Revision as of 23:58, 13 August 2007

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)

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)

Template

3)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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)

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 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)

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)

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)

Template

3)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

4)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Questions to the parties

Proposed final decision

Proposed principles

Article titles

1) Misplaced Pages 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:

Comment by parties:

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

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)

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)

Naming

2) Misplaced Pages 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:

Comment by parties:

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

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)

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

Reminder of basic wikipedian principles. Alithien 18:52, 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)

So, Crime of apartheid (term)? Just some "slang" made up by the United Nations? -- 146.115.58.152 23:05, 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 00:58, 13 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)

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 Misplaced Pages to illustrate a point

4) Disrupting Misplaced Pages to illustrate a point is considered editing in bad faith. This includes creating articles in response to community decisions on Misplaced Pages: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)

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 Misplaced Pages 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)

Novel viewpoints

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

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)

Article naming requirements

6) Misplaced Pages'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:

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)

Responsibilities of administrators

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

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.

Comment by others:

Proposed principle established in Misplaced Pages: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 Articles of Israeli apartheid, plus the DRV on Articles 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 Articles 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 Articles 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Allegations of apartheid/Evidence#Evidence presented by ChrisO. FYI, there's an additional mention at Misplaced Pages: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)

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 Misplaced Pages: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)

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)

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)

Misplaced Pages is not a soapbox

10) Misplaced Pages 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.

Comment by others:

Proposed. Misplaced Pages is not a platform for advocating partisan views on either side of a dispute. -- ChrisO 23:06, 12 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 Misplaced Pages: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)

All or nothing

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

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)

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 Misplaced Pages: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 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)

Misplaced Pages is not a battleground

13) Misplaced Pages 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:

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)

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:

Comment by others:

Proposed: A slight adaptation from Misplaced Pages: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 19:11, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Template

16) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

17) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

18) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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)

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)

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, Misplaced Pages: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)

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, HomeontheRange/Homey/Formeruser-82, who created the article. 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, Misplaced Pages'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 Misplaced Pages 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 (see the talk page history for details), 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)

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)

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 Misplaced Pages: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. 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: Misplaced Pages: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)

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  :

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)

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 Misplaced Pages. 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)

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)

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)

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: . Here's my response: . 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 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 , and challenged editors to find any some. Later, when I showed CJ such evidence , 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 Misplaced Pages" 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 , 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 Misplaced Pages, and am confident that I acted appropriately based on the knowledge I had at the time. CJCurrie 23:44, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

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

Comment by others:

Proposed. Based on statistical evidence presented at Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Allegations of apartheid/Evidence#Narrow responsibility for articles. -- ChrisO 01:14, 13 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:

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)

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)

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:

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: . IronDuke 22:28, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Sefringle has been incivil and has assumed bad faith

12) Sefringle (talk · contribs) has violated Misplaced Pages:Civility, a policy, by making incivil comments, and Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages as a battleground, yes. Egregious personal attacks and indiscriminate smearing of editors who hold opposing viewpoints as "Israel-haters", yes. Disrupting Misplaced Pages to make a point, yes. And that's just in his own evidence presentation! () MastCell 22:38, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

One point that interests me is that throughout his various statements (for which see Misplaced Pages: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)

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

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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

This guy is already in hot water. See Misplaced Pages: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? - Misplaced Pages:Suspected_sock_puppets/67.98.206.2. Tarc 18:22, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Sefringle's use of Misplaced Pages as a battleground

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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

TShilo12 has been incivil and has assumed bad faith

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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 ). 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 23:58, 13 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:

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)

Template

x) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

x) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

x) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

x) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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.

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

3) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

4) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

5) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

6) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

7) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

8) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

9) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others: