their vote" as a right

Wikipedia is not a democracy. It doesn't have to be fair. It is a place where we write an encyclopaedia. Alithien 14:49, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Nope, that is incorrect (as below). Closing admins are supposed to read the arguments, not just the bolded words. Participation in an XfD or DRV is participation, whether or not there are any bolded words. XFD is not a vote. GRBerry 16:20, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

In theory. In practice, the admin who closes a difficult case count the ~votes... Alithien 17:00, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

So, how is this going to be enforced? Are we going to make them say on every XfD "I am not allowed to give a formal opinion, this is just an argument and should not be counted"? -Amarkov moo! 17:08, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Why not ? Alithien 06:34, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Even if it were fair to impose such a thing upon editors, an admin can't read a good argument and then have to completely ignore it because the person wasn't qualified to give an opinion. -Amarkov moo! 04:40, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Oppose Simply not editing on this page shouldn't make editors not involved. One of the most involved editors, User:Jayjg, simply disappeared around the time this case began. See evidence. -- 146.115.58.152 17:57, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

That is why I suggested the next proposal. Alithien 06:34, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Oppose, blanket arbitrary inclusion. We should not punish people for contributing to discussion. --MPerel 04:01, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

We were looking for "involved editor"... Alithien 06:34, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

And why does someone feel "punished" because he cannot vote ? Is it really harmfull ? We are not at the kindergarden ("this is my right to vote !" (in a process which is not a vote - funny)).

If they can still give their arguments, it is they should not feel harmed at all.

More, preventing people from giving their mind is a... content issue !

Preventing people from voting is not. Alithien 09:08, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Recusation on "proposals of deletion"

7) All editors that will have been designed as "involved editors" will have 1 week after this ArbCom is closed to notify a list of editors they consider to be involved editors too. These latters will be recuse and will not have the right to vote on the proposals of deletion concerning this familly of articles.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Witch-hunt writ large. Mackensen (talk) 00:12, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Oppose, not into stake making. Is it just me or is Alithien is becoming disruptive in here?--Cerejota 09:14, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed.

Wikipedia is not a democracy but an encyclopaedia.

If somebody is recused by somebody else, the interdiction of voting cannot harm the encyclopaedia but has good chances of improving this.

Indeed, any recused editor will still have the opportunity to argue and try to convince other contributors to vote following his mind. Alithien 14:56, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Nope, that is incorrect. Closing admins are supposed to read the arguments, not just the bolded words. Participation in an XfD or DRV is participation, whether or not there are any bolded words. XFD is not a vote. GRBerry 16:20, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Why do we trust all the involved editors to do this fairly? -Amarkov moo! 17:09, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Oppose, for exactly the reason Mackensen gives. --MPerel 04:03, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

oppose this sounds like the Salem witch trials done on wikipedia.--Sefringle^Talk 04:21, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

The proposal was just a way to complete the former proposal and enclose "involved" editors who would not have contributed to this page.

I don't understand why somebody should feel punished because he cannot vote and/or give his mind. Somebody wrote "we are not your mother". I say, we are not in a "kindergarden" and should not feel offended for so little.

Alithien 06:35, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Involved editors should also be weighed to see if they weigh the same as a duck. -- ChrisO 08:00, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Don't forget to be polite, ChrisO. And don't forget you are deeply involved in the mess of these articles. What I am not. Mais bon, il ne faut pas trop en demander non plus. Maman est là, no stress :-) Alithien 12:15, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

This is the closest thing to a witch-hunt I've ever seen on Wikipedia. Ick, I don't like this proposal at all. Sean William @ 12:04, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't think so. This is just a way to distinguish voting from discussion and to have a neutral mind of the AfD, what we do not have today.

Something amazes me anyway.

Some claimed there are discussions and no votes on wikipedia.

But I always read "minds" , "considerations" such as here but where are the arguments behind them. I haven't seen them.

These are such behaviours that produces conflicts.

Alithien 12:15, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

That's a reasonable sentiment. But it's not part of Arbcom's job to create a better AfD system, especially not here, with a dispute only tangientally related. -Amarkov moo! 04:52, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

AoIA issue

8) If they still don't find a compromise, ArbCom invites involved contributors to gather and synthetise the different arguments they have concerning the AoIA issue and, within 1 month after this injunction, to propose the case for deletion to the community. The result of the vote will not be challenged before 1 year after this vote.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Strong oppose. Pure content issue.--Cerejota 05:48, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

proposed.

No more dispute because nothing any more to challenge.

Involved editors are given the opportunity to solve the matter once for all in presenting their case in front of the community. Alithien 16:03, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

After seeing what happened to User:^demon at WP:DRV, I pity the poor uninvolved admin who closes that deletion discussion! (I assume you meant "discussion" rather than "vote".) MastCell ^Talk 16:10, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Problem is, as we saw with Brian Peppers, saying "you can't have this debate now, have it in a year" only makes it worse when it does come. I don't think that restrictions on discussing this are a good idea. -Amarkov moo! 16:11, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

While I do support this proposal, there is the issue as to who the closing admin is. It would have to be someone both uninvolved and neutral on the issue. I suggest adding that only somebody from the arbcom may be the closing admin of that afd debate, and that that closing admin cannot close the debate as "no consensus". They'd have to make a final decision of either "delete" or "keep". And I have one other question. Will the editors who are "banned" from apartheid afd's be allowed to participate in this discussion? The issue of who the closing admin will be should be for this afd should be decided and agreed upon by the involved parties before the afd discussion begins.--Sefringle^Talk 19:57, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Oppose Allegations of Israeli Apartheid has already survived six AFDs. -- 146.115.58.152 20:51, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

All of them were invalid, for reasons I explained somewhere up above on this page. Not that I think this proposed remedy is anything the ArbCom is going to want to get involved with, at least not that specifically. 6SJ7 22:20, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

There's no way every single one was so impossibly tainted as to be invalid. You can tell yourself that if it helps you sleep at night. I suspect it might have something to do with the article not meeting a single deletion guideline. Even google news gets get's 200+ hits for "Israel apartheid" and it only goes back, what, a month? -- 146.115.58.152 22:43, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

There is misunderstanding.

It is a way to prevent any additional AfD on that.

Today, anybody can ask again.

And stating there had already been 6 demands is NOT an argument.

But we discuss, we don't vote... :-) Alithien 12:17, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

One of the "bugs" in the AfD process is that if there's an article a group of editors don't like, they can just re-nominate it for deletion over and over and over until they WP:WIN, making the process essentially a crap shoot. Roll the die until they get a closing admin who take their side. Proposing a "holy of holies" AfD implicitly accepts the argument that the previous AfDs were invalid, and puts too much pressure on the high holy roller admin, even if it is an ArbCom member, who closes it. -- 146.115.58.152 17:29, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Administrator and oversight privileges should be revoked for involved admins

9) For all privileged users found to be at fault in this matter, administrator and oversight privileges should be revoked. Parties can reapply for such privileges via the usual procedures after a reasonable waiting period. --John Nagle 16:15, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Unsupported by evidence / findings of fact. Mackensen (talk) 20:43, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Oppose. None of the admins misused their tool privileges, to my knowledge, after the last ArbCom. Any and all sanctions against them, including those under the principle of admins being held to a higher standard, should be related to the behavior as editors.

In the case of the spurious accusations against ChrisO (spurious as per DRV): We have a process to request de-sysoping for mis-use, sour grapes should have used it at the time if they thought their accusations had merit and weren't simply an attempt at poisoning the well.--Cerejota 05:47, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Why? Unless they abused those priveleges or gave reason that they will, what purpose is served by removing adminship and oversight? -Amarkov moo! 16:21, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I haven't seen evidence that such privileges have been abused here (oversight?), and so I don't think it makes sense to revoke privileges. MastCell ^Talk 16:25, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Arbcom generally applies editorial remedies for editorial wrongdoing and only removes admin tools for administrative wrongdoing. Thatcher131 16:55, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Draconian. As I mentioned before on this workshop none of this is related to the use of tools. MartinDK 17:00, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Opposed, except for the case of ChrisO, who did abuse his administrative tools as indicated on the evidence page. 6SJ7 17:46, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Wow. Just...wow. Tarc 17:49, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

You want him desysopped for closing an AfD he did not participate in? And you wonder why your comments upset him? MartinDK 17:56, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

He was involved in the whole thing. He has been involved for more than a year. He was one of the admins who was admonished in the last arbitration. If nobody has posted the evidence yet, it just means some people have more time on their hands for this sort of thing than others. 6SJ7 19:39, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

If 6SJ7 wants to be taken seriously he should treat the facts with more respect. Yes, I was involved in an arbitration a year ago but I had no involvement with any of the "Allegations of X apartheid" articles - and didn't even know they existed, other than the Israeli one - until mid-July 2007. A look at my contributions shows that my first involvement with them was this comment on the French apartheid AfD on 18 July 2007. It would be assuming bad faith to presume that 6SJ7 is trying to smear me because I've documented his misconduct and hypocrisy, so I'll just assume instead that he doesn't know how to look up a user's contributions. -- ChrisO 19:53, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Chris, do you really think other people are stupid? "The whole thing" includes July 4, 2006, when you moved the article from Allegations of Israeli apartheid to just Israeli apartheid three times in the space of a few hours, for which you were admonished a few months later. In fact, if not for the amnesty, you were facing the longest user-ban of any editor. Whenever there has been a major controversy over this whole apartheid thing, whether in July of 2006 or July-August of 2007, there you have been, using your administrative tools in a way that benefits one particular "side". You battle with other admins, particularly JayJG, on a regular basis. Your claims of neutrality and non-involvement are at odds with the facts. 6SJ7 01:04, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

You're free to point out the leprechauns at the bottom of your garden, but don't expect anyone else to see them. -- ChrisO 09:35, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

As the box at the top of this page points out, ArbComm doesn't decide content disputes. It acts against individual editors. I'm not proposing that the involved users be totally blocked, which would be Draconian. They should just be desysopped until they demonstrate some months of good behavior. This reduces their influence while keeping them around and giving them an incentive to improve. Given the known edit histories of the parties with admin privileges, would any of them pass a request for adminship today? That's the standard to apply.

Last year, we had an arbitration on this article, with some of the same players, which led to warnings and an amnesty. The amnesty was worth a try, but this is a second offense, so it's appropriate to go further. --John Nagle 19:02, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I can't support this; the inclusion of oversight privileges makes it rather clear that it's aimed directly at Jayjg, who's the only oversight user involved in this affair. I'm not a fan of Jayjg, to say the least, but it's a completely disproportionate remedy to the problem. The ArbCom's proposed topical ban is much more relevant to the offence committed in this case. -- ChrisO 19:53, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Remedies must be supported by the findings of fact, which in turn must be supported by evidence. Seeing as the first two links of the chain are missing, this is not a very good proposal. Sean William @ 19:56, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Evidence supporting stronger sanctions against those admonished in the 2006 arbitration has been coming in. See especially Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Allegations of apartheid/Evidence#Evidence presented by MastCell --John Nagle 20:34, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Jayjg, Humus sapiens, and IronDuke are admonished for their participation in the disruption of Wikipedia to make a point

9) Jayjg (talk · contribs), Humus sapiens (talk · contribs), and IronDuke (talk · contribs), all experienced Wikipedia editors and/or administrators, have participated in and condoned the disruption of Wikipedia to prove a point, and are strongly admonished for their participation.

9) Jayjg (talk · contribs), Humus sapiens (talk · contribs), and IronDuke (talk · contribs), all experienced Wikipedia editors and/or administrators, are strongly admonished for their participation in the disruption of Wikipedia to prove a point.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Support. this is the key thing to decide. As I stated in my opening statement, if this is true, protect the community, if it isn't, clear their names. I highly doubt that without pronouncing in the matter anything might be solved.--Cerejota 02:04, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

• • WP:POINT talks about disruption, I don't see evidence of that. Were admin powers abused? I don't see evidence of that either. AFAIK, IronDuke is not an admin. To punish those who are experienced (read: donated more time to the project) is ridiculous. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 12:13, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough, but I think that is a question to be decided, and why I support this. I do think that if the "systemic NPOV" argument is upheld by ArbCom, then there was no disruption, and the disruptive ones where those who argued to delete all but AoIA. But if this argument is not upheld, then, well, the evidence is there: a bunch of editors used an argument and made the community spend a lot of resouces and time for nothing. That is disruption. --Cerejota 03:00, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed. If ArbCom accepts the contention that there's been a serious violation of WP:POINT here, then I think it makes sense to look at the participation of experienced editors. Editors who have been here a long time, and those who have been entrusted by the community with additional tools, have some commensurate responsibility to lead by example. That doesn't mean that admins can't argue vociferously on contentious topics, but it does mean that they should draw the line at disrupting Wikipedia to make their point. In this case, the disruption was engaged in and condoned by editors who ought to have set a better example. MastCell ^Talk 16:23, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Opposed, their actions caused no disruption. If anything it was the people who went crazy over the creation of these articles and started posting multiple AfD's, some of which contained nasty, uncivil comments, and the person who filed this arbitration request, who caused a disruption. 6SJ7 17:44, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I understand your opinion on the source of the disruption. What I'm saying is that if ArbCom accepts that the creation and vociferous defense of the Allegations articles (to the point of attacking neutral closing admins) was a WP:POINT violation, then it's reasonable to conclude that these editors, by virtue of their positions of trust or long experience on Wikipedia, failed in their responsibility to restrain or at least not enthusiastically participate in said violation. MastCell ^Talk 19:35, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that conclusion can reasonably be disputed, so I'd have to support this proposal. -- ChrisO 19:39, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

This is a combination of 2 findings of fact and a remedy. Sean William @ 19:54, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Rewritten to address this. MastCell ^Talk 20:09, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely Oppose. It is perfectly reasonable that editors who initially opposed "Allegations of apartheid ..." on the basis that it is a POV title would at least seek balance if the consensus turned out to be to keep such an article. If this is Point and disruption, it could just as easily apply to the opposing editorial group who voted exactly opposite, keep for the Israel article and delete for the others, since they acted to apply one standard to Israel, and another standard to other countries even in light of sources using the same terminology. It's hypocrisy to claim one side engaged in Point, when the other side mirrored the same. --MPerel 20:05, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

agree 150% with MPerel. :-) --Steve, Sm8900 20:11, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

That's a significant oversimplification. Participation in AfD's alone is not the issue. One group, unhappy with the outcome of the deletion process, apparently created and defended a group of inflammatory content forks as a bargaining chip toward a "systemic solution". That's the disruptive aspect of the situation. If there's evidence that other editors or groups have behaved disruptively in pursuit of an agenda, then I would be open to seeing it presented on the Evidence page. MastCell ^Talk 20:12, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

disruptiveness is one way to see it. another way is that once this line of inquiry was accepted, other editors sought to apply it to other countries as well. whatever your opinion, to make these blanket accusations about others' motives seems to be bad-faith. it's not your fault (I have found you to be rather helpful in our past discussions today); this has been the problem with this whole process from the beginning. It forces good-faith editors to put all their objections into the form of accusations against other users. --Steve, Sm8900 20:16, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

MPerel's statement doesn't make any sense given the history of Allegations of apartheid, the contents of which were largely created by the first editor listed here. -- 146.115.58.152 21:20, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Agree with MastCell, as it really doesn't mirror at all. If this finding is correct, then several editors were upset about a valid article and created or supported a number of invalid articles in violation of WP:POINT. There is nothing inconsistent with recognizing this any more than there was in opposing it at the time. If these editors legitimately changed their minds, that would be one thing; however, continuing statements such as Jayjg's here suggest that this was not the case. The idea that editors should be able to take a case they strongly disagree with and then implement the supposed precedent across Wikipedia is also extremely questionable, particularly when their only argument is repeatedly that the article is "no worse" than the original. This should require extremely close scrutiny toward disruption. Also, how does a discussion proceed from there? Of course it can't, since the comment doesn't respond to any of the policy issues. I think it's important to note that all of the AfD noms focused on specific policy issues including particularly WP:Notability and WP:SYNTH. If people had addressed these arguments in good faith with some basic amount of consistency, that would be fine; to go from one to the next and claim that one is no worse than another is not. Mackan79 21:23, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Stronger sanctions needed on second offense. See Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Israeli_apartheid#Administrators admonished:

Administrators admonished

2) All involved administrators are admonished not use their administrative tools without prior discussion and consensus, and to avoid using them so as to continue an editing dispute. Humus sapiens, ChrisO, Kim van der Linde, SlimVirgin, and Jayjg are reminded to use mediation and other dispute resolution procedures sooner when conflicts occur.

Passed 6 to 0 at 20:28, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Some of the editors involved are up for their second offense. Something stronger than admonishment is indicated there. --John Nagle 02:20, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Second offense? Of what? The arb ruling mentions "administrative tools". The only admins listed there, who also are targets of this proposed remedy, are Jayjg and Humus sapiens. This case does not involve a use of administrative tools by either of them. 6SJ7 05:32, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

oppose for reasons already stated--Sefringle^Talk 03:29, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

'Support but on the same condition as MastCell mentions. We need to find a balance between sending a strong enough signal on the one hand and draconian punishments on the other hand. This appears to me to strike that balance. We are dealing with experienced editors on both sides of this dispute - any ruling on this should encourage those involved to look at their own behavior and learn that give and take is the way forward. As for Jayjg it would be a great loss to see him leave the project (if he hasn't already done that). He may have a habit of getting into feudes with editors he disagree with and should be admonished for that but he is also a very skilled checkuser and administrator. And we need good admins and skilled checkusers. MartinDK 11:57, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Again, this seems to be an attempt to punish opinion, at least in my own case. How many articles did I create? 0. How many edits did I make to them? (8, nine moths ago, all to AoIa). Unless I've somehow abused my nonexistent admin tools, the arguments in support above make little sense. IronDuke 14:17, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

From my perspective, you appear to have been fairly involved in the "keep this article unless you delete the Israeli one too" approach to the deletion discussions, and you went after the neutral admin (User:^demon) who closed one of the AfD's on inappropriately ad hominem grounds, contributing to the truly awful atmosphere at the AfD and DRV. Obviously, it's arbitrary on some level to single people out, but you're a very experienced editor and I'd hope you wouldn't have participated in this sort of effort to bypass the deletion process. That's just my perspective, but it's the basis behind this proposed finding. MastCell ^Talk 18:30, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

With respect, I don’t think your understanding incorporates all the evidence in this case (which is understandable, given the already large and growing volume of it). As I indicated in my own evidence section, Xoloz, the admin who closed the DRV on Chinese Apartheid, specifically singled me out (along with two other editors): "A few editors below -- IronDuke, Avi, JoshuaZ -- make calm and reasonable arguments for reconsideration." [46] I see no mention there of “inappropriately ad hominem” arguments. Was I critical of ^demon’s reasoning in closing the AfD? Strenously, and I continue to be. I don’t know what you mean about bypassing the deletion process. I wasn’t advocating the bypassing of anything, simply requesting, in this particular case, some reasonable explanation by an admin of a close that many found questionable.

Again, my fear here is that it is not enough for the some of the pro AoIa folks to “win”—dissenters must also be silenced or shouted down. I don’t think that will be the upshot of this arbitration, but the fact that it’s even on the table is truly worrisome. IronDuke 18:51, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

With all due respect to Xoloz, I don't think he was on target when he singled out Avi and yourself as making calm and reasonable arguments in that DRV. You described ^demon as a "random admin who appears to lack experience in writing articles" and continued to focus on ^demon's fitness as an admin throughout the DRV([47]). Avi not only repeated the incorrect but remarkably persistent assertion that the AfD was closed early, but also seemed to be under the impression that AfD's run for a week rather than 5 days ([48]) - and he's an admin. MastCell ^Talk 03:53, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, you are free to point out what you believe to be Xoloz's error, just as I am free to point out what I believe to be ^demon's. Whatever sanction you believe appropriate for criticizing an administrator would, I think, have to be very widely distributed across Wikipedia if enacted fairly, seemingly even to yourself. I think your desire to see "the stick" employed on me may be leading you to erroneous conclusions. IronDuke 22:49, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Sefringle is banned from apartheid articles for one year

10) Sefringle is banned from editing any "Allegations of apartheid" articles (to be loosely construed) for one year. This includes a ban on creation of new articles as well as participation in deletion or merge discussions.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Support. This is the most solid case as per evidence. Of course, ArbCom might decide to ignore him, however they would do so at their own peril: someone whose statement is so WP:SOAPBOXy that it might fit in a partisan blog should not go unpunished.--Cerejota 06:35, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Please note that this user has violated the 3RR and is engaged in a slow-mo edit war at Allegations of Israeli apartheid. He continues to use Wikipedia as his personal battlefield.--Cerejota 02:09, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Miscounting to get 3 reverts does not count as a violation.--Sefringle^Talk 02:37, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Trying to WP:GAME the system in order to mask your violation of 3RR is prohibited by 3RR. I did not miscount, and I see my good faith attempt at getting you to stop edit warring fall on deaf ears. Thanks!--Cerejota 00:36, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed: per the abundant evidence that this user explicitly views the apartheid series as a battleground, this narrowly constructed sanction is fairly generous. MastCell ^Talk 17:32, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Please explain further. Why should I be banned from these articles? --Sefringle^Talk 02:41, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

[49], [50], [51], WP:BATTLE, WP:POINT, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Allegations of apartheid/Evidence... MastCell ^Talk 05:03, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

First of all, WP:POINT is not, according to WP:BLOCK, a reason in which someone may be blocked. Second, WP:POINT is not a policy, and third, I have made it clear why my edits were not WP:POINT violations. Secondly, expressing the viewpoint that the allegations of Israeli apartheid turns wikipedia into a battleground is not in itself a violation of WP:BATTLE.--Sefringle^Talk 00:25, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

WP:POINT is "disruption to make a point", and disruption is certainly blockable. -Amarkov moo! 00:27, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but WP:POINT is not a policy, and nobody has pointed out how I "disrubted" wikipedia according to the definition in WP:BLOCK (which is a policy).--Sefringle^Talk 01:13, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

People are blocked for violating WP:POINT all the time, and if your argument is based on drawing a distinction between a policy and a behavioral guideline, then I feel all the more strongly that this remedy is appropriate. MastCell ^Talk 01:54, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Editors violating the previous ArbCom mandate to negotiate in good faith are banned from apartheid-related articles

10) Jayjg (talk · contribs), Humus sapiens (talk · contribs), IronDuke (talk · contribs), 6SJ7 (talk · contribs), Urthogie (talk · contribs), and Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg (talk · contribs) are banned from all apartheid-related articles (to be loosely construed) for 1 year. This includes a ban on article creation and participation in deletion and merge discussions.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Opposed, see my response to the corresponding finding of fact. 6SJ7 18:20, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed: See my evidence and proposed finding of fact for the basis for naming these editors. A ban is harsh, but it's clear that the previous ArbCom mandate, to negotiate apartheid-related disputes in good faith, was disregarded. That's over and above the WP:POINT issues and the failure of experienced editors in this group to lead by example. MastCell ^Talk 17:38, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Support per my comments at the proposed findings of fact. Holding editors who violated the last arbcomm's directive to negotiate in good faith accountable for their backdoor attempts at deleting the Israeli apartheid article by using other "Allegations of" articles (almost half of which were created by two of the editors listed here) as bargaining chips, is entirely appropriate. A one-year topical ban is a reasonable and restricted sanction, especially considering the scale and degree of the disruption. Tiamat 01:24, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Support. This has a good chance of working. It won't end the controversy, but it will probably help considerably. --John Nagle 04:50, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

hm this would end this pretty quick. doesn't this proposal worsen the contentions without adding to the discussion? --Steve, Sm8900 16:34, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Support This addresses the real problem here - editors who should have known better, who were told once before to resolve this issue in an appropriate manner and who chose to ignore that because they apparently regarded the amnesty as an empty threat by ArbCom. MartinDK 17:56, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I was never given amnesty, as I was only tangentially involved in the last arbcom ruling. As I have said elsewhere, I made a total of 8 edits to the original article, the last one being nine months ago or so. If any of the above supporters would like to suggest a punishment for me for continuing to voice my opinion, please tailor a specific remedy to that effect. IronDuke 22:58, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Iron Duke, you're right. Just about the main point of an arbitration is to address a specific egregious violation, or a specific point of negative conduct, or to resolve a specific point of dispute. Not for two sides to converge in open combat, to lay on for all they are worth, and to sling mud, mire and brickbats at each other. Anyone visiting this page would be astonished by the sheer volume of allegations and counter-allegations. It appears this will leave little choice but to maintain a merely slightly changed version of the current situation. --Steve, Sm8900 03:43, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

This seems like a bad idea to me, as it appears to attempt to remove one side of the debate. I know there has been tons of discussion (and not just from these editors), but I'm not convinced that any evidence shows any of those name acting in bad faith when editing Apartheid-related articles. One might suspect bad faith, but it should take a lot of evidence -- much more than mere suspicion -- to ban editors from such a wide array of articles for such a long time. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 18:58, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Oppose I have not followed this matter closely, as I have been involved in heavy disputes over other articles. But I have read the evidence provided in the links, and I have also had considerable experience with two of the named editors, and some experience with a third. The issue here is "good faith" which i agree is a bedrock principle at Wikipedia - although it has to be the hardest thing to be sure that someone is lacking in it. Why? Because our core policy, NPOV, is designed with the expectation that Wikipedia will draw together people who passionately disagree with one another. So passionate disagreement, and persistence in forwarding one's own views of how to improve a particular article or Wikipdia's treatment of a topic, is to be expected and cannot be taken as evidence of bad faith. Of all the rules of Wikipedia one could break, this one may be the one that requires the greatest burden of proof.

Now, just to show you I am acting in good faith, let me make plain my personal views: I believe Israel's policies in the Occupied Territories is a form of apartheid. That said, my own professional training tells me that the case for defining apartheid narrowly, as a set of policies and practices institutionalized in South Africa around the 1940s, is as compelling as the case for defining it broadly as a concept that can be applied to different places at different times. I also know people use the word rhetorically, as a metaphor or simile. So i would like to see Wikipedia cover this topic somehow.

That said, the question here is still, did these editors act in good faith or bad faith? I haven't seen any evidence that convinces me that they have acted in bad faith. From what I have read, these are editors who are sincere and who believe themselves to be complying with our core content policies, NPOV, NOR, and V. They just have a profound disagrement with others.

If there is a problem here it is that the collaborative process upon which Wikipedia depends has broken down. And we all know that this has happened before, and will happen again, and can and often does happen among editors acting in good faith.

Personally, I think the real problem is that Wikipedia has never/has refused to develop mechanisms for arbitrating disputes over content. Back when I was on the list-serve I raised this point several times, and I raised it here at Wikipedia several times. There is simply a gap in our dispute-resolution mechanisms. Sadly (and I defy anyone to prove me wrong) many times when editors enter intractable conflicts over content, the only way the conflict gets resolved is when one side either turns to, or is even manipulated into, violating some behavioral rule like 3RR or No Personal Attacks, which can compell the ArbCom to act. I believe the same thing is going on here, but since these editors have not violated the more obvious behavioral guidelines, all that is left to accuse them of is the hardest one of all to prove: bad faith.

I know that apartheid in Israel has been a highly contentious issue for a very long time ... I think yesars, even. I wish we had a mechanism for resolving disputes over content, which to me is obviously what is needed here. That in my opinion is the problem, and not a lack of good faith. I know of few editors more dedicated to the Wikipedia as some of those named. Fault them for being zealous, but not for lacking good faith. All we learn from this specific episode, I think, is that good faith alone is not enough to resolve some conflicts. Here, I believe, it is Wikipedia that has failed us. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:16, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Oppose There is no evidence that that the editors mentioned here did not negotiate in good faith. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 22:15, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Oppose. The ArbCom mandate was directed at (presumably all) "[e]ditors of articles concerning apartheid", not these particular six editors. So where is the actual evidence of bad faith negotiation on the part of these six? I've yet to see it. What seems to be the case here is "ArbCom directed editors of category X to negotiate in good faith. An editor has a suspicion that category X editor Z did not negotiate in good faith, and believes that their motives for doing A and B were suspect. Therefore editor Z negotiated in bad faith." Jakew 22:48, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Oppose, most strongly per Jake and Slrubenstein. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 03:24, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Oppose. Easy targets, no doubt. They're well-known and successful at those topics. But point me to the thoughtful criticism of these admins' work. The kind that is from uninvolved parties and free of unnecessary rancor. There's been no real evidence presented that these individuals did not negotiate in good faith, aside from some this very familiar and tiresome sort of attacks that suggest to me other motives. FeloniousMonk 04:07, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Oppose per Quadell. I'm far from convinced that there is or can be proof that they were acting in bad faith. ElinorD (talk) 10:55, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Support in principle I haven't been through the detailed edit history of all involved. Therefore I don't want to assume anything one way on the other on the completeness and accuracy of the list of editors named. But for those who the Arbcom decide have broken the previous mandate, this seems an appropriate punishment.--Peter cohen 12:37, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Oppose If WP consensus is to keep "Allegations of apartheid" articles, like it is to keep all inhabited villages and towns, all high schools, or any band with 2 non-self-released albums, then creating more articles of the type should be viewed as good and an addition to the encyclopedia (regardless of motivation: as most small town, high school, and minimally notable band articles are written by people with some vested interest). If the ArbCom is going to punt over whether we have "allegations of apartheid" articles as a content dispute, then there will likely be more of them, which consensus says are OK. Ask and ye shall receive. Carlossuarez46 02:02, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Admonition

11) Those editors who created "allegations of ... apartheid" articles and/or commented in favor of keeping such articles in an attempt to cause the deletion of Allegations of Israeli apartheid, rather than because they genuinely believed that the other "allegation of ... apartheid" article(s) deserved a place in Wikipedia, are admonished for creating undue disruption and that they should not repeat this behavior.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Belatedly proposed, along with a new proposed principle and a new proposed finding of fact. Before offering these proposals, I have studied the arbitrators' various views as expressed on /proposed decision, which have left the case somewhat at impasse on the action to be taken. My goal is to offer a synthesis that might help advance the arbitrators' deliberations and upon which compromise might be reached. Newyorkbrad 04:36, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

The previous round of remedies (amnesties and admonitions) had no effect and was effectively disregarded, as Newyorkbrad's finding of fact suggests. Therefore, it's hard to see what another round of admonitions accomplishes. MastCell ^Talk 05:31, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I think this is fair as a general proposition. A warning is something, even if a year from now its effect may wear off. I'd add that for most of the involved editors this is probably all that is justified, even if some did very likely violate WP:Point for the reason NYBrad lays out. In terms of a single vote or two, it's simply too difficult to say what the reasoning was. This is still only half the picture, however, as Jayjg did go significantly further per the evidence here. Sefringle may have as well, although the issue with him is more WP:BATTLE than WP:POINT. Even there an admonition may be sufficient, although I think it should be specific. Mackan79 06:32, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose for the same reason as I opposed the one above: once WP is in the business of keeping "Allegations of apartheid" articles, we should be willing to sully ourselves with any sourceable allegations of apartheid since we think that they're a "good" thing to have, and what's good to have 1 of, must be better to have 100 of - like articles on small towns, high schools, bands that have 2 albums released, Pokemon characters, etc. We should have nipped this in the bud by deleting this when it first cropped up. Carlossuarez46 02:06, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Can't say I'm wild about this, though it's certainly better than some other proposals (e.g., my being forbidden to edit articles I have never edited): perhaps the admonition could be spread to those editors who voted against all the other Apartheid articles in order to shine an especially negative spotlight on Israel. (I'm aware that many who voted to delete the other articles did so with good intentions, but I hope it's clear that some did not.) IronDuke 02:24, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

The existing "amnesty and reminder" proposal which has a plurality of arbitrator support gets to much the same place; effectively, this is something of the same concept but with just a little more specificity, and without overtly using the word "amnesty" which one arbitrator has opposed. Newyorkbrad 02:55, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

If I had voted in bad faith against all apartheid articles save the Israel one, I would not feel that the above admonition, or any admonition proposed so far, applied to me. IronDuke 00:14, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

IronDuke makes a good point, I would venture to guess that many !voters voted to delete several Allegations of Fooian apartheid but !voted to keep the Israel one. However, any restriction of participation at Afd strikes me as a viewpoint-based censorship, and will have the inevitable effect of emboldening the unbanned folks to take advantage (see powerplay). Carlossuarez46 01:18, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose. (vote changed to Abstain, see below 02:51, 19 October 2007 (UTC)) WP:POINT and WP:GAME violations deserve something more than a written rebuke, as its evidences an underlying attitude problem regarding what wikipedia is supposed to be versus what it is not. An admonition says please change your attitude but if you don't ok, but try not to violate these rules in the exact same way again but if that happens make sure it doesn't upset too many people in the community cause if it does they might try to open another case and maybe, after weeks of pleading, we might even take it and then we might just actually dispense some modicum of justice next time you know if it hasn't been a whole year or something. I, for one, would not be shaking in my boots, because only big misjudgments get any policing at all. When arsonists get caught trying to incite a pogrom to burn down a building, we can't just shrug, and tell then to go back to just breaking windows. This does not benefit the community. -- 146.115.58.152 21:16, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Abstain OK, I'm changing my vote. The case is WP:SNOWballing towards dismissal, but I've been reconsidering what I wrote above for a while now, and I'll take this last opportunity to say something positive. Really, there's no individual to blame for this whole situation. The Israel-Palestinian conflict series of articles is a quintessential bad neighborhood; the good cops have stayed away or hold up in their bunkers, while the bad cops more or less let the gangs run amok, and even took part. That's just standard groupthink and the bad cops probably didn't think of it that way. The real problem is not enough cops on the street which could have helped kept things running smoothly and patched those broken windows before we got this far. It was only happenstance that this particular gang war spilled over into other neighbors of our encyclopedia, and the rest of the community had to ponder What the hell is wrong with you people? I've actually seen community policing going on more recently -- particularly by User:Eagle_101, and if that could be one good outcome of this ArbCom, if not by fiat then by community recognition of some of the problems this ArbCom brought to the community's attention, then I am a happy camper. -- 146.115.58.152 02:51, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
• Weak oppose. While I sympathise with the need to find a lowest-common-denominator response, I don't think this meets the requirements. As Mastcell points out, we've been down this road before and the people responsible for this mess took absolutely no notice of the previous admonitions. In truth, I believe the mildness of the previous remedies contributed to the current problems. The lack of any real sanctions did not deter misconduct and may have been interpreted as an indication that the Arbitration Committee was not serious about tackling the problem. The fact that one of its own former members is deeply involved may be causing some difficulties; but I would argue that this in fact makes it all the more urgent that the Committee should take a firm stance on this issue. -- ChrisO 01:31, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Please see WP:KETTLE. 6SJ7 03:14, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Ongoing observation of user conduct

12) Besides the content dispute originating at Allegations of Israeli apartheid (AoIA), the apartheid allegations articles turned into a battleground and generated significant user conduct disputes and unresolved accusations. Therefore:

• (A) ArbCom calls upon the community to ensure excellent user conduct on AoIA and related pages.
• (B) Regardless of remedies for individual users, ArbCom asks uninvolved parties to set up a sub-project or subcommittee to observe user conduct related to apartheid allegations. This subcommittee will exercise no new authorities, though it may promote dispute resolution or recommend remedies through existing channels. The subcommittee is invited to periodically reports its observations to ArbCom.
• (C) ArbCom will aim to provide at least one ArbCom member as a liaison to the subcommittee.

The observation subcommittee should be dissolved upon ArbCom's request or upon subcommittee inactivity.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

HG: This proposal aims to acknowledge that the apartheid allegations articles have experienced serious user conduct disputes and merit significant and sustained attention. Due to the nature of the dispute and concomitant accusations, it is difficult to calm the battleground merely through enforcing WP expectations on individuals. Nonetheless, ArbCom presumably recognizes that merely dismissing the case would not resolve the underlying problems and conduct accusations. Hence, ArbCom could set up a kind of subcommittee effort to observe the problematic articles. The subcommittee would have no special powers. It would not be a drain on ArbCom, except it would be helpful if ArbCom provided a liaison. Why would the subcommittee have any effect? No promises here. But by virtue of its establishment by ArbCom, by having ArbCom's collective ear via the liaison, and -- mainly -- by the persuasive force of transparency and monitoring, the subcommittee or subproject could promote an environment of calm and reasoned conversation, and dispute resolution, at AoIA and related pages. Thanks for considering this idea. Friendly amendments are welcome. HG | Talk 15:25, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm tempted to add a finding(s) of fact to support this proposal, but before I spend the time, I'd like to see if there is interest in the proposal or need for factual support. Thanks. HG | Talk 15:42, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I really like the idea of a "police substation" here, but what you are proposing gets better observation misses the forest for the trees. The root of the problem isn't ultimately Category:apartheid, it's Category:Israeli-Palestinian conflict. -- 146.115.58.152 21:01, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, there's a need to observe conduct throughout the Isr-Palestinian category -- however, it makes sense -- given this RfA's scope -- that ArbCom initiate monitoring of the Israel apartheid article(s). Then let's see if we can leverage some kind of peacekeeping force over the "POV warriors" throughout the I-P occupied territories articles. Thanks for your support. HG | Talk 21:42, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Just as a practical matter, it seems unlikely that very many people (including arbitrators) are ever going to see new proposals or discussions on this page, due to the fact that the case is apparently about to dismissed. I also don't think that this proposal really fits in with the way the ArbCom works. If you were to say that the current methods of resolving disputes (including content disputes) do not work for articles involving the Israeli-Arab conflict, I would agree with you. However, it is not the ArbCom that provides new methods of dispute resolution, they just carry out one particular method, and it does not include content disputes. And if you were to respond that simply dismissing this case means that it served no purpose, I also would agree. I never thought it had any good purpose in the first place. 6SJ7 02:45, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, many of the primary suspects went to ground as the case began, and the articles related to this case have seen a relative quiet so far. Perhaps merely having a bright spotlight turned upon this corner of the encyclopedia has had a beneficial effect. Hell, even a jury acquitted OJ, but justice still came about in other ways regardless of that travesty. Tarc 03:46, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

That's quite a comparison there, Tarc. The sad part is, I think you're serious. 6SJ7 22:01, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

The spotlight is good. As for your OJ comparison, Justice isn't supposed to work that way Tarc, though it often does; I can't say that's a good thing. -- 146.115.58.152 19:17, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

For comparison purposes, I suppose I had in mind the value of transparency in shaping government (e.g., Freedom of Information Act programs) and corporate conduct (e.g., enviro, health & safety self-reporting), as a "soft" regulatory path prior to more strict enforcement & compliance activities. Of course, I was also thinking about UN peacekeeping forces (not taking a POV myself regarding Isr-Pal, mind you). HG | Talk 19:34, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Clerk note: This case has now been closed. Further discussion, if any, should take place in another location. Newyorkbrad 19:45, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Proposed enforcement

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

3) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

4) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

5) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Analysis of evidence

Place here items of evidence (with diffs) and detailed analysis

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

General discussion

The general problem in this case seems to be the idea that we can have all or none. You guys really ought to be thinking of a comprimise. Perhaps changing the titles to something that is acceptable to more parties? If there the general feeling that the problem needs to be dealt with in a systematic manner, rather then Articles for Deletion on various articles, perhaps consider discussing the problem on a more "meta" page. Topics could include global changes to the wording of the titles, perhaps agreement to delete them all and put the information in other related articles, and have the alligations pages redirect to the articles with the information. Perhaps keep them all with the understanding that reliable sources should be presented. I know this has been discussed before in a "meta" page, but perhaps you all should give it another shot. I'm afraid that arbcom will not "solve" this issue for you. You are not going to see a virdict from arbcom saying "They are all ok, or they are all bad, delete". My suggestion would be to enter into another round of discussions, and bring in 3rd parties, and lay out some alternative ideas, there has to be better solutions then "keep all" or "delete all", that would make everyone agree, or at least accept the outcome. To do this though would require everyone to assume that everyone else has the encyclopaedia's best interests in mind. —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 18:37, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Eagle, read the talk page. I think the content issues can be resolved if there weren't a POV that will stop at nothing until the article is deleted. When such editors are not present, or when editors who should no better separate from the gang, progress is made. However, it is hard to reach compromise with people whose ideas of compromise is to have an anti-Israel propaganda attack page, or delete it altogether (directly or via merger).

As I have stated before, this is an article about ideas, not about facts in the ground, and it is article that should present the narrative that multiple secondary sources present: that the analogy is controversial, that is multi-layered, that is complex. It should also touch upon the fact that some uses are simply polemical attacks.

People should learn to write for the enemy. That is the core problem. The refusal to do so has thrown more than one editor into the Dark Side of ideological WP:BATTLE and into completely unproductive WP:POINT tangents. --Cerejota 05:14, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

6SJ7: your assertion that no one has engaged in all-or-nothing is patently false, as per evidence. --Cerejota 12:13, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

That's a matter of opinion and interpretation. You are entitled to yours. By the way, you lecture people on civility, and yet what I say is "patently false"? Interesting. 6SJ7 01:43, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I do not lecture people on civility, I do lecture people on disingeneousness and dishonesty. The diffs are a matter of opinion and intepretation only if you choose con have a highly novel intepretation of the English language..."Those articles are only necessary because of the existence of this one [AoIA]. It was important to maintain some semblance of balance." Only by being extremely lacking in WP:HONESTy can Moshe's words can be construed as anything other than an admission the articles exists because AoIA exists, which is the main contention of WP:POINT. What is open to interpretation in this proceeding is if this means that it is a disruptive position, or a legitimate one. However, please do not deny that people have expressed this position, as that is patently false. Thanks!--Cerejota 02:00, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

A suggestion. —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 18:37, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that you cannot delete all articles that contain the word "apartheid". The "Allegations of XXX" titling model, introduced by those who could not tolerate calling the article on "Israeli apartheid" by the name of the phenomenon and debate it describes, is a completely ridiculous format - and is slowly being dismantled. But there are entirely valid concepts that use the term "apartheid" that are not (and were not) represented at Wikipedia. For example, Global apartheid, Social apartheid, Gender apartheid though it is largely a slightly more pejorative synonym of Sex segregation. Israeli apartheid is just as common a phrase as these with as notable a scholarly debate. Apartheid itself should have page describing the term's multiple meanings in modern usage, which is clearly not confined to South Africa. Tiamat 02:14, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I would further underline that not all editors who supported keeping the Israeli apartheid article, voted to delete the rest. The only people making all or nothing arguments here have been those who as shown in the evidence to have made such comments and who largely voted "delete" on the Israel article and "keep" for most everything else (with the possible exception of the American article, for which some of them did vote delete).

I don't think anyone has made an "all or nothing" argument, with one possible exception, and he has been quoted about 100 times on these pages so you can figure out who it is. Keeping the "Israel" article set a new and unfortunate precedent for Wikipedia, and "voting" consistent with that precedent was perfectly reasonable. That is not all or nothing, it is consistency. As far as editors "voting" in the opposite direction -- keep on the anti-Israel smear article and delete on most of the rest -- I count at least four from Leifern's evidence. And you correctly point out that some editors who had voted to keep some of the newer articles supported deletion (or merger) of the "American" article -- but you wouldn't know that from ChrisO's selective presentation of the evidence. And everybody is forgetting about the Jordan article, I don't think there were many keeps there at all. So let's try to keep the facts straight here. 6SJ7 05:44, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

One. There should bo no title with "allegation." Two "apartheid" should only be used to refer to the south african system it described originally. Otherwise it becomes meaningless. --Leocomix 14:11, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Tiamat you wrote:

The problem is that you cannot delete all articles that contain the word "apartheid". The "Allegations of XXX" titling model, introduced by those who could not tolerate calling the article on "Israeli apartheid" by the name of the phenomenon and debate it describes, is a completely ridiculous format - and is slowly being dismantled. But there are entirely valid concepts that use the term "apartheid" that are not (and were not) represented at Wikipedia.

So your problem is with an entirely judicious and sensible compromise which was enacted to reflect that the article does not try to assert one view or the other, but simply covers the debate on the allegations? What is wrong with "Allegations of"? Are you trying to confirm that those opposing that title are not truly interested in intellectual inquiry, but really just wish to uphold criticism of Israel?? -Steve, Sm8900 19:49, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

My problem with what was done is following:

Instead of creating articles with NPOV titles to reflect notable scholarly debate around issues such as Apartheid, Global apartheid, Social apartheid, Israeli apartheid, etc., we have a series of articles that have appended "Allegations of X" as a prefix to all of these concepts. This was done to pacify a select group of editors who simply refuse to accept that "Israeli apartheid" is a term in a wide use that has provoked significant scholarly and popular debate. This is a completely unencyclopedic approach that trivializes and misrepresents completely legitimate terms and creates a whole lexicon not in use anywhere but at Wikipedia. Neutral article titles do not append weasel words not used in any reliable sources. Tiamat 12:10, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

"Global aparthied" and "social aparthied" is one thing. The title "Israeli aparthied" renders a verdict on a highly controversial topic. How about an article entitled "American war crimes," "Canadian human rights violations," "Saudi Arabian fascism," "Australian genocide" "Japanese whale extermination" etc etc? (I'm NOT saying any of these countires have done these things.) Would anyone from these countries accept any of these titles, especially if not one other country had any article with such a title? --Steve, Sm8900 13:21, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

See Allegations of state terrorism by the United States for another example of how nasty the disputes on these "Allegations of..." articles can be. MartinDK 13:31, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Sm8900, these gross misrepresentations of reality need to cease. In no way does "Israeli apartheid" render a verdict on the topic. It explains the analogy, who makes it, why it is made, who refutes it, and why they refute it. Anything further than that is entirely in the imaginings of the beholder. Tarc 13:42, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I meant the proposed title, nbot the actual article itself. --Steve, Sm8900 17:29, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

As you can see from the talk page of the article, the bulk of the editors are willing to be very flexible in this respect, and accept that the current title (I result of a move war, BTW) is crap. As I have said before, the biggest problem is with two distinct groups: ones who insist the title has to be Israeli apartheid and synthesize by means of original research that partheid is a fact on the ground in Israel, and on the other side, we got the deletionists who insists that this is pure epithet that should not be allowed in wikipedia, no matter how notable.

People from either group do their best to debate in circular fashion, block any attempts to move things forward, and in general turn the article into a battleground for their respective POVs. Some people from these POVs, however, express some willingness to dialog.

Personally, I have insisted that there are no verifiable source that says there is apartheid in Israel, but there is indeed a huge debate going on for years on this question in academia (I have been hearing about it since Oslo and Arafat's "Bantustan" argument, which contrary to propaganda, was taken quite seriously by Israel's government - in the field of international relations Oslo is well studied and so is this negotiation argument and Israel's reaction to it). Furthermore, the recent book by Jimmy Carter, which has its own article, has brought the analogy and part of its debate to a mainstream audience, taking it from the relative obscurity of political extremism and academic research to a quite notable limelight. I think for this and other reasons we owe to our readers to create a compelling, NPOV, comprehensively sourced, and well balanced article on the topic. As long as the article is clearly about apartheid and Israel (or the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, which is the background), I am happy with any title that can be connected to sources.

This is one of the reasons I have vehemently opposed a "timeline" unconnected to sources, and why I oppose merger of any kind - which basically seeks to equate a few notable mentions of apartheid analogies for other countries, with a highly notable and controversial one for Israel.

I am politically sympathetic to the argument that Israel is over-scrutinized, but this over-scrutiny is not Wikipedia's fault, and unless WP:N incorporates an "Israeli exception", it naturally means that over-scrutiny also means over-notability, and hence over-abundance of sources and topics. WikiProject Israel and WikiProject Palestine probably have more articles per capita than any other national projects (excepting biographies), which shows a bias not of wikipedia, but of the producers of reliable sources.

(And Wiki Project Judaism is one of the best projects around, I mean, even the average biography has three or four sources - unheard off in the OR-land that are articles on religions)

It boils down to this: people are trying to resolve questions in Wikipedia that should not, and cannot, be resolved in Wikipedia, and in doing so, turn wikipedia into something it is not: a battlefield. And what is really frustrating is that this usually are people of great intelligence and capacity, and in some cases exceptional wit, whose non-controversial contributions will remain inherent in wikipedia for decades. But they want to fight the battles they fight in real life, here. Too bad.

Furthermore, this entire wikidebate, in what is really a relatively minor debate in the wider conflict, has been overly controversial: 6 AfD (whichever their legitimacy), two ArbComs, a dozen or so AfDs full of references to it, so much ill will among great editors and admins that I fear cannot be repaired... hell, I wish I con go an edit MY narional project!

But I mega-digressed: it is clear the issue of the title, merge, delete etc is a content issue over which ArbCom would be ill advised to rule, and in fact has said repeatedly it won't rule upon.--Cerejota 00:32, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with everything you wrote, Cerejota, except the last sentence. The creation and editing of AOIA has caused such deep and lasting ill-feeling that I believe the ArbCom would do well to act. I'm sorry they decided in advance that it was a good-faith content dispute, because that has stymied any effort to resolve the issue once and for all. The article was created as a WP:POINT (background too complex to go into here), and has attracted extremist editing — the fourth most frequent editor was a notorious, banned anti-Semite. Given that a lot of good editors have given up on it in disgust, the quality's likely to deteriorate even further.

I know that academics have discussed the apartheid metaphor in relation to Israel, but not so much that we needed an article about it. We can't have an article on every single phrase academics might sometimes use — academics have written about the alleged "torture" of animals in laboratories (and have used that word) but that wouldn't justify an article called Allegations of animal torture by scientists. We also note in the AOIA article that the only academic who has written a serious overview of the phrase's use specifically says it's mostly used by those who reject it as inappropriate.

I'd like to see an ArbCom ruling that the page should be moved to a less inflammatory article, or the contents merged into another existing article e.g. Human rights in Israel. I'm not holding my breath, but I do wish they'd take the bull by the horns. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 21:17, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Kiyosaki has actually slipped into fifth,[52] and only edited for a little over a month around November 2006. His block-log mentions a page on him maintained by the second most frequent contributor, User:Jayjg, so it's doubtful this troll did any lasting lasting harm. -- 146.115.58.152 23:49, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Let us note that AoIA was moved to its present title by Humus, Slimvirgin and Jay, people who it would not be unfair to describe as Israeli nationalists. This action precipitated last year's arbitration. Seriously, anyone who still bears a grudge two years after article was created - regardless of what the initial author's motivations were - or whose nationalist feelings make it impossible to interact productively with others should recuse himself from the article. And if they can't do that the arbitration committee has to do the job for them. 129.170.116.220 00:33, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

It takes two to tango. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:33, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

But only one to tap-dance. Tarc 02:42, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

In a wiki you do not tap-dance. You are engaged with others. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:46, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Isn't anybody else here exhausted yet? --Steve, Sm8900 03:17, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Though I agree that we would probably have been better off if AoIa hadn't been created, let's not lose sight of the fact that this dispute is not specifically about that article but about the conduct of a number of editors who opposed it. The creation of AoIa in its original form doesn't seem to have been much more different than the creation of single articles for political reasons, which is something we see every day. It doesn't automatically mean that they're bad articles or at least incapable of becoming good articles. AfD exists to weed out the unrescueable articles; AoIa has survived that six times. If editors dislike the contents of an article, there's a prescribed dispute resolution procedure to resolve the issue. As far as I know, no attempt appears to have been made to use this mechanism in this case. The creation of the other "allegations of apartheid" articles has been far more damaging and disruptive than anything that's happened with AoIa. The ArbCom is rightly focusing on that issue as the centre of this arbitration, not the content dispute over AoIa. It's not going to solve that content dispute for you.

Also, I have to question your assertion that the dispute over AoIa isn't a "good-faith content dispute". Your view that "academics have discussed the apartheid metaphor in relation to Israel, but not so much that we needed an article about it" is certainly something that can be disputed in good faith, though personally I think it would have been better to have discussed the metaphor in the context of other articles. There's no reason to believe that the editors who voted to keep the article in the various AfDs were motivated by anti-semitism or extremism. The fact is that the Wikipedia community's consensus view is that the article meets the criteria for inclusion, or at least doesn't meet the criteria for deletion. You just have to work within that consensus or persuade the community to reach a different view. If you're going to try to do the latter, it needs to be based on a clear explanation of Wikipedia policies rather than partisan political reasons, and it needs to involve more than just the usual piling-on of activist editors on both sides. -- ChrisO 08:01, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi. do you think we can all agree at this points that all sides' cases have been laid out? Maybe we can start drawing things to a close, and simply wait for the arbitrators' decisions. How does that sound to everyone? does that sound ok? (/nervously edges away behind potted azalea./) --Steve, Sm8900 14:06, 23 August 2007 (UTC)